Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264

Closers for RfC on paid editing

Discussion is at WT:COI. There are good reasons why closers don't usually sign up until an RfC is over, but I'd prefer to have closers for this one sooner rather than later. It's been a problem with big RfCs over the last few years that closers have needed a fair amount of time to get up to speed and to come up with a closing statement, and that has seemed to sap the interest and focus of the community. I'll try to do better with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Last time I signed up to close an RfC the closure got badly highjacked, closed horribly (at least last time I looked) and was turned into a farce. I'll not participate like that again - I'm embarrassed enough by the first one - so much so that I withdrew rather than have my already-sullied name attached to it. the panda ₯’ 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: I made a waffly vote in the so-called "bright line" RfC last October, here, then withdrew that vote before the RfC closed. To my knowledge, that proposal hasn't resurfaced, and odds seem low that it ever will. Now we have an RfC coming up as a reaction to the new Terms of Use that require disclosure of "paid editing", which is different ... and actually, I felt I was neutral on the yes/no question for "bright line" as well, I just wanted to see some discussion of the conflict with our CC-BY-SA policy. Still: technically, I entered a vote in a related area, and SlimVirgin has objected on that basis to my offer to close the upcoming RfC. I'll be happy to stay in and do my best or drop out. I'd like some feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue was just raised by SlimVirgin, but I agree with her and I suspect that others are likely to feel the same way when they drop by the page during this summer weekend. No offense to Dank, who I am sure is a fair admin, but I think it's best on something quite so crucial that we find one who has not been previously involved in this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• There isn't even an RFC yet, so why is so much going into finding closers. Until an RFC is properly formed and started, we have no way of knowing who can and cannot be uninvolved enough to make a close. Right now all we know is that there will (most likely) eventually be a RFC about COI editing. What we don't know is what the question(s) will actually be. There could be an ultra specific question about COI editors working in a certain area where you may be involved heavily, and in that case you wouldn't be a good closer. Until such a time there is an actual RFC formed, we don't know who would make a good closer and we are being way too premature in attempting to find closers. I would even take it a step further and say we should probably wait until at least a week into the RFC before a closer or closers are decided as sometimes RFCs take different directions than the intended direction. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All good points. It's looking like there might be drama if I close this, so I'm leaning against closing now, but all comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Core and TLSuda. We don't yet know that there's going to be an RfC. If it goes ahead, we don't know what it will ask. The best thing is to wait until it has started (if it starts), then ask for closers at WP:AN/RFC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, I'm out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lion 2: The Movie

Can someone undelete Lion 2: The Movie? The article was pretty long and sourced so I think that a G7 was an inappropriate move. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for history on whether we could decline G7 requests on the basis of wanting to keep the article, or whether the "sole author" had the right to request deletion. I found a appropriate quote from Xeno (intentionally pinging) : "G7 does not allow users to revoke the release of the contributions under the GFDL". The information under the "Save Page" button is consistent: editors "irrevocably agree to release {their} contribution" under Wikipedia free-licensing system. However, it might be more ethical/tactful for a new article to be created instead of reusing the content in question; I would be happy to provide a list of the sources that were in the deleted article. Alternatively, have you tried reaching out to the editor? Explain why you want it kept, and if he agrees to overturn the G7, then everyone's happy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, using the sources without having the attendant history might be a licensing violation it its own right. –xeno^talk 13:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds strange and yet...oddly possible at the same time, however as I understand it, use of references may be done independently and not have a copyright issue. In other words, attempting to gather the sources from the G7 deleted article itself would be an issue but anyone using those sources in reference to the subject independently is OK. The original author does not own the rights to use of the sources, even when pertaining to the same subject, but only if we use the G7 article as the basis to collect the sources. In this case, yeah, we shouldn't be taking their sources to re-create the article as that would be a licensing issue but if I happen on the same sources independently it would not be. I agree we might just want to contact the author and request their permission to undelete the article. Seems the simplest route, although simply adding attribution to the editor while mentioning the deleted article in a new article in the edit summary should suffice as the edit history is not the issue because they were the only contributor. We only need to attribute them and the deleted article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: The original editor has said nothing either way. Also, I'm pretty sure the original editor wasn't the only person to make edits to the article, can you check? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

23W was the only user to add content to the article. The only other edit was your revert of the redirect. Mike V • Talk 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would work (attribution of the source list in the first edit). courtesy ping @RHaworth: –xeno^talk 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline) includes "Bare references". Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Too much headache over this. If nothing else, restore the article and build the new one on top of it. It's that simple.--v/r - TP 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur. Unless there's some serious and obvious reason to uphold the G7, restore and allow a new article to be built on it just as a CYOA move. A little extra compliance never hurt anybody. And if the G7 requester gives some serious reason for wanting the old article gone, we can probably revdel/seldel the old article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually...why all this discussion? Is just beginning a fresh new article such a burden? Isn't that what we do here...build encyclopedic articles. Why do we have to copy a deleted article to begin with? Are the sources that hard to find?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • GFDL/CC attribution requirements is what I got out of the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmmmm. Not seeing it. No one owns the article or the subject and sources. What...are you saying if anyone attempts to start a fresh article and happens on the same sources they are not in compliance. I'm not finding that within the spirit or policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please elaborate if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • There is a question regarding whether it would be permissible to use the old references to write the new article without attribution. If someone starts a new article from a blank slate (even better if they are a non-admin so they don't even have access to the deleted references) there is no question that it would be fine. As for the G7 issue, I once advocated for keeping an article against the author's wishes, and consensus at AN/I was to follow the author's wishes and delete it over the objections; though in that case, it was moved out of userspace without the authors permission, prior to G7 deletion, so that is a bit different fact pattern. Monty₈₄₅ 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HistMerge needed

User:Ilovethewikis/Ammy Virk to Ammy Virk . Thanks --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Revdel requests (RD1)

FYI, Category:Requested RD1 redactions doesn't seem to be monitored. (One of the two listed has been there for three months.) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Two? I only see Origin of the Romanians, but you're right it's been there quite a long time. I cleaned up a dozen or so in the past few weeks, this particular example, if I recall correctly, would require over 1,000 revision redactions, which is quite a pain to do manually. Not having run into such an example, I wouldn't mind advice about the relative practicality vs. importance of this request per Wikipedia:Revdel#Large-scale_use, I'll be happy to break out the time to actually do it if people think it's necessary. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's not necessary. I've no idea how this came to be a request as I dealt with the original (possible) infringement two years ago and I'm not sure how someone would suddenly have come across it earlier this year. Anyway I deliberately didn't revdel then as I commented on on the talk page (now archived here) and I still think it's unnecessary now. There's very little confirmed copying in what was removed (see talk page comments) and most of it was removed pre-emptively. As such there may be good material in those revisions. For the same reason I would say it also doesn't meet the "blatant copyright violation" criteria of RD1 as we have no idea which revisions actually contain copyvios. All in all I think it's best to just leave this be, although it may be worth to add a note to the talk page so future editors are more likely to be aware of the potential problems. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Decker: At the time of the request there were two. I handled one of them since then. To be compliant with the GDFL and creative commons license, you could perform a selective history deletion, but that would require you to sift through the edits and identify every editor who has made a contribution to the most recent version. (See WP:RUD) Also, I think the caution of large scale use of revdel is directed more towards the second criteria of revision deletion (grossly insulting material) rather than copyright issues. Having run into this issue on Trinity College, Kandy it's actually more efficient to perform the mass revision deletion. Regretfully, each edit has to be selected individually as there isn't an invert selection as there is for restoring deletions. I wouldn't try and do it in one fell swoop by manually adjusting the revision limit in the URL. (i.e. increasing the revision count above 500) You'll run into a 414 error. Mike V • Talk 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The precise text of RD1 reads (bold beyond first 3 words not in the original):

Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

I would say that, if it went with the copyvio there for that long, it probably can't be RD1-ed. And probably few admins have the patience to actually check this, in order to accept or decline the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Attribution is just identifying the user who made the contributions. The criteria is stating that RD1 can be used to redact the revision's text, but not to redact the revision's username or IP. Mike V • Talk 19:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a good time for me to apologise for the large number of copyvio-revdel requests I make, and thank those who take the trouble to respond to them so promptly, including specifically Joe Decker and Mike V. It may be that the wording of RD1 should be revised slightly, as I don't see any possibility of conflict between this criterion and our best practice for removal of copyrighted text (as far as I understand it). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No apologies required, first, thank you for all your incredible work dealing with copyvios.

In view of the above, I've gone ahead and performed the RD1 reactions. I thought it would take a while, but I downloaded an extension to save my checkbox-clicking finger.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 01:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion from January, WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording, about a similar objection to the use of RD1 based on its wording. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation of Afro-Eurasian

Would it be appropriate to open a long term abuse case regarding the user User:Afro-Eurasian? You should read the sockpuppet investigation regarding this user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian. This user has constantly evaded his block and I think a long term abuse case plus a report to his ISP should stop this user. Checkusers have confirmed many sockpuppets. Thanks! :). --電子888^說-TALK 03:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't think so. LTA reports should be made only if there is useful information that can be summarized, and per WP:DENY LTA pages should be avoided, but are sometimes necessary. Information about socking is on the SPI page and should not be duplicated elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's up to an individual to make a report to an ISP although it should be a WMF function. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look at both the current and history SPIs and didn't see any IPs. So it's only the WMF or checkusers who can file an abuse report. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Fake source?

I am fairly certain a source has been faked, and have some circumstantial evidence to that conclusion, but am unsure how to proceed. May I have some guidance about how to proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:RSN might handle issues like this. If by "fake source" you mean a source with fake information it is clearly in RSN territory. If you suspect that someone has referenced a source that doesn't exist I'm not entirely sure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Inventing or misrepresenting a source, if that's what "faked" means, is a user conduct issue, which is not the purview of WP:RSN. If you want proof that the source has been faked, you'd need to specify it, as you may be able to get confirmation via a relevant wikiproject. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the second situation, Paul. Without outting a user, I suspect they might have fabricated a source in order to overcome a hurdle in a content dispute. I am unsure how to proceed, as noting that info here would reveal details of the user. What if I am wrong? I want to tread very carefully here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it is too hard for anyone except the originator to check the source then it probably runs foul of WP:V, in which case WP:NORN is the place. You can also write to an uninvolved administrator by email (not me, please, getting ready for travel) to discuss the specific details and decide on the best course of action including what can be exposed publicly. Zero^talk 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find out who's available. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, I'm not sure if I'll be able to help but I'll certainly give it a shot if you would like. NW (Talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)

Resolved

There's a SNAFU concerning Talk:Jaša Tomić, Sečanj (or Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)), which was speedied per db-move following consensus on the talk page by Bearian, and was followed by an incomplete move. To cut the long story short, some of these two pages carries history that should be restored to Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj), with the article. Since Bearian is currently offline, I'd ask a kind administrator to sort it out. Thanks. No such user (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorted out by Fut.Perf, thanks. No such user (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RFPP

The kudzu-like tangle of requests on RFPP has returned, we're upto 35 pending requests and though a lot are stale can someone care to take a weedwhacker to some of these? tutterMouse (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are external links allowed in Userpage

see diff [1] and [2] and [3], some links removed twice--Musamies (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To begin with why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Smile Lee or even notify them of your post here? Next what are your concerns with the links? They aren't overly promotional, they are buried in with information about the editor. GB fan 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say no, per WP:NOT#Promotion and ask the user to remove it. Kosh Vorlon    15:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)_{Smile Lee's been notified now. Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)}

I also don't find these overly promotional and don't think they run afoul of WP:UP#PROMO. Nothing to fret over. –xeno^talk 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person who originally removed these links (and more) from this user page, I agree that they are inappropriate. These links should be viewed in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination), a promotional article written by this user about the very company he is now providing links to from his user page. Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In general external links are fine on userpages. We want to worry about promotion or "using wikipedia as a webhost", but to be perfectly honest the latter concern is totally mooted by the web changing around wikipedia since NOT was first written. In 2002, someone might create a userpage as a "home page" of sorts because the alternative was to invest time and expertise (and money) in building an actual web site. Now I can make something nicer looking that a user page in a dozen places around the web (and at a nominal cost).

We also focus way, way too much on policing userspace when in reality it doesn't matter. Smile Lee's user page has been viewed a whopping 370 times in the past 90 days, most of that I'd wager from editors involved in their recent dispute. At a first approximation, nobody on earth has read their user page, so our zealousness in enforcing policies and guidelines WRT that page should reflect this. I don't think we internalize this enough. User pages don't impact anyone except the editor who writes them and anyone who cares to read them (which you never have to do, in any case). There's almost no upside to enforcing these rules except where the page is obviously being used mostly for promotion or is a fake article. Otherwise what's the benefit to the project? We get to feel good that we've told someone "Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted"? Protonk (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for thinking to notify me about this User:GB fan and User:KoshVorlon. The links were removed by User:RoySmith, on 28 July 2014, which I honestly didn't even notice until 1 August 2014. The links aren't being used as overly-promotional; it's just saying who I am, what I've done, and where to find my blog on the internet. Originally the names of my comics, novels, and other junk, were linked to; which to be honest I hadn't even noticed were so obnoxious. I have instead opted for the titles, for people to search for themselves; I agree that the links were initially obnoxious, I honestly just wish that I had just been notified. I don't bite. If I wanted to promote myself; I'd link to my Twitter, about.me page, Country Music Television page, IMDB, or something like that. If they are still annoying I could turn the Tumblr link into a userbox, but I honestly don't see the point. I would also like to say, I didn't create the Heaven Sent Gaming article, been on here for a pretty long time, and I have no interest in creating an article about me, Isabel, my cat, Heaven Sent Gaming, my Grand Am, or my baby blanket. I will remove the links if they are found to be promotional, but I've seen user-pages with entire bibliographies, that I've found useful when looking up an editor; again these links only serve to tell people who I am, and what I'm doing. And, to User:RoySmith, those links were initially added back in January 2012 they are completely unrelated to the deleted article. Smile Lee (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added the more standard user infobox. Smile Lee (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Please could an uninvolved admin review my actions in relation to the article Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I have set out an explanation[4] at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ralph_Drollinger, but have not dealt with a situation quite like this before, so I would welcome a review of whether my actions are appropriate, or whether anything else should be done.

I have no interest in the topic, and am only concerned to end the edit war and uphold WP:BLP. Please feel free to revert any of my actions or add to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - I'd then (1) conduct an RfC and invite comment on how much weight to give to the issue - a bit like what was done at Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:Right_then.2C_how_many_paragraphs_should_the_Climate_change_section_have.3F and after this, leave semiprotected indefinitely, as all edits should be accountable and attributable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas Liber. An RFC sounds like a good idea, but I will leave it to anyone else to set up an RFC if they see fit.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok...I am totally unfamiliar with the subject. I will take a look and try to frame something on the talk page. I just think we need to obtain and then set the local consensus, so that anyone watching the article in future can refer to it to help adjudicate future disputes...which seem likely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Right - have added RfC but we need to publicise it broadly. Right now it is the middle of Saturday here and I have a number of chores to run and do. Anyone is welcome to circulate else I will do in several hours. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Coiq

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Coiq#Parameter to suppress first line?. Thanks. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a particular {{unblock}} request.

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

---

Affected user: TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background: TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise back in September 2012 due to violation of a TBAN/IBAN, both originated from the Race & Intelligence RFAR review. The block was specifically indef + concurrent 1 year AE-block, and in October 2013 TrevelyanL85A2 requested an unblock, which was declined procedurally because he wished to have an ArbCom member review it.

Yesterday, TrevelyanL85A2 has posted another {{unblock}}. I request discussions about this request.

Disclaimer: I know TrevelyanL85A2 in real life because of a mutual friend, and therefore I do not feel I am neutral enough to perform administrative actions regarding this request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I have informed both TrevelyanL85A2 and FPaS of this thread. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural comment Since you've raised this here, I've declined the unblock request procedurally, figuring that it's best that all discussion take place here. Please don't take my action as an attempt to say that TrevelyanL85A2 shouldn't be unblocked; I have no opinion on the matter. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If I'm reading the history correctly, the block is under the perview of enforcing arbitration remedies and therefore should be referred exclusively to BASC for consideration. If BASC agrees to let the community at large decide, that's a new can of worms. I would however prefer to see a demonstration by the blocked user of their positive contributions to other projects. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• The 1 year AE-block has expired. What remains now is the standard indef-block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• What Salvidrim! said is correct. This is why that referring this to Arbitration Amendment would also be of no help either, so this matter belongs on this board. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as the original blocking admin: since the block has been in force for a long time, and Trevelyan has made a reasonable-sounding request saying that he intends to abstain from the contentious topic and start working on other areas again, I would see nothing wrong with an unblock. It is my understanding that the underlying topic ban, as originally imposed by Arbcom directly, remains in force, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that the TBAN/IBAN remains in force, although TrevelyanL85A2 has never tried to appeal it. It would be highly unlikely for him to succeed on appealing the TBAN at this time. I believe the second part of the TBAN (which is effectively an IBAN?) could be challenged and modified, but that is not what we're discussing here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• No strong opinion on the unblock request. I do have a tangentially related abstract question, though, about unblock decision thresholds. For people considering the unblock, I'd be interested to hear their estimates of the likelihood of constructive editing vs. the likelihood of further disruption, proxy editing, and boundary testing if this user is unblocked. Of course, I recognize these are only predictions, but presumably these are the (subconscious) calculations that we make when deciding whether to support or oppose an unblock. For example, is a 10% chance of constructive contribution and an 85% chance of proxying/meatpuppetry/disruption acceptable, for instance? I guess that's where I'd place my bets based on prior behavior in this case, and I'd argue that's not really a favorable ratio, but I'm curious how others perceive the likelihood of unblock outcomes. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• To answer your question, we would have to look at his previous edits. However, the fact that he has only edited twice (both {{unblock}} requests) since he was banned means that we cannot use recent behaviors to assess this situation. Therefore, I'd fall back on WP:AGF - but that's just me. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• I' a bit less analytical and go with my 'informed gut feeling'. I generally look at through the guise of AGF. Has the user done something recent which makes me think that they won't be a positive, do they understand the reason they were blocked and how to comply with policies, guidelines, sanctions etc. Have they demonstrated maturity during the unblock process (eg regularly filing unblock requests isn't mature). How long have they been blocked. What have they been doing since they were blocked: stay away from WMF, editing another project, sockpuppetry. Plus a few other things, but those are the big ones. Particularly in a case like this where it's been so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Based on my reasoning above I'd be comfortable with an unblock. Though I would also remind TrevelyanL85A2 that they have a short leash and anything which smells like a TBAN vio will very likely be met with an indef block and/or community ban discussion. Also violations of basic policies (probably including edit warring) won't bode well and will very likely see an indef block again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• This will probably end up being handled amicably, but some matters need to be decided first. The complex background can possibly be summed up like this: battles raged at R&I topics for years (see WP:ARBR&I); Mathsci ended up being the last person standing, but irritated a lot of people in the process and was subsequently hounded by socks and WO, and was eventually banned after an egregious IBAN violation; a long-term abuser separately hounded Mathsci (and apparently others) on an unrelated matter; the abuser hit upon the tactic of posting "helpful" messages on talk pages of Mathsci's R&I opponents; people edit warred over whether the banned user's posts should be removed. For example, in June 2012 TrevelyanL85A2 restored one such post that I had removed (diff). My request is for any unblock statement to clearly state that TrevelyanL85A2 has an interaction ban with Mathsci, and will not restore comments relating to R&I or Mathsci if an editor in good standing has removed them (TrevelyanL85A2 could always ask an admin for assistance if a problem arose). Re talk page removals: see Arbcom motion and short discussion. If Mathsci ever requests an unblock, a similar arrangement can be made. (Perhaps an IBAN is in place? I forget, and cannot find a log.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, there was no specific IBAN - but TrevelyanL85A2's TBAN prohibits him from commenting on R&I editors' conducts anywhere (even if the conduct is not about issues related to R&I). I do not know whether that part of the TBAN was specifically raised because of Mathsci, however. I would support asking ArbCom to amend the TBAN to specifically convert that part into a two-way IBAN between TrevelyanL85A2 and Mathsci (if needed), but that can be done later and is not what we should focus on here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I say why not unblock. The nice thing about a wiki is that if you make a mistake you can fix it. We can always block again. I cannot speak to the TBAN/IBANs but I see no reason not to unblock. Chillum 02:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A major aspect of the old R&I disputes was endless wiki-litigation over all and sundry. Appeals, enforcement requests, amendment requests, etc. It was a massive time sink and a pain. Due to that potential for wiki-lawyering it would be helpful if all of Trevelyans current restrictions were spelled out here plus whatever new restrictions they may have put on them as a condion of their unblock (promises being only semi-enforcable) including a restriction of when they can appeal again. Seriously, if you leave it even kind of ambiguous you will regret it. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that prior to any unblock the conditions of editing need to be clarified and reiterated. If someone familiar with the case can find the exact wording of the sanctions and the user agrees to abide by them then I think there is a reasonable consensus to proceed with an unblock.

Repeat of past behavior would most likely lead to an indefinite block only to be undone by further community discussion. Not saying that is a rule, just how it is likely to turn out. Chillum 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Partial interaction ban Pdfpdf - DrKiernan

Yesterday, User:Pdfpdf, who is aware that editors can blank comments on their own talk page: [5] persisted in repeating posts on my talk page: [6] [7] [8] even though it was obvious that I wished them removed.

After he was warned off by another, uninvolved, party [9], he switched tactics and posted a new enquiry[10] even though he has already been told the answer to that query on at least two previous occasions: [11] [12].

This is part of an ongoing pattern of mild harassment/minor incivility directed at me over the last year, including but not limited to: name calling: you are ignorant contributions are vandalism single-minded inflexibility messiah complex ... bigotry; sarcasm: [13] [14] [15] [16]; screamer caps: [17]; and false accusations that I have misused my position as an administrator or not followed processes: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (please also note that contrary to what is said in that final post, I never said he was trying to remove my comments).

I have made it very plain that I do not wish to continue discussions with him away from article talk pages, of which he is aware: "I didn't want to have this discussion here, but DrKieran refused to have it anywhere else". I have made it plain that I want him to stop referring to me in discussions, of which he is aware: "Please stop referring to me in any way. Thanks. - With pleasure". These requests have fallen on deaf ears, so I now ask for a partial interaction ban comprising points one and three of WP:IBAN, i.e.: Pdfpdf may not post to DrKiernan's talk page nor make reference to or comment on DrKiernan anywhere on wikipedia, either directly or indirectly. Points 2 and 4 of IBAN need not be enacted as I don't see a problem in those areas. I volunteer to avoid his talk page and avoid commenting about him outside the usual exceptions. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Amended 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

We have got a backlog there. Daniel Case, who usually handles a big share of the requests, seems to be on a wikibreak, and I am just back from a wikibreak, but I only handle trivial cases since English is not my mothertongue. Some help would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I had to go out of town this weekend for a memorial service, and as it happens tomorrow night US EDT I will be flying to London for Wikimania. So I may well have reduced activity for this coming week. I will be putting a notice to this effect on my talk page (should have done it yesterday morning, actually). Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about user that refuses to use the talk page

no harm, no foul. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not an incident notice, more of a general question with a novel situation. While I tried to communicate with Medgirl131, I found that apparently she does not want to talk in public, claiming reasons of privacy. Now, that's all fine, anyone has their preferences/quirks... except that, on WP, I find worrying to have a user with whom we cannot communicate in public. I would expect, for reasons of transparency of the process, that any conversation about WP editing should take place in public WP pages as much as possible. Of course it is impossible to enforce public communication -if editors want to email, they can of course- but to actively refuse communication on a talk page is unsettling to me. Is this behaviour allowed/encouraged? What should be done? --cyclopiaspeak! 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Definitely not encouraged; I left them a note [24]. –xenotalk 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't think that email-only communication means disclosing editors' email addresses - that is another excellent point.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) No problem. Unfortunately, it seems they Don't care. In this instance, my suggestion if you don't want to email would be to simply leave whatever collaborative note you feel is necessary and hope they govern themselves accordingly. –xenotalk 15:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) If she makes beneficial edits and uses edit summaries (something that may be an issue) and doesn't otherwise make any trouble, it's not worth making a fuss over. If she gets into a conflict of some sort, then she can't demand that other editors only communicate with her by email; her two options in such a case would be to communicate with other editors by accepted channels (talk/WP:-space pages) or to back off immediately. Again, that's her problem. In the meantime, there's no particular reason to poke the bear. I will note that privacy concerns cut both ways. Using Wikipedia's "Email this user" tool reveals your email address to the mail recipient. Email addresses and headers can often contain information with significant privacy implications; this is something that anyone using email should be aware of. Medgirl131 should not be surprised if other editors decline to email her. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Her edits look okay to me, but she definitely does not use edit summaries. That's how I noticed her -I've seen some sourced info removed without explanation on an article I follow; I reverted, then I looked at contribs, and understood that she was removing redundancy since the information had now a full article by itself. So I wanted to nudge her about using edit summaries, and then I found the notice when trying to edit her talk page.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (ec) I further note that Cyclopia's latest edit to Medgirl131's talk page – trying to force her to keep a message on her talk page (despite saying that she "can blank as much as she likes") and insisting that she must post on talk pages – is heading towards harrassment. Cyclopia, it now looks like you're just trying to pick a fight with an editor who hasn't seemed to have caused any concrete harm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I have no reason to pick any fight, nor I was trying to force anything or even harass anyone. Just reverting a blanking on a talk page is hardly harassment. But I disagree that this doesn't cause any concrete harm. Actively refusing collaboration poisons the environment, makes everything harder, and if you add that she almost uses an edit summary, you get a recipe for trouble. I have no problem leaving her alone so far, but when some communication will be needed I guess this will need to be solved quickly.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) She's not "actively refusing collaboration". She is restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate with others. There is a difference there, and it's extremely unhelpful that you're taking a quirk (see Tarc's comment below) and using it as an excuse for demonization and hostility. This is someone who is obviously uncomfortable with communicating in a public space, and you're making repeated attempts to force her to do so. You've been around long enough to know that users are entirely within their rights to WP:BLANK their own talk pages (certain very narrow exceptions – none of which apply here – notwithstanding) and that blanking a comment counts, as far as the community is concerned, as an indication that it has been read. (And, for that matter, she has indicated explicitly that she has read and understood the comments on her talk page: [25].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I am perfectly aware of WP:BLANK, and I wouldn't have any problem with regularly blanking pages after a discussion has been done. But she simply refuses to talk. She will simply not answer to any communication on the talk page. One thing is blanking talk pages, another is refusing public communication tout court. There is no practical difference between "refusing communication" and "restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate", in this case. Excluding public communication on talk page flies in the face of transparency and the openness of WP process, hampers communication between multiple users, makes it impossible to evaluate user behaviour, etc. WP is based on the fact that it is a public collaboration environment. I have no problem with people having different preferences, but such preferences are incompatible with working on WP long term. Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of "demonization and hostility" -while I haven't demonized or otherwise behaved in a hostile fashion to anyone, it is hostile to accuse me of such behaviour. I see also no "repeated" attempts to force anyone to do anything -I reverted a blanking once, adding a comment while keeping the previous for context, and didn't touch her page again. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Well, you did bring up a new editor who was minding their own business to the drama boards because they don't want to participate in the MMO. Like I said below, talk page discussion is great, but it's not why we're here, it's an avenue to building a resource collaboratively where that resource requires discussion. In most cases, it doesn't. Imagine for a minute that this editor is a medical professional or researcher. One day, around the water cooler, their colleagues bring up Wikipedia. Most have used it but never edited it and Medgirl131 shares their experience with the group. Do you think the discussion will focus on how a collaborative resource needs constant communication? I don't. What anecdote do you think will be the most salient for them? I'd be willing to wager it's this discussion right here, where some editor they've never met before brings them before the "admins' noticeboard" because they are focusing only on article contributions. From an internal standpoint you did the right thing (or at least had the right instincts). An editor not using the talk page, specifically one decidedly refusing to use the talk page is a red flag. I can fully understand the impulse to bring up the issue with other editors to see what they feel. But from the standpoint of a new user, it's bizarre and jarring. And again, what's the remedy you seek? What should administrators do to resolve the problem here? Should we compel this editor to use their talk page by threatening to block them? I brought it up below somewhat tongue in cheek, but that's really the end game for enforcement here. If they don't want to use the talk page and we agree they should, we have to carry that out somehow. That means I or someone else would have to threaten to block an editor who hasn't disrupted the encyclopedia. And if they stick to their guns, we would have to indef them. Does that sound insane to you? It does to me. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Have you actually read WP:BLANK recently? It doesn't say anywhere that someone has to give a satisfactory reply before they can blank. As ToAT has already said, people can blank whatever and whenever they want, with exceptions that don't apply here. While most aren't as extreme as her, blanking related disputes come up all the time generally because the person won't respond in a manner satisfactory to the person raising the issue (sometimes they say something then stop, sometimes they just won't respond to a specific comment or person). Our response is the same as it is here. They are entitled to blank, and someone reverting such blanking (or continuing the discussion when it's apparent the person doesn't want to) is in the wrong and liable to be sanctioned if they continue. In this particular case, even if you felt your message was important enough to warrant mentioning it on her talk page (and with only one case it's perhaps not harrassment yet), there was zero reason to revert the blanking and such an action was indeed in clear violating of WP:BLANK. Her refusal to talk is unfortunate, but not actionable in itself and definitely not justification for you harassing her. If you can demonstrate she is causing sufficient problems to warrant action, then you are welcome to bring a case in an appropriate place. It that case it will probably be acceptable to warn her of your plans in a neutral manner and also to inform her of any case you've filed. As has already been said, if that happens, she will either have to talk, or face action likely a block. Note that a case will need to be based on the problems she is causing. Her refusal to talk will only be relevant to the case in that it's the explanation for why there's limited attempts to resolve the problems with her. Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC) It is intriguing; I have an acquaintance who also does not wish to write anything in public spaces, as they fear their particular text patterns and phraseology can be scraped and analyzed, thus busting any sort of anonymity. So, unless a specific problem comes up...revert wars, ideological pushing, etc...I'd say just let this person putter on. Looks like they mostly do wiki-gnomish like maintenance/technical edits. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I'd disagree with Cyclopia, one can certainly "not care". If they're disrupting articles or doing things which require discussion but refusing to participate, that's on them. If instead they're editing articles and not mucking things up (as they appear to be), what are we really supposed to do? Threaten to block them for being insufficiently chatty? That sounds glib (and it is) but what's the remedy here? Let's not elevate talk page discussion above its station. WP is a collaborative project but a huge majority of the work doesn't require collaboration. And it certainly doesn't require us to impose the collaborative spirit on someone who seems to be minding their own business improving articles on subjects which interest them. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) for what it's worth, the user in question seems savvy on biomedical topics and is making constructive contributions generally. she doesn't use edit notes much which I have asked her to do.... and i have advised her that if she makes an edit that is reverted, she should let the reversion lie rather than edit war, since she is not willing to follow WP:BRD. if it comes to edit warring, she should be blocked like anybody if they violate WP:3RR. communication quirks seem completely OK to me but edit warring is out of line, regardless of the motivation. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) (corrections, my bad, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)) There's no real trouble with not using the talk page as long as her edits aren't disruptive. If a note needs to be dropped on her page, then do so but add a comment that you are acknowledging their restraint from using the talk page and that it's a courtesy note. If she removes your comment then treat it as usual, i.e. that she has read the comment by removing it. If they have any issues invite her to start a conversation about it over email. If privacy is an issue then create an email account purely for wiki purposes. I'm sure many editors do that already. Blackmane (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Had anyone else noted how well Medgirl131 manages to tools of the wiki? I find that telling. Might it be possible that this is a formerly indef blocked/banned user who is trying to avoid detection? Granted, we should AGF, but keeping an eye out on this user seems a legit suggestion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) It seems that 'keeping an eye out' is the antithesis of good faith.Crazynas t 00:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC) No ordinary user should ever be chastised (like as done here) for _not_ doing something. Chastise only for actively, repeatedly, doing something bad. Is she reading and altering behaviour to not repeated some hypothetical bad thing? She's right about analysis of writing style. This section should be courtesy blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Medgirl131 may be trying to avoid discussions similar to this one therefore I would say let it be. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Durdevdan uprising article

See Talk:Đurđevdan_uprising#Title_and_scope_RfC.

I wasn't able to draw a consensus from the discussion here, but I am concerned about the article. It is not an easy one, because most of the sources are in Serbian-Croatian. The events described in the article are, in general terms, real events (I am suspicious about one or two of the details, but that's a side issue).

What I am concerned about is the framing of the article. My feeling is that the sourcing generally on this topic reflects what is in the sr.wp article sr:Масакр у Санском Мосту, that there was a massacre of Serbs and Jews in a place called Sanski Most (modern-day Bosnia) in 1941, carried out by the Ustase. Prior to this, there had been some resistance activity in the area, which was used by the Ustase as a pretext for the massacre. The difficulty is that our article places emphasis on the resistance activity as if that, rather than the massacre, is the historical event worthy of a WP article. I'm concerned that this may reflect a revisionist/apologist/nationalist narrative (one that seeks to put war crimes committed by Croats or the Ustase into a context where they do not seem quite so bad, or where they are not the most important part of the story - although it should also be noted that the most significant contributor to the article is actually Serbian). I think this is a case where we ought to have an article about a war crime here, but what we have is an article about events which (according to some) provided some rationale for a war crime. The major difficulty is that there is a paucity of sourcing in English, so re-writing the article would not be a straightforward task for most editors.

Note that I am not making any allegations against any editors. I may have the wrong end of the stick, or editors involved in the article may have created a poor article in good faith by following sources.

I didn't feel I could resolve this issue via a close, so I'm seeking support and opinions about how further investigation or action should proceed. I don't see it as a major emergency requiring immediate resolution, BTW.

Apologies for not providing background reading - that's difficult because there's not much in English. I'll perhaps try to cobble something together later. Formerip (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I am involved in that discussion, but I agree that the article appears to be focussed on the pretty inconsequential "uprising" rather than the subsequent massacre. I'll observe that Ad's approach appears to reflect an intention to show that Serbs revolted against the Ustase before the communists started to fight, rather than some whitewashing of Ustase crimes or "blaming the victim". He created the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina article, for I believe similar reasons, which I subsequently rescued from drowning in POV, and is now GA and under review for Milhist A-Class. This article is yet another example of him refusing to accept policy or community consensus, wikilawyering over minutiae, refusal to get the point etc. User:Joy may disagree with my summary. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually told Ad people are not going to focus on the right thing if he keeps pushing this talking point, but he wouldn't listen. The sr: article is about the August massacre in that town, not the May one. But it's all beside the point - the readers are just plain not supposed to have to care for these intricate, even petty, talking points that are being promoted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a question of perspective here. The topic here is really an extended and accelerating campaign of harassment and violence, culminating in August 1941. That seems to me to be how the sources tell it, rather than two discrete events a few months apart. I can't find any source that just talks about the May uprising as a standalone event. It's also not the case that this uprising was followed by reprisals then a lull in violence rather. There was a continuation of mass murders growing in significance over the summer, with 3,605 people being killed in total (according to official figures).

What's problematic is that the article doesn't mention this context, and there is no WP article about it. So, the reader is presented with a very narrow view of events, giving a very misleading impression of events in the town that summer (instead of 3,605 murders, 27 executions). I also don't think it's clear that the events described in the article warrant one. As mentioned, I can't find them treated outside of the broader context anywhere, and they do not seem dissimilar to events that took place elsewhere in the same geographic area at around the same time.

I should say that I was probably incautious above talking in terms of apologetics and revisionism. Peacemaker's take is simpler and more likely. Formerip (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, you're right on the mark. IOW articles in both languages are basically lacking context. But when I had said effectively the same a while ago, I was subjected to a multitude of wikilawyering techniques. *sigh* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 to allow for more independent input. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we move this all to Talk:May 1941 Sanski Most revolt? It just requires editing, not really administrative attention, now that the sole disruptive user is gone. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As the OP, I'd be fine with that. Formerip (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD in need of a close

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 we please have an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination)? It's eight days old, has seven policy based delete !votes (six of whom also request salting) and two keep !votes, and has received no new !votes over the past couple of days. And all that is happening there now is that endless walls of irrelevant text are being added to it by the article creator (who seems to have a clear COI, BTW). Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The article already has an uninvolved admin called DGG, new references has been found yesterday and other contributors gidonb are editing and improving the page, the moderator is probably allowing time for this new references to be evaluated by the community. Thank you Mr. Thomas.W for trying to save time and make this end sooner but the moderator has demonstrated impartiality, used wisdom, plenty of experience and this makes me believe he knows what to do and when. I wish you a great day Jose Cuello (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG nominated the article for deletion, so he is hardly "uninvolved". And none of the "references" presented has established any notability for the subject of the article. It doesn't matter how many company pressreleases or newspaper articles with at best a passing mention you present, as I and several others have repeatedly tried to explain to you at AfD, you have to provide proof of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. And so far we haven't seen a single reference that is even close to meet that. Thomas.W ^talk 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your inside, if you are not content with DGG as moderator, then there most be a way to solve this. Regarding the article, we are working precisely on the in-depth point, i hope you can separate me as an individual from the article, because we both don´t own the content, this is public information with a live of its own, others are contributing and gidonb recently voted for it to be kept, I appreciate very much how you have pointed me towards a learning experience to improve the article; if you are 100% sure, that it does not meet wikepedias policy then you should have no worries since it will eventually meet its demise, please allow everyone to evaluate the new resources that have been found so the community can make an educated and well informed decision. I wish you the best Jose Cuello (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jose, your conception of AfD procedure is mistaken. The person who assesses consensus and closes the discussion must not have previously been involved in the discussion in any capacity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course I cannot close it, since I have already expressed my opinion. Somebody else will, according to their judgment, based on the arguments there. We have a well-established afd procedure, and it is rarely necessary to bring such matters here also. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

WWE Disruptive user

Joe Vonner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been disrupting WWE-relating articles recently by messing up wikitables, inserting false information, etc.. I work hard to keep it clean and he is just ruining it. ClassicOnAStick (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting assistance, ClassicOnAStick; I've blocked Joe for 1,603,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck times. In the future, this kind of thing is better mentioned at WP:AIV (for really simple vandalism) or at WP:ANI (for more complex problems), since this board is more for announcements, discussions, and other less problematic issues. Still, I'm thankful, not complaining. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban request at another page

Since this page has become the new community sanction noticeboard, I figured it best to alert its watchers to a proposed sanction at another page: Nick has proposed restrictions on Ryulong in the "Ryulong - request for sanctions" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC closure review

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

---

Hello, I would like to request a closure review of this RFC by FormerIP (talk · contribs) please. There are a few elements to the closure that I disagree with:

1. It was a WP:NAC on a controversial topic, and one that will have an impact on hundreds/thousands of other articles.
2. The close is confusing and incomplete - it states that "both nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article", however does this mean that the wording should be X is a German-American soccer player, or does it mean that the wording should be X is a soccer player. Born in Germany, he represents the United States at international level, or perhaps even something else? Both seem appropriate wording according to the RFC close, yet the RFC was started precisely because the wording in my first example was disputed as it implied ethnicity as opposed to nationality.
3. It does not seem to accurately reflect the consensus.

I participated only briefly in the RFC, but participated more fully in earlier discussions that led to the RFC and am obviously INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In response:

1. According to WP:CLOSE an RfC should not normally be overturned on the basis that the closer was not an admin. At the least, I think an explanation is required here as to how my not being an admin might be a relevant consideration.
2. I don't think this is the case, but if clarification is needed, why not simply ask for it? It is true that the close restricts itself to the central question debated in the RfC and leaves a number of possibilities open for precise wording (although not the second of those you suggest here, because the close stipulates that nationality should be dealt with in the first sentence). I think this was appropriate - a close should not be any more restrictive than is necessary. Although I don't personally think it is needed, I could amend it to provide additional guidance about how the opening sentence might be worded, if it is felt that this would be helpful.
3. The votes were more-or-less evenly split and one side based their argument on there being a pre-existing consensus for their position. But they were challenged about this during the RfC and failed to produce any evidence showing such a consensus exists. Indeed, the evidence that was produced pointed instead towards an error on their part (in thinking that WP:MOSFLAG governs article leads, which it clearly doesn't). I don't think any other interpretation of consensus was possible, given that one side of the argument rested on a premise that was completely unsupported by evidence.

Formerip (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn, reopen, someone else close later down the road Was closed waaay too early, and the close looks like a supervote. Discussion had not died down by any means. Saying things like "I spot-checked a few relevant articles, and found a mixture of approaches, with some mentioning multiple nationalities, some mentioning multiple nationalities but downplaying one or more (e.g. "a Brazilian-born Spanish footballer"), some not mentioning any nationality, but instead naming countries the person had played for and some only mentioning one FIFA nationality. I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." and "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN, but I did not feel that this added anything substantive to the discussion here." (which means the possibility of using arguments not presented in the RFC) appears to say the decision is based on his own partial research and biases, a no-no for a closer. Nothing personal against FormerIP, but that was a bad close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • • It is true that I carried out my own partial (in the sense of "inexhaustive") research as part of the close, but I don't think this was impermissible. In this case, the argument of one side rested on the claim of a pre-existing consensus, for which no evidence was presented during the RfC. There was a parallel BLPN discussion, and it may have been that the crucial evidence had been presented there. Or, there may have been prior talkpage discussions unreferenced by the parties but which supported their case. Or, there may have been uniformity of practice in the subject area, which would have at least pointed to the possibility of a consensus existing. In the event, I did not find any of these things (so it made no difference to the close), but I don't think there is a basis for saying that it was wrong of me to try. Note that, in the hypothetical case that things had been different, this would not have involved bringing arguments made externally to the RfC into the close, but it might potentially have brought a different complexion to the arguments actually made in the RfC.

    I think that you should consider either explaining or striking the suggestion that the close was biased. Formerip (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

    • I think you are taking the term "bias" in a way other than I meant to use it. I didn't question your faith, just how you reached your conclusions, and using outside information does bias the conclusion. IE: influence. Looking at the other articles (WP:WAX comes to mind) and checking the other discussion. I didn't question your neutrality, and you even made it clear the close was against your personal preference. It sounds like you used (or attempted to use) arguments that were not included within the discussion, and you aren't supposed to do that for a close. Under no circumstance did I mean to infer you had a NPOV or cultural bias. I used the word as plain English, not Wikispeak. I would also note your sentence " I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." which seems a note of frustration because of the actions of others, which might have influenced the decision. You did think enough of it to include it in the closing statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that's a personal view of yours, Dennis. Certainly, when I undergo the process of weighing arguments, I feel free to do some outside research to help. If one side in an AFD screams "no reliable sources", I will look at the sources. If I see that they consist of Nobel prize winners that are being quoted in their precise area of expertise, that helps me weigh the "no reliable source" argument without making me biased. Similarly if a keep argument is based on the sourcing, I will take a moment to ensure that the site quoted actually does seem to have some kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I try to give the people making the argument the benefit of the doubt, but nothing precludes (or even discourages) a closer from verifying arguments made during a discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do the same things, verify the claims made in the arguments, those are normal parts of a close. I don't go check other articles to see how applied (or failed to apply) policy or go looking for opinions in other discussions, however. That is where you are introducing arguments outside of that discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, in this case, how would you have gone about checking the claim of a pre-existing consensus? Formerip (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN" is a problem and shouldn't have made a difference or even been considered. Any consensus in FOOTY should be reflected on the main page of FOOTY, which is pretty well documented and would contain any real consensus. Would I have looked for other RFCs in the archives? Maybe some, but really, those should be indicated on the main page. Unless the vote links to the consensus, I wouldn't go searching an hour as it is their responsibility to back their claims if they aren't obvious or easy to find on the main page. That is like someone saying "it's notable" at AFD without more explanation. So the short version is, when closing, if a !vote makes you have to go on a scavenger hunt, it is a weak or unsubstantiated !vote, and they haven't done their job in presenting their case. That is their job, not yours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, on that basis, I should have just rejected their argument out of hand. Instead, I made some investigations to see if their argument stacked up, found nothing to say that it did, then rejected their argument. Either way, same result. So why are you supporting an overturn of the decision? Formerip (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't ask for an overturn because your conclusion is wrong (I don't have an opinion on what the proper close should be, not an area I know well enough to close). I said overturn because of the methodology in the close, the technicals of the close are what is bad, and that makes for a bad close, whether or not a good close would have the same conclusion. Since I don't know the topic very well, it would be difficult for me to have faith in this close, whereas a clean close I could trust. Again, it isn't personal at all, I think you closed in good faith and don't have a problem with you doing other closes, but I think you made some procedural mistakes that reduce the authority in the decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • @Dennis Brown: Why do you think it was closed too early? The close was made 33 days after the RfC started and 27 days after the final comment. Number 57 15:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Struck that portion, oldtimers bit me. The rest stands, however. And for the record, I'm as pro-NAC as they come, so that has nothing to do with my conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment as an involved party Whilst I have some sympathy with the second point made by GiantSnowman, I disagree with his third; closing an RfC is about weighing up the strengths of the arguments put forward, not seeing how many people !voted each way. The "one nationality" side could not provide any evidence backup to their claims of a consensus, which FormerIP noted in his closing comments. Also, I didn't see anyone able to justify the "one nationality" stance, except claiming it was due to a previous consensus (no evidence of which was provided). Even a personal discussion with the most opinionated editor on his talk page resulted in him admitting that he was unable to justify only having one nationality in the introduction (it was thinking above his pay grade apparently), and was only arguing that way because he believed there was consensus. Number 57 15:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are two results we need from the RFC which deals with a sportsperson who was born with one nationality but represented a different nation at international level - how many nationalities do we display in the lede, and how do we display them? The RFC was closed too early, as Dennis says, and we were not afforded time to fully discuss both of these elements. GiantSnowman 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How was it closed too early? There had been no further discussion for almost a month – lack of time was not an issue. Perhaps what should have happened is that the closer should have recommended a second discussion to decide between the two, but I certainly don't see a problem in closing the "one or two" side of the debate. Number 57 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Perhaps a second discussion would be useful if editors want that. I don't necessarily think it's part of a closer's job to initiate follow-on discussion about matters not covered by the RfC, though. Editors can do that for themselves if they want to. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • It wasn't closed as early as I thought but there was ongoing discussion. Not a particular problem since it had been a month but not ideal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I'm unsure how this being an NAC has anything to do with the result (no tools were needed for this close). I'm also unsure how this is precedent setting for hundreds-thousands of articles since the close seems tailored to this page (The MOS is, and should effect many articles... that to my understanding is the reason we have a MOS). The close appears to me to reflect the consensus that was found (i.e. that both his German and American nationality should be mentioned in the lead). That the consensus that was established does not quite answer the question of the RFC does not seem to be an issue with the close, just with the discussion (which did not address that specific issue). Responding to above, I agree with Number 57 that discussion had died down (last time stamp appears to be June 23). Crazynas ^t 16:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close - This result was within the closer's discretion. Agree with Crazynas that it applies just to the article about John Anthony Brooks and we can't assume that it settles the issue for all other articles on footballers of mixed nationality. The closer faced a problem in that the issues weren't precisely stated -- e.g. this was not a vote on an actual opening sentence. Given the vagueness of the question posed and the vagueness of many of the arguments, coming up with Both Brooks' German and American nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article seems well within the parameters and it does not go against any hard evidence offered in the discussion. In my opinion closing this as No Consensus would also have been possible. Regarding non-admin closures, I don't personally object to non-admins closing a thread like this on a content matter. As to future RfCs, nothing rules out having more RfCs about nationality. It is probably impossible to stop them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Further input welcome/needed... GiantSnowman 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I was thinking of closing this when it eventually showed up on ANRFC, but as further input has been requested I offer my analysis here instead. Neither points 1 or 2 are good reasons to contest the closure. On point 2, vagueness in a close is often because the closer could not find consensus in the discussion that would support more specific wording; the rest is left for the editors to decide on, with further RfCs if necessary. Point 3 would be a valid reason to overturn the close, but evidence as to why this is the case (that is, why the close is outside the usual range of closer discretion) has not been presented. At the talk page, one editor gives the reason "several editors changed opinion during the discussion and the BLP discussion," but this appears to already have been considered in the close. Dennis gives a fourth point, that checking on related articles as part of the close appears to be personal analysis rather than analysis of the discussion, but it seems like a reasonable response to say that this was just part of verifying the points made in the RfC. Since the close would have been the same without inclusion of this analysis, I would call it a better argument for amending the close rather than overturning it, e.g. by striking out the relevant statements, but as nobody here has called for that (at least up to this point) I would leave it to FormerIP's discretion. Sunrise (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264. After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review? Cunard (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• A few things. On point 1, there's no binding precedent on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be justifying our scrutiny of closes on the basis that they're magically more important or wide-ranging than they are. Certainly an outcome like this could be pointed to in later discussions, but it's just informational. I agree somewhat with point 2 (as I have no idea what the exact guidance is for the lede based on the close), but my guess is that FIP wanted to express that the discussion pointed toward including both nationalities without specifying the text itself. That's fine. Perhaps, were it worded more clearly, that would be preferable. As to point 3 (the actual complaint at hand), I don't think it's too far outside the bounds of a normal close. As I read that discussion there's some support for stating both nationalities and a lot of hand waving toward previous discussions (I think here is where we're meant to read some of them) indicating otherwise.
• With respect to Dennis Brown, every closer on a non unanimous discussion makes some kind of supervote. Often we frame it as "judging strength of argument" or some such, but what we're doing is assessing input and determining what is germane, persuasive and representative. That, combined with the finality of a closure itself, means we have to make a decision. We're not just holding a lens to a discussion. Like Justice Stevens Stewart, we can usually recognize a supervote when we see it, but don't mistake a closer persuaded by arguments in a discussion for merely imposing a policy preference. Hell, even head counting can involve a supervote. :) Protonk (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean Justice Stewart?Nathan ^T 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh. I did indeed! Protonk (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

BLP Review (Right to be forgotten)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28640218 -According to this Google is suppressing a link to a Wikipedia article, the BBC item doesn't indicate which article.

So my questions are as follows ? i) Who at OFFICE can confirm that Google is suppressing a link? ii) Has Google told OFFICE which link has been suppressed? iii) Has the (unnamed) article been flagged for BLP issues? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone at the office would know this, since it's google's doing, not anything the office did. Kosh Vorlon    16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica seems to think otherwise: But Wikipedia is holding a news conference Wednesday in London, and it's expected to announce what page, or pages, are being removed. Resolute 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, King Canute seems present -- if the EU courts require specific actions, wise companies will follow the ruling. IMO of course. Collect (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As well as forwarding the requests to Chilling Effects I would hope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

this should shed some light on the situation. This page tells us what links were removed out of google. Kosh Vorlon    14:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me we need a new Category ... "Pages removed from EU Search Engine Results"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary placed one of the affected articles in Category:Articles which may not appear on Google (but did not create the cat itself?). I would instead agree with a namespace-agnostic name. The affected group includes images as well as articles, the number involved is not (currently) very large, and there's no difference among namespaces relevant to this grouping. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note on mobile so forgive any typos but that was a test on an article, which I should not have done. I do support a cat being made, though. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• This whole line of discussion strikes me as vaguely mean-spirited. Yes, Wikipedia is not obligated to censor itself, and it's unfortunate if we lose traffic due to Google "censoring" search results. It's undoubtedly true that people can, will, or have used the new law to remove stuff that's important and that they just don't want people to know. But the concerted effort to publicise each removed search result as loudly as possible, essentially googlebombing anyone who dares to ask Google to abide by a current law, is not particularly becoming of our community. The spirit of BLP should govern how we interact with living people, and that should include caution and sensitivity when approaching topics that may reflect poorly on living people. That doesn't mean we can't discuss these things, but it does mean we shouldn't just repeat them as often as we can out of orneriness or spite. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing mean-spirited in seeking to undermine a court decision that basically amounts to censorship of public information. If it is understood that attempting to remove information from search engines becomes a recipe for Streisand effect, then maybe -just maybe- this disgraceful EU court decision will become less dangerous. Censorship may help an individual but it hurts much more the greater good. One has to weigh things before deciding what is "mean-spirited". --cyclopia^speak! 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Undermining a court ruling is, in itself, not mean-spirited, I agree. Undermining it by throwing living people under the bus, however, is not something we should be doing. I can imagine a case, for example, where someone who was abused as a child just wants that part of their history no longer visible, because it hurts and they've moved past it and don't want it to be the first thing potential employers see. Shall we trumpet their name and stick them in a category that we publicise, to purposely draw attention to them, because we oppose the court decision and their particular life doesn't matter to us while we're busy opposing it? That's what I mean by "the spirit of BLP" - we still have an obligation to be sensitive to those we write about, even if they're caught up in something we institutionally dislike. It's certainly a balancing act, and it would depend from case to case, but I feel that our obligation to not unnecessarily hurt people should be an important part of that balancing act. This discussion (and, indeed, a number of others on this topic, both wikipedia-related and not) has made me feel that that obligation is not only being ignored, it's being purposely thrown by the wayside because hurting people can be a good political tool. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

throwing living people under the bus - That is not throwing anyone "under the bus", it is restoring the previous condition, where public and non-defamatory information was still available in search engines.

because we oppose the court decision and their particular life doesn't matter to us while we're busy opposing it? - Short answer? Yes. It sounds brutal, but only because you are putting it in a kind of "when is the last time you beat your wife?"-way. The point is not that their particular life doesn't matter, it does. But what matters more is that the infamous "right to be forgotten" is nullified. As you say, it is a balancing act. In this case I'd say the balance is deeply in favour of opposing any kind of enforced censorship, even if it can have agreeable results in some few particular cases, like the one hypothetical you postulate.

That's what I mean by "the spirit of BLP" - we still have an obligation to be sensitive to those we write about - I disagree, at least in the way you are declinating that. We have an obligation to be fair, to be responsible, to present things neutrally and objectively and to respect privacy whenever it makes sense. We do not have an obligation to accomodate every conceivable whim of people we write about.

because hurting people can be a good political tool. - I honestly don't get what you imply. Can you clarify?--cyclopia^speak! 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't simply an encyclopedia, it's an advocacy group for freedom of knowledge. And to put it bluntly, Fluff, the supposed right to be forgotten and anyone who invokes it against Wikipedia are our enemies on both fronts. This doesn't mean we treat them any differently on the encyclopedia side of things, of course, but we have a right and duty to leverage the Streisand effect against them as far as we are able. It is not simply the EU courts that can be convinced they have made the wrong decision, would-be censors should also personally fear the backlash of attempting to invoke the law. --erachima talk 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't simply an encyclopedia, it's an advocacy group for freedom of knowledge". Really? Where exactly in policy (or anywhere else) is this laid out? I wasn't aware that I'd signed up for an 'advocacy group' - and if I have, I'd like to know who it is that gets to decide who our 'enemies' are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for the Wikimedia statement of purpose. As for who our enemies are, said enemies are the ones deciding that. --erachima talk 20:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How about providing a link for this supposed 'statement of purpose'. And how about actually giving a meaningful answer to a simple question. Who decides who our enemies are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

erachima's comment, for the record, is a good example of the sentiment I was referring to when I said it seems like people are intentionally using harm to BLPs as a political tool. The idea that we have "a right and duty" to harm these individual people as much as we can because they're our "enemies" and we must make them and everyone else fear us is something that I find extremely distasteful and not at all in keeping with our usual BLP attitudes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not harming anyone. That someone dislikes some information to be found on Google does not mean that we are harming that someone. And our aim is not to harm anyone. Our aim should be to counter every attempt at censorship and making them counterproductive. Could this annoy them? Perhaps. But censorship harms everyone, it harms and poisons our society. erachima is right: Wikipedia is built on the concept of freedom of information. Who takes action against this concept, takes action against us. Again, let's keep priorities into focus. --cyclopia^speak! 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you find it distasteful, you can feel free not to chip in. Just be aware that a lot of people do find it perfectly within our mission to defend ourselves against censorship. --erachima talk 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Googlebombing names indiscriminately and vindictively isn't the only way - or a good way - to fight censorship, is my point. In fact, it's sort of unrelated to fighting censorship in any results-causing way. You can fight this censorship by writing the court that made the ruling, writing your local lawmakers, staging in-person protests, attempting to change Wikipedia's policies about when information should be removed, boycotting Google, checking over the RTBF requests that the WMF posts for potentially problematic ones or for ones that are oughtn't have been fulfilled. You can fight the censorship in any number of ways that doesn't involve turning people who (you think) made RTBF requests into evil boogeymen who are no longer covered by our BLP policies because they're "enemies" now. Keep in mind that, as the emerging situation on the Gerry Hutch shows us, you can't even know who your "enemy" necessarily is in these cases, which means that by googlebombing someone "to fight censorship", you may be harming, or at least drawing attention to, someone completely unrelated to this thing you hate so much. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

evil boogeymen who are no longer covered by our BLP policies because they're "enemies" now. - Nobody wants to make "evil boogeymen" of them, nor I have the slightest intent of dropping BLP policy on such people (quite the opposite, since we can attract attention to them). As you correctly point, we don't even know if the BLP subject is the one doing the pull request. But who did it is irrelevant: all that is relevant is to nullify such attempts at censorship, within BLP policy. BLP doesn't say we shouldn't publicize our articles, or that we shouldn't attract attention to them. As long as the article is good, fair, sourced and equilibrated, if anything, we should be compelled to show it off. Imagine that we make a FA of every article which is subject to a "right to be forgotten" request. Would that be a bad thing?--cyclopia^speak! 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

we have a right and duty to leverage the Streisand effect against them as far as we are able: this is an incredibly bad and dangerous statement. You are saying not just that we are permitted to publicize something as much as we possibly can based solely on the fact that they don't want that to happen--which is bad enough as it is--but that we have the responsibility to do so. That's...so wrong I'm not even sure how to express how wrong it is. If we want to protest the law, through the usual legal channels, that's one thing. If we want to do a blackout like we did for SOPA or whatever, well, I would strongly disagree with that, but still, it's whatever. Actually deliberately going after people, through anything other than simply writing neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles on notable subjects (which is what you seem to be implying), is just...wrong. Despicably so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Unethical, and a clear violation of the principles under which Wikipedia operates. Abandoning the tenets of a neutral encyclopaedia and selecting individuals for special treatment in order to make a point about censorship is entirely contrary to the objectives of this project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I repeat here: Imagine we strive to make a FA or at least a GA of every article subject to a "right to be forgotten" request, and we manage to get them to the main page. That would be "special treatment", perhaps, but it would violate no policy, it would be neutral, and it would improve the encyclopedia overall, and it would be "simply writing neutral, well-sourced encylcopedia articles on notable subjects". Making publicity of an article or making an article better is absolutely not a violation of the WP principles. Also, again, we are not going after people. We are going against censorship. Which is absolutely in the principles and spirit of WP.--cyclopia^speak! 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What is despicable is censorship. What is also despicable is the willful misrepresentation of opposing arguments; I clearly stated that our encyclopedic coverage should treat people by the same standards regardless of what they've done. Which, yes, may even include some cases where it turns out we should remove articles because they were about non-notable people, that being our long-standing editorial policy.
We do indeed, however, have both the right and the responsibility to document, report, and publicize cases in which we are being censored. That you would have us refrain from this duty out of fear that we might fail to mitigate the consequences of someone's unethical actions against themselves is mind-boggling. --erachima talk 00:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. Take your anti-censorship activism elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is also a project to disseminate knowledge. Censorship goes against dissemination of knowledge. Documenting and publicizing attempts at censorship is the bare minimum we can do to promote our goal of disseminating knowledge.--cyclopia^speak! 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If all you're talking about is writing quality articles, then that's fine. Cutting the articles to the front of the line to appear on the front page is not so fine in my opinion, but still, whatever. But that's not what y'all seem to be saying: they said that we would treat them the same as any other subject encyclopedically and then do other stuff. The point is that there is no "and then". Our responsibility is to document what reliable sources say on the various topics we write about, no more, no less: we do not report or publicize things on our own. If that coverage starts to include a right to be forgotten request, then of course that can be included in articles (subject to due weight, naturally); I never suggested otherwise. But the point is that our job begins and ends in the writing of the encyclopedia; any action taken that isn't the writing of articles is beyond the pale, and allusions to "publicity" and "leveraging Streisand effects" and "[to] document, report, and publicize" sure sound like things that aren't just writing articles. If you want to create primary-source documentation of censorship, I'm sure there are places on the Internet to do that, but Wikipedia is not it.
Furthermore, keep in mind that we are not being censored here (at least for the moment). What Google does with its search results is its own business; Wikipedia has no right, moral or otherwise, to be high in Google's search results or even to show up in them at all. Google removing a Wikipedia article from its search results is not censorship of us, it is (self-)censorship of Google. If you want to protest that, go ahead; you're neither wrong nor alone in doing so. But don't make the mistake of saying that Wikipedia is getting censored here. (And I can already hear the "First they came for the..." responses; please spare me such nonsense, as that speech was made in an entirely different context; the stakes here are so much lower as to be incomparable.) If the EU court starts demanding that Wikipedia articles be deleted, and the WMF looks like it could possibly cave (not sure how, as I don't think they're subject to EU law, but IANAL), then you can start going on about Wikipedia being censored, and then drastic measures can be considered. But not before then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. There is WP the encyclopedia and the WikiMedia Foundation. WP the encyclopedia should do its encyclopedic work, no more no less, even if I would personally encourage exposure of such articles on the main page (within current procedures, like using GA/FA/DYK). On this, we agree. The WMF instead should take action to publicize such cases and attempt to make such RTBF rulings backfire. Does this make more sense now? You may disagree that the WMF should do that, but in any case I'm not talking of disrupting the encyclopedia (quite the opposite). About the self-censorship, that's just semantics at this level: the point is that part of our information is less accessible now, and this goes straight against our goals and shared philosophy.--cyclopia^speak! 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but we are not the WMF. We should not be doing anything beyond writing articles. If the WMF wants to do something, that's its prerogative, of course, and if you want to ask the WMF to do something, go for it, but again, that is not what you had said--you were suggesting that "we" have the responsibility/should publicize/etc.. The WMF, as a distinct nonprofit organization, may or may not have such responsibilities, but we as a community certainly do not. And it's not semantics: Wikipedia does not have the right to easy access of itself from non-WMF sites like Google--whether it goes against our philosophy or not (I don't necessarily disagree that it goes against our philosophy), we have no right to tell Google what to do or not to do with its search algorithms. We can politely ask, but ultimately it's their website, their search engine, and their rules; we cannot dictate Google's search results any more than they can dictate our article contents, and honestly I don't see how we can give ourselves the moral standing to even protest what they do with their own things. The law itself, sure, but not Google's implementation of it--Google has every right to do whatever the hell they want with their own site. Google is not public property, and we shouldn't treat it like it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Notifcation : - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch (Given the WikipediaWatch saga, this shouldn't take too long to decide.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 6#File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• The page https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines probably answers some of the original questions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And the AFD was closed as a frviolus nomination the moment someone put up a delete vote , That's not on. [26]. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"The right to be forgotten" which is not part of the Wikipedia is just simply ridiculous. Why should Wikipedia delete notable articles simply because a criminal in this case wants to be forgotten? It undermines the purpose of Wikipedia. And is an invalid reason for deletion within a AfD process as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch I tried to but it got reverted. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep. Infact last time I checked it was 21-3, further discussion needs to take place somewhere of this issue not on this AfD. Thanks JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's looking increasingly like Google are the villains of the piece here, because they seem to have acted on a takedown request relating to an on-the-record statement made by a senior police officer, even though the ECJ judgment explicitly states that there is no RTBF if there is a public interest in having access to the information on account of "the role played by the data subject in public life". They seem to be taking a very permissive attitude in terms of what requests they will act on, on the basis of this example anyway. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Google wouldn't WP:POINT Surely? XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Google's stance has been an amusing combination of laziness and passive-aggression. They have neither the resources nor the willingness to judge what requests are valid, so they just approve and publicize them all. --erachima talk 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

They don't have the resources? Que? Formerip (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, based on discussions at Jimbo's talkpage, the thing about the police officer might not be accurate. Formerip (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Karlie Kloss slammed her article on here on Facebook, she said it's shite. --Homeontherange (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

She probably just wants people to look at it. Formerip (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Poke

Just a poke WP:UAA is deep in backlog. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of relevant discussions

Discussions which may interest those who have an interest in Wikipedia disciplinary processes, particularly in relation to the treatment of suspected sock puppets, is taking place on Wikipedia talk:Dealing with sock puppets, currently at #August 2014 edits and #Why not notify a suspect?. Knotweed (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy or a guideline that administrators are supposed to follow. In all actuality, there should be a guideline on how to deal with sockpuppets. In addition, it seems to be User:Dennis Brown's essay page, so you'd probably need to talk to him if you want to really change anything majorly. However, if he wanted to, he could just delete everything and write 'you block them' if he wanted to; Primarily his essay page. Tutelary (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be Dennis' essay, but if it's in Wikipedia space and not userspace then anyone can edit it.--v/r - TP 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, is that really so? If it's out in the WP name space, it's all fair game, but if it's a userpage, no dice? Learned something new. Tutelary (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, anywhere on Wikipedia is editable by anyone. We just most often defer to the user whose name is in the URL when considering changing userspace pages. Have you ever seen anything in the terms of use, edit screen, or any policy which says that you may retain copyright as long as it's not in article space?--v/r - TP 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I understand that every single edit is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 attribution, even userspace edits. It's just that I think theoretically you should have more authority over an essay that you primarily wrote yourself, especially if it's in your name space. Maybe I'm crazy a bit that way. I don't think there's an official policy/guideline about that, and don't think there ever will, though. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're looking at it backwards, though. It's not that one editor has authority in their userspace, it's that the rest of us have courtesy while in another editor's user space.--v/r - TP 23:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit more than that. I looked pretty dimly on editors that tried to edit WP:Short horizontal line into an essay promoting that concept that the discussions about dashes and hyphens had merit. If you want to provide a counterpoint to an essay, it's fine to create a "See also" to the counterpoint. Wordsmithing while maintaining the original point is fine. Subverting the original essay into something counter to the original author's point of view is rarely a good idea.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And, for that matter, when someone's first edit is to an sockpuppeting essay and he then comes to WP:AN to talk about it, shouldn't he have kept WP:ILLEGIT in mind? Specifically those parts about "editing project space" and "avoiding scrutiny"?—Kww(talk) 02:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Little help...

Category:Requests for unblock is looking kind of full at the moment, with upwards of 50 appeals still outstanding. A few more eyes (and hands!) over there would be appreciated. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(London) Times report on Wikipedia

Today's print edition of The (London) Times (Thursday August 7, 2014), has on page 3 a report with the headline "Wikipedia to sabotage privacy ruling by posting deleted links"

Apart from the fact that it's made the usual mistake of equating WMF with Wikipedia, the headline and lead are in effect saying that Wikipedia and thus Wikipedians) have sufficient dislike for the ruling that they would actively use certain (and potentially questionable) methods to challenge it. The characterisation of those actions as sabotage however concerns me as it would imply unethical means, and as far as I knew Wikipedia(ns) weren't actively seeking confrontation on the issue. Whilst it's not necessarily untrue that Wikipedia(ns) (and WMF) have a dislike for the ruling, I've not seen anything on wiki that would suggest Wikipedia as a collective entity, is organising to deliberately undermine the "intent" of the ruling, It's Google that's blocked links and has been kind enough to forward the requests to Wikipedia (WMF) (as content provider.) for review. Since when is one content provider querying something with an upstream a bad thing (And isn't that something that's actively encouraged when reading Wikipedia articles?)

However, if the Wikipedia (or WMF) line on transparency is going to produce border line smears from the media, I am going to have to give serious consideration to whether I continue to help improve the project (most of my edits are technical fixes or image licensing). Perhaps the admins here would care to convince me otherwise? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said on IRC: I have absolutely no idea what your problem is here. Contact The Times for a correction—I imagine the WMF already have. — foxj 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The media (or Reliable Sources as we rather charitably refer to them) are able to turn out inaccuracies simply by turning up in the office. They need no particular assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation in that regard. I'm also slightly confused what exactly you expect English Wikipedia admins to do about this problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) What exactly are you asking here? Like, are you asking if some or all of that is true, or are you asking for someone to convince you that it's a good thing? Or just that you should keep editing in general? It is indeed true that the WMF is publishing the notices they get from Google about what links Google is pulling down pursuant to RTBF. It is the case that some, but not all, wikimedians feel that we have an obligation to publicize the cases and names involved in these Google takedowns (see a few sections up on this noticeboard). As far as I'm aware, however, "The Movement" carries no cohesive opinion about whether that type of publicity is a good or bad idea; it's simply people's own opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This kind of thing is probably best dealt with by the WMF communications team, which exists and is paid to deal with this kind of thing. ;) — foxj 14:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's basically two sides accusing the other side of being evil. Europe is saying "ANTI-PRIVACY!!!" and Wikipedia says "CENSORSHIP!!!" and we vilify each other.--v/r - TP 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming

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.

---

Original pagwe has been deketed with deletion discussion--Musamies (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird; Heaven Sent Gaming was AfD'ed and endorsed at DRV; then restored and userfied by Tokyogirl79, then deleted by Tokyogirl79 also, saying she would wait for Sergecross73. The user has recreated the page in his userspace with the content that was archived externally prior to deletion. If we allow the drafting to continue (to which I am absolutely not opposed), the deleted revisions found under User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming need to be restored to preserve attribution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I specifically told that user I was opposed to restoring this... The article was been deleted and turned down at DRV multiple times in the last few weeks. It's all due to recreation by inexperienced users who do t understand the GNG or "significant coverage from trivial passing mention". As such, I was skeptical when another inexperienced user wanted to take another shot at it, especially because the work doesn't read like a Wikipedia article and suffers from WP:BOMBARD issues, so it's not like its a good starting point even if the article subject was notable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no comment from you at the DRV and can find no other DRV. In the absence of consensus against letting this be drafted, there is no justification to delete the draft, and if we do not delete the draft, then we must restore the deleted revisions under it to preserve attribution. The mainspace title is salted anyways. Sergecross73, I understand your concerns, but will you allow this draft to continue existing? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. It was thrown out of DRV, this is true, but my comments were at yet another venue discussing this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Heaven_Sent_Gaming Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I must've been missing something. However, even if I delete the draft, the user has the contents of the page because they were archived externally. Even if salting the current userspace title, there is nothing stopping the recreation of that page under any other draft title. I think we should allow drafting; there's little harm, and it'll have to go through AfC before recreation through the salt (and we know that's unlikely to happen under the current form of the article). I'd hate to specifically go against your wishes, but in this case I'd ask again: will you please allow the continued drafting of the page? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think it's the right move, but I won't stand on your way on it. The community better gripe to you and not me when we're all wasting time at another deletion discussion with an obvious conclusion though. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the salting it would be pretty hard to move it to main space under the same title. I would make it clear to XiuBouLin that she needs to have at least one person who is knowledgeable about this article and its history to review it before putting it back into mainspace. 129.9.75.245 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I agree with Salvidrim! that it can't really hurt anything to let a userspace draft exist, but I would caution the site's fans against further testing the community's patience. The more often they attempt to post this article, the less likely it is to be accepted. And it has already been posted three times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material

Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a gun control advocate rather than an academic researcher. When she made the same change 6 months ago it was discussed in an RfC and at the BLP noticeboard, but that has not stopped her from doing it again. Spitzer himself reverted part of the change and Casliber has protected the article. Spitzer is a well-known political scientist and one of his areas of research is the politics of gun control in the United States. He has objected strongly on the talk page and wonders why this is happening to him again. Our policies on BLP should protect people out in the world from attacks on their reputation, but it doesn't seem to be working here. I feel that the only permanent solution is to ban Sue Rangell from editing Spitzer's article and from removing any material from Wikipedia that uses Spitzer's work as a source.

Since Lightbreather was topic banned from articles relating to gun control, Sue Rangell has been removing or substantially revising all of Lightbreather's contributions to this area. This includes removing material quoted from or referenced by Spitzer's publications. Examples are here, here, here, and here. Since removing sourced material can lead an editor into difficulties, Sue Rangell may feel she needs to paint Spitzer as pro gun control as justification for removing Lightbreather's work. Some of her edit summaries are less than civil in speaking of a person outside of Wikipedia. She removed a quote from Spitzer, a political scientist whose field of expertise includes the history of gun control, with the comment: "removed paragraph rehashing gun control arguments, quoting political pundits rather than historians, which have no place in the history section." She removed an entire section written with material referenced to Spitzer's works calling his work "a single person's opinion (especially a person who has a clear bias)". StarryGrandma (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

While not arguing for or against what you are proposing as I have very little knowledge of the situation I find it very bizarre that you are defining being called a ‘gun control advocate’ as being an attack on a person’s reputation. AlanS (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, for something like the 12th time, I am being pulled into ANI because of Lightbreather. Prior to her being banned from the Spitzer page (and all other gun control related pages) for being disruptive, Lightbreather made over 100 edits to that page IN A ROW. I did not edit the page because I refuse to interract with Lightbreather. Now that she is topic banned, I have made TWO (2) edits to that page. Only two. I have made good use of the talk page when doing each edit. There has been no edit warring. I do not believe that StarryGrandma is assuming good faith with me, and is in fact acting on behalf of Lightbreather who has been topic Banned from editing all Gun related articles. I am not ready to make accusations of meat-puppetting at this point, but StarryGrandma has certainly picked up where Lightbreather has left off. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be away for the weekend. If there are any questions or concerns I will be happy to address them when I return. Have a nice weekend everyone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban Sue Rangell from gun control as an AE remedy per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control. Sue, Lightbreather didn't get you into trouble here, you did that all by yourself. Lightbreather hasn't touched this article in 6 months. WP:NOTTHEM.--v/r - TP 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, per Statments made by both StarryGrandma and TP. AcidSnow (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm not very satisfied with the evidence presented. This is inherently a thorny issue; of Sue Rangell's edits mentioned above, the only one that I see as really problematic is adding gun control advocate back into the lead, even if it was cited. Maybe some mention of the characterization should be in the article somewhere, especially if there is more than just the one source, but the talk page discussion pretty clearly rejected that language in the lead, and she participated in that discussion. The removal from Gun Control Act of 1968 hasn't even been challenged anywhere. Finally, having the entire section at Global_gun_cultures for America be one authors opinion is clearly not appropriate, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that removal. In light of the fact that there was at least one problematic edit, and that Sue Rangell is clearly trying to push one side of the issue, I'm only going to weakly oppose, but I just don't think the evidence presented here justifies a broad topic ban yet. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you'd support a gun control & BLP topic ban instead?--v/r - TP 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would definitely support a topic ban on the Spitzer article, I think I would only be neutral on a topic ban on all Gun Control Related BLPs, unless there have been problems at other BLPs that haven't been presented. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Monty845: If the topic ban was on Spitzer - would that include references to Spitzer in other articles?--v/r - TP 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose These edits don't rise to the level of 'incident', if this is the only evidence. This is hardly even much of a content dispute yet. This should be hashed our at the article talk page rather than escalating. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you review the history, the dispute was resolved on the article talk page. Sue is ignoring the consensus apparently and has caused an admin to full protect the article.--v/r - TP 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems not to quite describe this situation. There was a discussion and RfC some time ago. On Talk now there is a suggestion that the RS refs are stronger for the edit. Discussion is ongoing. It seems civil. More importantly, the OP is not engaging in the discussion but instead immediately jumped here. SR has specifically said at talk that she would abide by a new RfC or consensus after discussion of what she believes are strong refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose we can watch how it unfolds there then and evaluate in a day or so.--v/r - TP 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sue is admittedly a proponent of gun control, but is one of the very few from that side of the aisle who truly maintains a NPOV.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

*Support - StarryGrandma's proposal to ban Sue Rangell from editing Spitzer's article and from removing any material from Wikipedia that uses Spitzer's work as a source. Sue's personal vendetta against me should not spill over into trying to label Spitzer. His body of work is far too extensive to put undue weight on one aspect (based on the word "advocate" appearing in a headline and a blog by a student journalist). I created the Robert J. Cottrol article on the same day that I began work on the Spitzer article - which Sue followed me to within 1 hour of my first edit there - and no-one has felt the need to swoop into Cottrol's article and label him an advocate. As far as Sue is concerned, anything I've worked on is suspect, and although that is aggravating for me, the subjects of BLPs should not be punished for her prejudice. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - With all due respect, LB, Cottrol is hardly Spitzer. Cottrol's one GC book is out of 5 or 6 and he does not advocate the hard line of Spitzer; whereas Spitzer has written 1/4 to 1/3 of his books about gun control and numerous articles in the press calling for gun control. He may not be a paid advocate, but his words carry some weight and if he's concerned about a label affecting who contacts him for writing work as a non-partisan and objective scholar, he should have thought of that before hauling water for the gun control crowd and dismissing any illusion of being a neutral academic. Actions have consequences.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - it should be noted that Lightbreather is currently under a topic ban on the material in question. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - It should be noted that I am here in support of the lead of the WP:BLP policy, especially that: BLPs require a high degree of sensitivity; BLP editors must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources; BLPs must be written conservatively; and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment re living persons. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weakly supportOppose a Spitzer topic ban take it to AE if you need to.. Definitely Oppose anything more wide ranging. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is a poor venue for this request. It should have been filed at WP:AE. In any case, the point of discretionary sanctions is to provide fast-track solutions to problematic editors in problematic topic-spaces. Consensus building is not required; any admin can impose a topic-ban if they feel it is warranted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I knew that, and I've never been in this topic area or this dispute and in that sense I am uninvolved, but Lightbreather and Sue Rangell have more than once both discussed the other with me and so I wouldn't want to have the appearance of being involved.--v/r - TP 02:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Clarification: I have not brought this here as a content dispute. This is not something to be decided by a poll of editors on a talk page. This is a biography of a living person issue. Don't BLP policies prevent an editor from attacking the reputation of a person, particularly for ammunition in a content dispute? Robert Spitzer is the chairman of the Political Science department at SUNY Cortland. One of his areas of research is gun control policy. In his writings he researches, discusses, analyzes. He talks about what might happen if certain policies change. This is not advocacy. His reputation depends on being unbiased. There are anti-gun control authors who consider him pro-gun control because they do not like his analyses, but they are not unbiased. Sue Rangell is trying to publicly brand him as something he is not, which can affect his life and career given how far Google pushes Wikipedia content. This was all hashed out on the talk page and BLP noticeboard months ago. It did not depend on finding better references.

Sue Rangell is rehashing old references. One of her "mainstream sources" is the Cornell Daily Sun, a student newspaper at Cornell University staffed entirely by undergraduates. Every reference mentioned now and in previous arguments has just used "advocate" or "activist" as an adjective in a sentence describing Spitzer. Not a single reference has provided any examination or analysis of his work to provide evidence. None of this is acceptable in a BLP. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because a BLP is involved doesn't make this not a content dispute. Ultimately, its not up to us to decide whether he is a researcher on the topic of guns or a gun control advocate, the question is what reliable sources call him, and then how to fairly present that information. When you become a prominent researcher on a controversial topic, and your research aligns with one side of the debate, your likely to be labeled an advocate by reliable sources, even if your intent was to be impartial. All that matters is that at least some reliable sources use the label. Monty₈₄₅ 12:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP emphatically does not prevent editors from commenting on individuals or institutions as regards their reliability or bias for the purposes of sourcing. It may be problematic for an editor to inaccurately or unfairly insist that a particular person can't be used as a source but so long as those comments aren't defamatory (in almost all cases they won't be) we should allow them. To do otherwise would cripple any means we might have to speak honestly and clearly about the sources we use in articles and that would be completely unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work - and especially when there is no actual basis for the proposal. If you have a content dispute, discuss it at the article talk page - trying to whup up a frenzy for editor-banning is not the way to proceed. Collect (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Noting from reading all the stuff I can find -- Spitzer clearly opposes the SCOTUS rulings on gun laws which used a strong NRA-supported interpretation of the Second Amendment - whether his argument against those decisions falls into the category of "supporting gun control" in the context of those decisions would appear to be a content dispute entirely. Likely an RfC would be the proper course of action on that. Collect (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect. --John (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Does someone have a few minutes to work on the backlog at AIV? Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

All clear for now.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge history tool (new-ish)

Just to let administrators be aware that a new tool exists to help them do history merges. This was announced using the 'Tech news' newsletter, but as not all admins get the newsletter so I figured it would be useful to notify this noticeboard since it is supposed to be a noticeboard for administrators.

• Help page for the tool
• Special:MergeHistory – the tool itself.

Administrators might find this tool useful. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This tool was also discussed here at the admins' noticeboard. Graham87 06:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tom Morris: Where can you get that newsletter at? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: It's at m:Tech/News. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

claimed own work image at File:Misty Copeland and Matthew Prescott in Robert Garland's "M and M Variations".jpg

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

---

Someone has claimed File:Misty Copeland and Matthew Prescott in Robert Garland's "M and M Variations".jpg is their own work, but it has an obvious watermark indicating that it might not be. Where do I contest this claim? I was considering WP:NFR, but I think that is when someone claims they have a valid FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• There's no FUR on that image. It's listed as CC-BY-SA. Where is your original available online. (whoops, misread your comment) If it's a straight copyvio I'll just delete it. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Actually it's on commons, so you'll want to take it up there, TonyTheTiger. Protonk (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• I found the likely original, so I just went ahead and nominated it. I have no idea if I've used the right process. Protonk (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it. (There is normally a 7 days comment period, but not in speedy situations)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• Thanks guys.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange

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 blocked Homeontherange (talk · contribs) this morning for pointy tag-bombing on today's featured article. In subsequent conversation he revealed that he was a vanished user since 2006 who wishes to un-vanish. He was involved in arbitration, sockpuppeting and drama in that time, and his conduct this morning is hardly irreproachable. Dawn Raider 6 (talk · contribs) was checkuser-blocked as recently as last October. However, he has requested that the possibility of his return be brought up here. I can't find any active sanctions on his primary account, but the history is convoluted. More discussion and context is available on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of if he comes back on his previous account or not, sanctions - including your block - are on the person and not the account so whichever account it is will need to fulfill your block.--v/r - TP 18:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've received a satisfactory apology for the activity that led to my block, which is in any case for 24 hours. What is not clear to me is whether, as you note, the person behind the account is actually under any standing sanction. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This was before my time, so I don't really know how the ban process worked in 2006, but based on the AN/I discussion it appears this was a defacto ban rather then a formal community ban enacted at the close of a discussion as is now common practice. As best as I can find, there is no Arbcom ban or sanction outstanding. Is that correct? @FloNight: @SlimVirgin: Pinging a couple current admins who were active in that discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • They've also mentioned @Fred Bauder:. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed by the recent conduct, beyond already getting blocked for an incident with the Featured article, I first noticed this editor at DRV where they claimed Dating Reality and Things not only passed CSD A7, but meets the notability criteria, which I just can't AGF on, its too absurd. Monty₈₄₅ 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The community ban was a very long time ago. I suggest that the current conduct of the user should be the main way to evaluate whether any editing restrictions are needed now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeontherange's userpage notes that he was previously Formeruser-82, which according to this diff (I just picked a random talkpage edit from that account's contribution history) was previously named AndyL. After the username change, the Andy userpage redirected to the Homeontherange userpage for a time before Homeontherange deleted it in January 2006, but Zanimum soon recreated it as a redirect with the rationale "it's important to have a page here, as this is one of the top 100 accounts on the project". It was later re-deleted because of RTV. Fast forward to today, and you'll see that Homeontherange requested unblock; I've "accepted" the request to get it out of the unblock category, since it expired without anyone acting on it. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well this should be interesting; if memory serves, this is the original author of the rather wiki-infamous Israel and the apartheid analogy article. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have reblocked Homeontherange. In the 3 hours since the last block expired, he has edit warred [27], violated WP:3rr [28], violated WP:NPA [29] and resumed tag bombing articles, resulting a report to WP:AIV. Feel free to review my block while we are here. Monty₈₄₅ 14:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that yesterday morning wasn't a one-off, and that some very convincing explaining must happen before they can be unblocked, which would have to be done through a consensus on this page. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the original Homeontherange would be allowed to un-vanish, but this looks like an impostor, and probably the same user as Dawn Raider 6 and others in the sockpuppet category (with the exception of Toronto8793, who appears to be a false positive). I mentioned this when those accounts were blocked, at User talk:AGK/Archive/78. The global account of Homeontherange is blocked on several wikis, including the Simple English Wikipedia where the user claimed to have used Litherlandsand as a sockpuppet on en.wikipedia; several accounts including Litherlandsand and Samllaws300 (who also claimed to be the original Homeontherange) were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Sunholm, a vandal who was blocked in 2006. Contributions from the new account are similar to Sunholm and related accounts (particularly Samllaws300), not to the vanished user. Peter James (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Ban Proposal: CensoredScribe

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.

---

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s name has come up several times here and on ANI. He was restricted to only adding categories that were met with consensus at CFD or at another appropriate venue due to his disruptive editing, but his topic ban violations led to an indefinite block in early 2014. Since then, he has created nine confirmed sock puppets and with his most recent account, Allen7054 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has continued adding unneeded categories to various articles, which contravenes his topic ban ([30], [31], [32]). This round of sock puppetry is the final straw. I therefore would like to propose that he should be indefinitely banned by the Wikipedia community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This editor will not stop. Nor do they any longer respond to the communities policies and guidelines in regard to adding categories to various articles. MarnetteD|Talk 04:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I honestly thought he was already community banned by this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A formality, since he is indeffed and no one will unblock, but a necessary formality, since he is a persistent disruptor who won't learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This will be my first time adding a vote so please feel free to correct any mistakes I make. He's been adding cataigories to pages he knows nothing about, he tried labeling Luigi and even Kirby as *Video Game Bosses*. He's even tried labeling Meta Knight as a *Super Hero* and *Super Villain*. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support with deep regret. This looks like an editor with great potential, but one who simply cannot or will not play by the rules. The rap sheet is one that points to a serial disruptive editor who seems to enjoy thumbing his/her nose at the community and creating lots of work for people. Enough is enough. (Non-administrator comment) -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user is very disruptive. He can't accept advice and he is disruptive. Also he fails to "get the point" 電子888^說|talk 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The IDHT is too strong in this one. Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• So if Allen7054 (talk · contribs) is a sock of CensoredScribe, why isn't it blocked? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Because, as yet, only one admin has looked at the SPI report and they left a request for info. That request has been answered by a couple editors. The response time to SPI reports varies and I have seen it take as long as 10 days to two weeks. It should be noted that those are extreme cases and it is usually quicker. That can be frustrating but there are only so many admins and their time can be taken up by many different responsibilities. What is troubling is that the request for a checkuser was filed at the same time and there has not yet been an "endorse or decline" to that. It won't be completely ignored we just have to wait until someone has the time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Look above.

• CensoredScribe was proposed for a community ban on grounds of socking as Allen7054.
• CensoredScribe has, in fact, been community banned.
• Therefore, the community has decided that Allen7054 is a sock.
• Allen7054 has not been blocked as a sock.

Notice the contradiction yet? --Calton | Talk 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, CensoredScribe was banned for socking with many confirmed socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive, with Allen7054 mentioned as a new suspect. Allen7054 is not yet confirmed: the evidence is not solid enough to block per WP:DUCK, and the SPI is awaiting a checkuser report. JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Backlog (or other problem) at speedy deletion?

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

---

Hello.

Two days ago, I db-g6-ed a redirect (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston–Houston) for speedy deletion, so that I should be able to move the target of the redirect there. The redirect has been edited, so I can't move the article there myself.

My experience from previous speedy deletion requests is that it doesn't take very long time before they're carried out, max one day, most often much shorter.

I have checked back in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion a couple of times, and if I remember correctly, there were other candidates than those that are there now, while "my" candidate remains there. If that is really so, they have been deleted, but not mine.

So, obviously I'm wondering if there is a problem with "my" candidate.

Could someone please check?

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I looked at that yesterday while patrolling the speedy-deletion queue, and the reason I did not action it is that it involves replacing a hyphen with an n-dash. I remember interminable arguments about that a year or two back (the "N-dash Wars"), which I found so depressing that I lost interest, and don't remember what the eventual resolution was, if any. If you can point me to a policy which means that an n-dash will stick, and not start an edit war, I'll make the change. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: As far as I know, there's only the MOS:ENDASH guideline, specifically section "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". The "N-dash-Wars" rings a bell, but I can't remember what it was, or when. Anyway, I'm not aware of any current controversy regarding this, so I think this is uncontroversial. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

OK,  Done. JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Proxy check 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.

---

At WP:OP there are outstanding proxy check requests over ten days old. Who/where should I ping or poke? JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

New "superprotect" protection level

In order to keep discussion on this topic centralised, please leave any comments on this in the thread on the Village Pump. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Editors here may be interested in this thread at VPT about a new WMF-backed "superprotect" protection level that would not be editable by admins. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• So much for trying to develop trust between the dev team and the community. Monty₈₄₅ 15:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Need some help with this

Trying to move a page from this to this, but get a message that the latter is on the title blacklist, so I myself cannot perform this move. Is there an admin who could possibly do this move? The other reason for this request is that I am currently moving articles created via the AfC process out of the WT:AFC namespace in favor of the draft namespace as per this Village pump discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, but this has got no future here: Wikipedia is not for the complete text of poems, see WP:NOTREPOSITORY #3. It could maybe go in WikiSource. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. My main concern was getting it out of the WT space. Now that you have made an advisement as to the disposition of this draft, I can go ahead and decline it with the reasoning that you provided.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I see that you have done that .   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of unblocks

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.

---

DragonflySixtyseven (DS) has unblocked two related accounts: PathOfExile (talk · contribs · count) and I really need that username (talk · contribs · count). DS never consulted with me before unblocking either account, even though I was the blocking administrator on both. After unblocking PathOfExile, DS went to Kinu's talk page here and told Kinu as Kinu had become involved after the initial block and had revoked talk page access of the account. I registered my disapproval in that same section, including pinging DS, but rather than respond, DS then unblocked the other account, an admitted sock of the first.

This started with an edit war between PathOfExile and an IP about whether the video game (Path of Exile is a video game) belonged in the article Permanent death. As you can see, PathOfExile kept calling the IP's edits vandalism; they were clearly not vandalism. I semi-protected the article and blocked Path for the user name problem. Rather than request a new user name, Path went bananas. DS also saw fit to delete the talk page to "erase" the history. Only administrators will be able to view what happened. First, Path deleted the contents of the talk page. Okay, he can do that. Then on his empty talk page he said: "Currently blocked for reverting vandalism." (That's a theme, btw.) Then he wrote an absurd unblock request, in which he asked for the user name, gfjkhjfgdhjgfdhgfj (a jumble of letters often favored by socks and other disruptive editors), and said, among other things:

• I expect to be unbanned and apologized to
• I wonder how many would-be great Wikipedia contributors got IP-banned from the site by power-tripping admins because they foolishly picked a username that corresponded to a game/movie/company/commercial product they might not even have been familiar with. Well, guess we'll never know that, huh?
• You can pat yourself on the back now, and hit that DENY button. Well? What are you waiting for, there's nothing more for you to read here. Oh, and don't forget to protect my talk page from editing to make sure I don't add anything more to it in the future such as a ton of advertisements for example.

It was shortly after this that Kinu decided to revoke talk page access.

Then Path created the sock account (fully admitted to it). If you read the unblock request link (he had trouble putting in the material, he said), it says, for example: "Below, I will explain why I was blocked on my previous account, why I created another account after the previous one was blocked, and why my second account was blocked as well. I will also explain why I believe that my blocks were made in error, and why I believe that they should be lifted." To his credit, at great length he seems to recognize that what he called vandalism wasn't, although he again goes on at great length why his version is correct.

Now, I can see possibly unblocking the master after consultation, but it's extraordinarily rare to unblock a sock account. And, procedurally, DS was way out on a limb here. We also now have both accounts unblocked with the user asking for the master account to be renamed yet we still have the puppet account. What a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, meant to leave that message for you, not for Kinu. It's a series of misunderstandings; the user did overreact, but that's not a valid reason to remove talkpage and e-mail access as "troll". I'd also say that you overreacted by blocking the user in the first place. The user had tried to file a very detailed and polite unblock request only to hit the edit filter because his layout glyphs were interpreted as ASCII art. The user has tried to do things properly (including reporting a pending edit war to an admin rather than continuing to breach 3RR); the second account was used solely to draw attention to the problems that had happened with the first account... which didn't work either. The initial block was misplaced, and from there things just got worse (especially since there was Wrong Version protected). I am quite convinced that this user is productive and not a troublemaker, and have acted accordingly. And my reason for unblocking the secondary account was that its block had been for reasons that were no longer valid: if you're going to match the attributes of a sock to its master when the master is blocked, shouldn't you also match them when it's unblocked? DS (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has posted a detailed statement on his talk page; the reason he has not posted it here himself is that I specifically asked him not to edit any pages except the namechange noticeboard until such time as his name is changed. Please read it. DS (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not label the user a troll. I did not remove talk page access. I removed talk page access from the sock account. The ASCII art business was on the sock account unblock request, not the original master's request, which was over the top. I have no idea what you're talking about with matching the attributes when it's unblocked. Nor have you explained why you did all this unilaterally and only notified whomever (I accept your statement that you meant to notify me) after you saw fit to unblock the account, delete talk pages and user pages. There was no overreaction to the original block. There are lots of edit-warring accounts that go to AN3. That doesn't mean they are innocent. And even this one acknowledges that the vandalism labels were incorrect, but that was what he was saying at that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a user talk page - I would find that highly unusual, over the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User+talk%3APathOfExile&timestamp=20140804191318 should be restored to the visible history, because it's relevant. It may not be visible in the current revision, but I don't see any reason not to have it in the history - it did happen. Any objections? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

DS: Per WP:RAAA can you explain how your un-discussed action is appropriate and explain why you did not discuss it, first?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already restored the talk page. Kinu is the one who removed talkpage access, which is how I got you and him mixed up; I should have posted to your talkpage also -- sorry about that. But then, you shouldn't have blocked just for the username. You (I think I'm responding to Bbb23?) should have asked first if there was any connection between the user and the company, and suggested a namechange (it's hardly promotional if he's removing mentions of it from articles!). As for how the action is appropriate: if it leads to a good outcome, it's appropriate. And I believe that having this user continue to edit will be a good outcome. Process is important, yes, but it is not all-important. As for why I didn't discuss it: I examined the situation and came to the conclusion that discussion would be superfluous. Each day I delete many pages and block many accounts. Most of the time I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong, and on those occasions I willingly admit error and undo my actions and apologize. I regret not having raised the issue with you beforehand, and I apologize for this omission; however, I maintain that I was right to unblock the user. DS (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your conclusion that discussion is superfluous is without basis in WP:RAAA, and therefore should not be maintained by you. It's a simple matter of going over the issue with a colleague, so then it does not have to be, here, after the fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict and now i see that I wasn't responding directly to Bbb23. Oh well, my points still stand. DS (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I regularly block inappropriate user names. Promotion comes in all sorts of flavors. In this instance, the user was removing the entry because he felt it didn't reflect the game's plot and characters. Certainly that could be construed as editing on behalf of the video game company. In any event, things spiraled out of control because of the user's reaction, which he has graciously since admitted to. And as for your implication that I don't apologize when I'm wrong, I apologize often enough, thank you very much. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that I might not think that what I did. as the events unfolded, was wrong. I work as an SPI clerk, and I have to tell you that unblocking an admitted sock unilaterally is not justified simply because you think it was the right thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reason for revoking talk page access *wasn't* the text of the unblock request itself; it was the piped links therein, as seen here. DS, did you take that aspect of the TPA revoking into consideration when unblocking? Having my actions reversed is fine, but WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and having to assume it when there is no reason to is ridiculous. If someone uses the word "ass" in an unblock request, fine; if they pipe that text with a link to Bbb23's user page with a clear intent to call someone an ass, that's another story. If someone "promises" to stop being disruptive, but tries to be cheeky by linking to the article Lie, I'm going to assume they're here to troll. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I recall your saying something about piped links before, but I never made the connection until now. The things you miss. Of course, I've been called far worse things than "ass", but, you're right, it's the sneaky part that's troubling. Someone once called me a thief. I never understood that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, his statement was not a 'promise to stop being disruptive'. He said "show me anything even remotely reminiscent of an edit that would be made for publicity and/or promotional purposes, and I promise to never make another edit to Wikipedia again". Because, after all, he wasn't being disruptive. He wasn't making any publicity or promotional edits either. I've read his content, I've read what he actually said, what he actually did. He was not doing anything inappropriate at first except for the typical newbie mistake of edit warring, and of having a non-optimal username. He then reported the edit warring to an admin, and got blocked for his username. Then things blew up. DS (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, that is the *****est unblock request I have ever seen in all these years. I was looking for Bbb being called an ass, and instead I found "[[Woman|oversensitive]]". So that's plenty of reason to revoke talk page access, and that request wasn't placed in the heat of the moment, but a day after--so Kinu calling the user a troll doesn't come out of the blue. I have to say, that second account--I also don't understand why that was unblocked, or why a talk page was deleted. But hey, party's over, I suppose, and I suppose also that PathofExile will realize that this kind of...talk will get them in trouble again easily. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  DS has unblocked reblocked the second account but not for the right reason. He did it because Path "requested that this be done in order to show good faith." That's really big of him. Even assuming that after discussion the decision was made to unblock Path and give him a second chance, there was never any reason to unblock the sock account. Why would Path need two accounts?

  At this point I would be inclined to drop the whole thing and let Path have his second chance, although he still says he will "definitely also re-introduce the change I made to the article prior to my being blocked", which, frankly, is not the right thing to do unless there's a consensus for the change. And if there were a consensus, it would be best to let someone other than Path implement that consensus. This would be true in any post edit-warring situation.

  I'm disappointed that DS doesn't seem to get that he went about this wrong and that it wasn't his place to take these unilateral actions. Putting aside the policy that militates against such actions, it's just not the way to run this project. We are always telling non-admins that this is a collaborative environment and that if they can't work together, they have no business being here. The same goes for those of us who wield the mop. Sure, we can disagree, but we shouldn't lift another administrator's sanctions just because our view differs from that administrator. It would be different if this had been urgent, but there was no rush to unblock Path.

  That's all I have for tonight. This has already taken up way too much of my time that could have been spent far more constructively, and I have no stomach for further discord. Perhaps others will express an opinion (Sunday is often a light day). If not, so be it, and the discussion will fade away as some do.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Correction, I reblocked the secondary account; you realized this, of course, and simply misspoke. I note that on Kinu's talkpage, you said that one "should act unilaterally only in obvious and egregious cases"; you then specified that this was not such a case. Clearly, we disagree in that respect. I'm willing to let this drop if you are; I'd appreciate it if you could withdraw your objection to the namechange, so that the 'promotional username' stuff doesn't recur. DS (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  You're right, I misspoke. I've corrected it accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  It does not matter that you view it as egregious; to inform your judgement about that, you have to discuss with your colleague, first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Guys, does it really matter. You're both decent admins and I've never seen you two have conflict before. Let's move forward. What needs to be done now to get the system back on track with regard to this user and how would you two like this to be approached in the future?--v/r - TP 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  TParis, that's only because I don't think we've ever crossed paths before. This is what I want. First, I'd like at least one admin other than DS or me to decide whether Path should be allowed to edit at Wikipedia based on everything that has happened to date. I will accept whatever that decision is unless two admins express differing opinions, in which case someone is going to have determine a consensus. Second, I'd like DS's assurance that in the future he will consult with the blocking administrator before unblocking someone except in instances of obvious urgency. He doesn't have to apologize for what has transpired. He doesn't have to change his view that Path should have been unblocked. This is a procedural/policy issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Okay. I give you my assurance on that point. DS (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking

Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake. See "Block reviews" below for additional steps to take.

This place would, in fact, be a far better place if more admins were willing to break the "Code of silence" and promptly unblock when, as the Wikipedia:Unblock policy clearly says at the top of the page Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate. NE Ent 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As is often the case, you not only distort policy, but you also draw dramatic inferences from your distortion. That policy also says: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." It also says that case involving sock puppets are "difficult to judge". And, of course, WP:RAAA has already been cited: "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, NE Ent. No one is talking about being silent, quite the opposite. What would make this a better place would be when people don't make wholly unsupported claims about codes like your comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• What a mess, eh? I do love it when a random IP address drops something on my talk page. Bbb23, you've asked for an independent admin to decide whether PathOfExile should be allowed to continue editing. Hopefully, I'll do. In my opinion, yes, he should remain unblocked, on the following conditions. Firstly, he needs to improve his attitude - comments the ones he made in previous unblock requests will not be tolerated and I for one will be willing to come down harshly on him if he does step out of line on this. Secondly, he should (at for the short term) move away from discussions on the game Path Of Exile. We've got enough single purpose accounts on here, and if he's only here to protect the game's interests I don't see that he'll be a net positive to the encyclopedia. I'm not saying that should be an official topic ban or anything like that, just that he needs to focus elsewhere for a while. Finally, the other account should remain blocked and the user should not make any further accounts. I'll explain this to him on his talk page. I'll also go ahead and rename the account, I see that as an instant improvement to the situation. DS, I'm also glad to hear your assurances that you will discuss matters with the blocking admin in future - otherwise this sort of thing ends up blowing up in front of ArbCom and I'm quite happy with it not being there. I'm really glad to see that you two both managed to de-escalate here. Worm^TT(talk) 11:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned, I accept your opinion, and your conditions resolve the issues that concern me going forward. DS, thank you for your statement about your future actions; it's appreciated. From my perspective, someone may now close this as resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Advice needed for weird AfD problem

Not sure this is the right place, but then, I've never seen a situation like this before where an article at AfD is moved to a different namespace... Earlier today I nominated Self Publishing in India for deletion. Shortly thereafter, the article creator moved the article to Wikipedia:Self Publishing in India, so that the AfD template now displays an error message ("This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this project page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion"). There is already a more general list like that in WP space (Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business) and this one could easily be merged into that, which would probably be the best solution. But as things stand, I'm a bit unsure about what to do. Move it back to article space and let the AfD run its course? Close the AfD early (but what close rationale would be appropriate) and then propose a merge of the two pages? Any advice is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving this back. It looks like an article, and the author admits such at the AfD; their edit summary while moving it, which says this is a WikiProject, might be an attempt to game the system. I see no reason for this to be in the Wikipedia namespace. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like JohnCD beat me to it while I was typing this. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes,  Fixed by moving it back. I will explain to the article author that this is not how things work. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at it, looking at Pa2ankurtiwari's (deleted) contributions, I'm pretty sure they're a sock of Theindianicon; see the history of Ankur Tiwari (same topic, same content as Ankur Tiwari, Scientist, Inventor and Author, history also contains a similar bogus cross-namespace page move) and also an overlap in editing here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks people! I was indeed a bit surprised that a seeming newbie knew how to perform a cross namespace move. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a user unfamiliar with the move tool sees the "Wikipedia" namespace and assumes that that is where articles are supposed to go, I suppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

ANI fully protected

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

---

As ANI has been fully protected, can mere mortals use this one please if we need to report things? DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally posted this on the talk page lol. Anyway, is that a mistake? I think Nawlin meant to do semi-protection since the issue was an IP socking anyway. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly an error. While I'm content to wait for NawlinWiki to come to the realization himself, I think this is one of those cases where undoing another's administrative action is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've lowered it to semi. May the gods help me if I'm wrong! Favonian (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Vinod Gupta School of Management etc. (again)

This was ignored and archived last time. Since then, one of the three users mentioned, User:Meethv, again copyvio spammed the article. Admins: please block these three users. They are clearly only SPAs here to PROMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

DebnathSourav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest username who, immediately after creation, spammed a chunk of advertising on Vinod Gupta School of Management. This chunk was almost a complete copyvio per Dupdet. This is the third time (after Madhavparashar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 9 days ago and Meethv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2 months before that) in recent history that a new account has been created and immediately tried to add promotional material to the article. I initially reported to AIV because it seemed obvious to me, but Daniel Case felt it should be brought here.

All three accounts should be blocked as SPA/PROMOs. As far as the target page, other users seem to think it should remain as a stub because the school may actually be notable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I stubbed this blatantly promotional article a while back and I have reverted several attempts to add promotional material. It was, and remains, completely unsourced. Only the idiotic blank check notability enjoyed by High Schools and colleges stops me from sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't appear to be an independent school or college, merely a faculty of Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. On that basis you could simply redirect it there. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Is there a reason not to block these three users? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, they are all probably just throw-away accounts. Blocking them won't stop anything as they will (as they have here) just use a new account. Ravensfire (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling edit-filter managers

Hi all, there is a problem with Filter 31 at the moment which is causing multiple false positives and clogging up the FP board. Whilst the filter is certainly picking up correct unconstructive edits (i.e. [33]), examples of the errors can be seen here - [34], [35], and this one which ironically blocked an editor from actually reporting the error at FP!

It also appears to be preventing unconfirmed editors from leaving standard template notices [36].

I have pinged User:NawlinWiki but he hasn't edited since the 7th. Could someone conversant with the filter please have a look at it? Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked at WT:EFM? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the last updated to EF31, NawlinWiki can check on their return (it was two strings). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, thank you Xaos. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to both @NawlinWiki: and @Xaosflux:, but it doesn't seem to have fixed the issue [37]. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Black Kite, you (as an admin) can see precisely which change to the edit filter was responsible for any specific FP - go to the "examine" link on any entry (or navigate in some other way to the same page, Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/10697087 - the number at the end is the smae number as the link to the log details)); in a separate windoew/tab, look down the filter history (in ths case, Special:AbuseFilter/history/31); in the history page, click on the time stamp of a change; copy the "Conditions" section from the old revision to the big box in the "Examine individual changes" page; and click on the Test filter" button. Then, if that's where the problem started (try this for the last revi\sion on each page, followed by a binary search on the page where it stops being caught), leave a link to that revision on the talk page of the responsible user - this can be done safely even for hidden filters, as these links lead to error pages if followed by unautherized users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am an admin but not an edit-filter manager, and therefore cannot see the history of hidden filters. Yes, I could re-enable myself, but I'm not going to start faffing about with revisions of edit-filters that might (as well as introducing this error) have also fixed a different problem. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you do what I suggested, you would not actually be changing any filters - just checking how old revisions would react to specific attempted edits. That would help discover where the problem is. You would then leave the task of actually solving the problem in the hands of users who feel competent at that task. In fact, this specific false positive was caused by Special:AbuseFilter/history/31/diff/prev/12639 from July 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Filter 31 is now at its most recent version by NawlinWiki, reverting the problematic edit. I tested the false positives here against the current version of filter 31, and it doesn't catch any of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Troll at Reference Desk

There is a troll who geolocates to Toronto (according to another editor) at the Reference Desk. The following has been posted:

The Toronto racist troll is back. He's been at it for at least a year.[38][39][40][41][42] He probably ought to be blocked or something. Red Act (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't individual diffs, but lists of contributions that in turn come down to diffs. As the OP notes, the troll should probably be blocked. (Also, any questions that are obviously from the troll should be ignored, but that isn't what WP:AN is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are two more IPs the same guy has used, both of which got blocked.[43][44] Red Act (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Same guy, three more IPs, the latter two of which got blocked.[45][46][47] Red Act (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The reports from previous months are of course stale, but they show a long-term pattern of trolling illustrating that the current IP address should be blocked, and that the community should be aware that there is a troll who is periodically moved to IP addresses. (It doesn't appear to be intentional IP-hopping, but just reassignment of addresses by an ISP.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The collateral damage, should a block be issued, will be immense. You're talking about blocking an IP from the biggest city in Canada and on one of the two biggest ISPs in the country. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is an edit filter possible? Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The collateral damage would be if a range block were used. Since the IPs appear to be "semi-static", one-week or two-week blocks of specific addresses could be used. The OP has noted that previous incidents have resulted in blocks. However, another idea is semi-protection. It is true that the Reference Desk, like the Help Desk, has usually been open to unregistered editors; but the burden on unregistered editors of creating accounts is less than the burden on regular editors of putting up with the troll. Is semi-protection in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not recommending any specific course of action, it seems to me an editfilter would be far preferable to long term semiprotection (and without long term semiprotection I don't see the point, history strongly suggests the IP will be back in a week or two without it). As I understand, you can filter by IP range (the page seems unclear but some discussion on the archives suggest it's possible). You can also filter by page. And while I'm a bit unclear whether edit filters affect logged in editors based on their IP (I would have thought no due to the privacy issues but I saw some stuff suggesting yes), I'm pretty sure you could exclude logged in editors. So you could just exclude all necessary IP ranges from the RD with an appropriate message telling them they need an account when they hit the filter. The only possible problem would be if this requires too many system resources but the filter doesn't sound like it should, unless the are a very large number of non contigious IP ranges.

Again, I'm not recommending or not recommending this course of action, simply saying blocking all Toronto IPs from the RD (when not logged in) seems preferable to blocking all IPs from the RD. Beyond the additional performance constraints, the only downside I can see compared to semiprotection would be that someone would need to create and manage this filter (including turning it off when it's not necessary as unlike semiprotection I don't think it can be made to autoexpire unless there's some sort of timefilter which will of course mean more resources) and I don't know if we have a volunteer. (Well the other thing is that semi-protection will stop non auto-confirmed account edits whereas as indicated earlier, I'm uncertain if you can do this per IP based on an edit filter.)

Of course you could try to make a more sophisticated filter which attempt to block the inappropriate edits from the Toronto ranges to the RD rather than all edits from the ranges to the RD. But this would probably be much more difficult and may not work well. (We have or had someone who appears to be another editor regularly editing from Toronto IPs, however although their edits weren't offensive and didn't appear to be trolling, I think most people grew bored of answering their questions, particularly since they never seemed to learn how to do a basic search.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Politicians, NPOL and redirects

Please forgive me if this is canvassing - I'm trying to be neutral and have left the same message at WT:Notability (people) and a shorter one at WT:INB. AfD patrollers, in particular, might need to note the outcome.

There is a potentially very significant discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_5#Dhanada_Kanta_Mishra with regard to treatment of politicians whom we at present deem not to be notable. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Subaru Baja Merge

I'd like some assistance if i can get it. The Subaru Baja article was recently tagged, again, for merger -- by User:OSX. No discussion occurred this time and the merge took place. I actually overlooked the Merge notice. In this instance of proposed merge, no rational was given in the merger discussion FOR the merger, and no previous discussions which went against the merger, were considered. I reverted the merger this morning, citing a full rational: no discussion occurred, I overlooked the merger notice, plenty of opposition has been given in the past. The other editor has gotten surly (here (don't wine, please, you stuffed up)] and here (Are you blind?) and frankly I'm not sure this is going to go well. I posted in one place about Merger conventions and also in the Automobile Project Conventions page, where I ask specifically about what criteria should be used in determining whether two automotive models should be merged. I'm not sure what is going on here. The other editor has taken it upon himself to twice remove the latter query. I'd like some kind of assistance or intervention that will put this back on a fair and even keel, if possible. 842U (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC on SPI Clerk Selection process

Could use some opinions here [[48]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gül and Erdoğan may sue Wikipedia for accusing them with corruption

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.

---

Abdullah Gül and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may sue Wikipedia for accusing them with corruption in the Politics section of the Turkey article. There is no court decision in Turkey which has found them guilty of corruption so far, and there is no ongoing trial in Turkish courts with allegations of corruption. May I warn you that, from a purely legal standing point, Wikipedia might get into trouble in terms of being forced to pay a substantial fine.

Also, the Law section in the Turkey article resembles the film Midnight Express in terms of its exaggerated portrayal of the situation in Turkey. There isn't a similar section in any other country article in Wikipedia, including the countries of Latin America and Africa which are notorious for their far worse legal systems, police brutality and organized crime.

The article Turkey is currently locked due to disagreements on the aforementioned sections. 88.251.86.240 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP for legal threats. Seems to be a sock anyway, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Some edits

Please delete talk page of User:Adil afridi as promotional and check edits of user page--Musamies (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I did, and it doesn't really look like blatant spam or anything else warranting speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Procedural help request on Adminstrative action

I was browsing the adminstrators noticeboard a few minutes ago and came across what I consider to be a very bad block by an Adminstrator, having read the relevent policy cited under which the block was justified. As the section is now closed, with an explicit "do not edit this section" warning, could someone please advise me what the escalation procedure is to flag what I consider to be a very bad block?

Many thanks,--Savlonn (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally you want to talk to the blocking admin first, and see if you can sort it out that way. You can appeal here, but I should mention that appealing on someone else' behalf often causes problems. Monty₈₄₅ 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Urgent semi protection

WP:RPP is backlogged. Can an admin kindly semi-protect my talk page for one week. ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Mike V. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR again

See WP:Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim (2nd nomination). A new article has appeared, produced by two SPAs, for a known Wiki-PR client who was unhappy when his paid-for article was deleted last year. This seems to me clear enough evidence to block Ssbokc (talk) and Kevinpoised (talk) as meatpuppets of a banned user editing in contravention of the Terms of Use on Paid contributions without disclosure, but I would like another view before I do that. I would normally take an issue like this to SPI, but WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 has been effectively closed down with rules including You must be reporting a sockpuppet, not a meatpuppet and You cannot use editing the same article or topic area as evidence, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, SPI can't do anything for meatpuppets. The nature of checkuser tools cannot prove a relationship between accounts that are not using the same computer which is part of the definition of meatpuppetry. In any case, I think the community's feelings on Wiki-PR are clear - if it smells at all like Wiki-PR then block. As far as former Wiki-PR clients go, only established users should probably go anywhere near those articles. Perhaps indefinite protection level 2 should be placed on all of those articles?--v/r - TP 17:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually we semi-protect articles which are repeatedly recreated. Semi-protection of course can be walked around, but I would still start with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an evolving situation, pending changes may be the way to go for Wiki-PR-related articles. Miniapolis 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how Pending Changes is the least applicable. -the article has already been created. The question is not how to prevent further editing, the question is whether o and how to get rid of it. (Or is PC usable to prevent creation of an article, like protection is?) And what would constitute a Wiki-PR related article? An article we're suspicious about but cannot prove? (This particular article, it gives me the impression that it was from another source--possible a university Press Agent--the style is different, tho I think it better not to say just how. Of course, they could have learned to imitate it.) DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think pending changes can prevent creation of a new article. This would be weird. I think some sort of protection may be required, the question is whether it is semi or full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be no defence against Morning277: their stooges know enough to get auto-confirmed when necessary. Whoever closes the AfD can decide about full protection. I don't myself think it's necessary, as many people will now have this title on watchlists, and any re-creation will set off all sorts of alarm bells.

I came here mainly to see if there was any objection to blocking the two SPAs. There has been none, and TParis above agrees that in these cases suspicion (which is all we can get) is enough, so I have blocked both as probable paid editors and sockpuppets. It is possible, as DGG says, that they are good-faith contributors from a University PR department, but in that case it is odd that, over 24 hours after being notified of the AfD and this discussion, neither has commented. Also, I do not believe they are new users: Ssbokc (talk · contribs) posted the compete article, neatly formatted with in-line references, in his first and only edit, and Kevinpoised (talk · contribs) knew enough to wikilawyer about WP:PROF #5 in his third edit. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sfan00_IMG - Taking a break before my Wikistress gets too high

AN Can't solve this issue --Guerillero | My Talk 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see the top of User_talk:Sfan00_IMG, Certain events in the last few days, not least "disruptive-actions" by a specfic user, have convinced me that it's time to take an extended break, until specific individuals and organisations are prepared to accept accountability, and make active efforts to apologise. I am not happy, and dissapointed that there are still those within this project that cannot accept that some things are simply unacceptable. I am making this notifcation to WP:AN because whilst very disappointed, I remain optimistic that there are still a majority of trusted people within the community that are prepared to hold indviduals and organisations to account, and will implement the tough measures needed to refocus the project so that it is once again a neutral encyclopedia, and not another website on which individuals and organisations abuses in promoting various agendas (be they political, extremist or troll). The admins and community already know what tough measures are needed, but it seems at times lack the ambition to implement them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) It would be a lot easier to reassure you, or summon you back, or whatever you're hoping for us to do, if we had any idea what you were talking about. I, at least, do not. I'm sorry you're disillusioned with the project, but there's really nothing actionable - or admin-notification-related - in this post. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG, for editor retention's sake, you might want to copy paste this entire thing over to the Editor Retention talk page and delete the post here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution question

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople who died during their careers was closed as delete and I agree that was the correct reading of the consensus. Only problem is that before that article was deleted it was forked to create List of Australian rules footballers who died during their playing careers. My understanding is that when List of sportspeople who died during their careers still existed it was OK attribution-wise to just have a wikilink in the history of the new page, but now it's been deleted there is a problem that this new page doesn't meet our attribution licenses. So my question here is what should be done to fix this? I had a read of Wikipedia:Merge and delete, but it didn't seem really clear about which method is preferable and the two I am really familiar with (simply restoring as redirect and histmerging) don't seem appropriate here. Pinging Daniel and The-Pope in case they're interested. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As a quick bandage, we could do an out of process history merge and just ditch the 2 conflicting revisions that occurred between the time of the fork, and the deletion of the original. The only other choice is to restore the original, and just leave it somewhere (we can move it out of the way) as a redirect to the fork. The bigger problem is that our practice of treating a link to the old content as adequate attribution is a poor implementation of the creative commons attribution license. In particular, if off wiki parties follow our practice, and copy work from Wikipedia, using only a link to the history for attribution, we are under no special obligation to keep the history undeleted, but if we delete it, the people who copied off wiki are now in violation of the license due to our action. Obviously we can mitigate that onwiki by not deleting a history, but its not a very robust way of protecting the attribution history, as illustrated here. Monty₈₄₅ 13:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, I would prefer not to do a histmerge in this case. I know it would fix the attribution, but it butchers the page history a little in the sense of actually seeing how the page was created. That could just be me being a pedant though and wanting everything looking neat. Thinking on it some more, I'd prefer to restore it and then move it to somewhere like Australian rules footballers who died during their playing careers where it can exist as a redirect to the new article, but I'm open to other people saying "no, you idiot, a histmerge would be much better". I also agree with you that this is symptomatic of a larger issue. As an aside, because 'bigdelete' was needed to delete the page, can it still be restored by any old admin? Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we move it without a redirect, the original attribution still breaks. We can "fix" that by adding a latter attribution edit summary, and talk page notices, but its still a less than ideal result. Monty₈₄₅ 14:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I meant to say that we'd then add a {{copied}} to the talk page, but as you say that is probably less than ideal too. Maybe a histmerge is the way to go, much as I'm not really a fan of doing it for things where the page content has drastically changed. Anyone know about the 'bigdelete' question? Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To complicate matters further, I'm planning to create an equivalent forked list for cricketers too, which could complicate any redirect solution, unless we make multiple redirect history only sources. The main delete argument was "too vague, not well defined parameters for inclusion". Single sport lists however can have very precise parameters for inclusion, hence the forks. As to the attribution, yeah, I can see how that is a problem. Time for a Deleted: name space to hold this sort of data? The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• The page history must be restored, {{split from}} must be added to the talk page, if additional splits are made then additional {{split from}} must be added to the talk page and I would suggest the page become a WP:DAB. But the history must be restored. (Additionally, the page the text was copied to must have {{split to}} on its talk page.) Rgrds. --64.85.217.15 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea. What would you see being listed on the page to make it a plausible dab? Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jenks24: The DAB suggestion was in response to The-Pope's statement that they were "planning to create an equivalent forked list for cricketers too". This would also accommodate future splittings/forkings or whatnot as discussed in the AfD. Although, in hindsight, DAB is the incorrect terminology; I see I really meant a SETINDEX. The main page should be tagged with Template:Sport index. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.106 (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I like it. And looking through Category:Death-related lists there seem to be several other lists that could also be included in this set index. Assuming no one has any objections for a while I'll give it a crack at restoring and then converting to a set index. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Copy the original history page and post it on the new page. All that is needed per the license is a list of authors for attribution. We do not need who did which edits.--v/r - TP 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • All 3600-odd revisions? And I do note that Wikipedia:Merge and delete recommends against this practice. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• History merge the relevant reviosions into the current page, to maintain the attribution part of the license. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is sort of nullified due to the planned splitting of an additional page, which is why I believe a WP:SETINDEX may be more appropriate. Rgrds. --64.85.215.106 (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, before I got edit-conflicted (I wrote this comment very slowly!), I was going to say: how about moving it (along with the old talk page) to lists of sportspeople who died during their careers, and use that page to provide a list of these articles about this subject (the Aussie rules one, the future cricket one, etc)? That would be the neatest solution. And to answer the question above, yes the page could be undeleted by any admin. Graham87 11:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Good point. The page move is also necessary: from "List of..." to "Lists of..." (singular to plural). @Jenks24: When you restore the page, please move it to the plural "Lists of...." Rgrds. --64.85.215.106 (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done! (Or at least I think so anyway.) Got a gateway timeout trying to undelete it all but it seems to have worked out alright. Please feel free to take a look at Lists of sportspeople who died during their careers – I think this was my first time writing a set index so chances are there are improvements that could be made. Thanks to everyone who gave their advice, Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice on images please

I am a newly registered editor (but long time IP reader and sometimes editor), and have come across an image which I noted has EXIF data different to the date the photo was taken. I also noted that the EXIF data does not have a camera model. I applied CSF F11 to the photo to ensure the person is the copyright holder. They have since left a message on my talk page saying that they are the copyright holder and they took the photo. I assume good faith and was going to remove the notice from the image. Before doing so I did a quick search and I found this photograph. The photo uploaded to Wikipedia has had its colours modified, a crop at the bottom and has been reversed (look at the blue logo in the background). I want to continue to assume good faith with this editor, so I am turning to administrators for advice on how to continue from here. I won't leave the editor a message, just yet, advising them of this post as I don't want them to think they are in trouble, which I hope they are not. Help appreciated. PNGWantok (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a response to my talkpage to the editor. I will try to work with them through the issue. Any help to me and the editor would be nice. PNGWantok (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Heads up - EFF Wikipedia "Hackathon" coming up

[49] Saw this cross my twitter feed, and basically it's to encourage editors to improve articles on WP, using internet cafes and other sites to gather. As such we could see large # of edits on some articles from similar IPs during this time which should be considered under this. The event is planned for Aug 23, 2014. I note this is more aimed at Spanish text but en.wiki might see some. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with Administrator who is vandalizing?

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

Closing duplicate discussion; head over to ANI for main discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello,

The user Deb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deb) is vandalizing the May 22 wikipedia page by constantly reverting to her edit which deletes many legitimate entries. I have tried posting on her talk page and she still continues to revert to her edits. Her edits are illegitimate deletions.

This user must be stopped. She is behaving in a malicious and inconsiderate manner, yet she is also an administrator. Where can I solicit help for this situation? I tried posting in the AIV page but an administrator told me that they were not going to block another admin.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to some of these edits? From a cursory perusal, all I see is her reverting one edit because it didn't have an edit summary. (That's a ridiculously dumb reason, but it's only one edit.) Tezero (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. [[50]] Look at the red edits; she has reverted once and made serious deletions twice (-564 and -2,446) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, so you'd just discuss things on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is vandalism. Please read the vandalism guidelines again. Removal of legitimate content is vandalism. She is pretending to use criteria for deletion, but the entries she deleted do NOT actually meet that criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a definition of vandalism. See: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Now, be specific and please provide a diff of the actions you feel violate the mentioned vandalism policy. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To quote the rest of the line from WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." There are lots of reasons someone acting in good faith could remove legitimate content. As you have not tried to talk to Deb about it, there is no reason not to WP:AGF. For it to be vandalism, we first must believe the editor was acting in bad faith, and there is nothing to support that here. Monty₈₄₅ 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way...I still believe both parties are in a slow moving edit war and Deb made one revert which I question, so it isn't as if they are without fault at all....but as I have said, it is not vandalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deb made several edits that I question. Look at the history page of May 22, and the recent red scores. Those were Deb's three recent edits in which she deleted several legitimate people from the births section. This may actually be disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP is forum shopping, having also posted at WP:ANI. The OP has never used edit summaries, except when they are defaulted. The OP has repeatedly been told that the deletion of content in a content dispute is not vandalism. Advice to the OP: The unfounded allegation of vandalism is a personal attack, and a very strong personal attack. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what isn't vandalism. Discuss with the administrator on the talk page, or be aware that otherwise you will be blocked, probably indefinitely, for not listening. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted on two forums because I was told to try those forums out by an admin. And McClenon, please read the messages I made before replying. As I've already stated, I believe Deb was using the single lack of edit summary as an excuse to revert that edit. But she has made SEVERAL attempts to delete legitimate content. Take a look at the history page of May 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not forum shopping as this was also a referral from DRN by me on their talk page...twice, as was the same advice given by another editor from the other board. But, if no diffs can be provided and no further explanation of violations, I see this as having no legs.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have provided diffs already. Here are some more.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621890314&oldid=621873503

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621599760&oldid=621449085

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=620641489&oldid=620283312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well...if I understand that first diff (and I don't always get the information right that can be technical in nature) this appears to be a pending change that was also...not vandalism by the OP. So...that could well be something to be concerned with...if that is what that is. But if this is not a pattern with Deb it could also just garner a quick and friendly warning that reviewer rights are dependent on following the guidelines for such a review of pending changes. I will look at the others.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No other issues that I can see. I will check further to see if the Admin truly declined a pending change that they were involved in and was not blatant vandalism. But, other than that I see no issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, it does appear to me that the Deb may indeed have declined non vandalism in an article they were heavily involved with...more than once. I ask for administrative attention to this history to verify this much and if so, that Deb be warned or, have reviewer rights removed if accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One last thing from me. Pending Changes is not a policy or a guideline and I am not even sure if admin really have reviewer rights as they probably have the ability to review without the actual reviewer rights. this really needs admin eyes just to be sure but, at minimum, I don't think Deb was declining over the the reasons stated for reviewers: "to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content". Of course...if I am wrong please beat me about the brow as you see fit.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP did not notify Deb so I have left the template, but if there is nothing more I think a simple warning to deb that they should not decline pending changes unless they fall under the scope of the pending changes page and that they probably shouldn't be using their admin tools or reviewer rights in this manner...if what I see is accurate. I could still be wrong. Anywhoo....--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What about her disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I would say that Deb's disruptive editing was intentional, and borders on vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And it's not really an edit war, as all I attempted to do was restore things to before she made deletions. I am not trying to "override" her "contributions" which are not really contributions but involve her deleting legitimate stuff then adding something minor to use an excuse for her deletions. That is a "hidden" form of disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

DYK overdue

Did you know needs to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC) via Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK overdue

Did you know needs to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC) via Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Appealing block conditions

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

---

I was unblocked from editing Wikipedia in January 2014 under various conditions which are available here. Two of these conditions was that I was prohibited from uploading any files claimed as my own work. I also may only upload files which are not claimed as your own work via the Files for upload process. You may not upload any files outside this process. These prohibitions may be appealed at here no earlier than 07/08/2014. It's the 15/08/2014 and I would like to appeal these said prohibitions. I have adhered to the rules imposed on me since January and have followed Wikipedia's rules to a tee. I have no interest in breaking them and would like to remain a member of the community. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have a background question for you: Did you actually upload any files through the FFU process, and if so, which images? VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ashton_29/Archive - This is extensive. It gives me pause. I see in your unblock request that you say you are not using socks anymore. I will take your word for that. I have not examined your contributions in detail but I have seen your talk page history and it does seem that you have not run afoul of your restrictions at all. I am on the fence. Chillum 05:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm going to support lifting the restriction. However I would point out that your FFU requests indicate CC 3.0, when in fact most of the ones I've checked have been CC 2.0. I don't see where anyone has pointed it out to you, and the actual uploads have ended up properly tagged. Just be careful with that in the future. Monty₈₄₅ 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral only because I haven't studied the details of the restrictions on his uploading of files (so that I won't oppose). However, I cannot support any further easing of restrictions on someone with a long (even if old) history of being a sockmaster. He should realize that he has gotten off easy being unblocked at all in January, with his long history of disruptive sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: "He should realize that he has gotten off easy being unblocked at all in January, with his long history of disruptive sock-puppetry." How is this operationalized? Should Ashton 29 not request an appeal of their unblock conditions? Should they be more contrite when doing so? Is it your position that these restrictions stay in place in perpetuity so that Ashton can learn their lesson? Protonk (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think that anybody who has a long history of sock-puppetry can be trusted on anything. I am usually in favor of giving disruptive or tendentious editors a second chance or a third chance. I don't apply the same logic to serial sock-puppeteers. Maybe he has learned. Some editors believe that every editor should be given another chance. I usually believe that, but repeat sock-puppetry is a particularly serious offense. That is my logic. Maybe some editors think that sock-puppetry is part of the game. I don't. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, "Fool us once, shame on you; fool us a few dozen times, shame on everyone"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ashton 29 is still insufficiently careful in his use of others' work. A quick look at his current talk page shows 13 FFU requests since mid-May, of which 2 were rejected. (Both involved Flickr images; one had been uploaded to Flickr as a copyvio, and one was a duplicate of an image already on Commons.) As noted by Monty845, many of the successful FFU requests also provided incorrect license information.

Also troubling, about ten days ago he was flagged copy-pasting text from an external site into Adelaide Hills (wine).

Text from Ashton 29: "...While the first vines were planted in this area in the 1840s, the influx of boutique wineries in the 1970s introduced the area to bottlings of sparkling wine, Chardonnay, Riesling and Pinot noir. The area is beginning to see success with Cabernet franc, Merlot, Sangiovese, Sauvignon blanc, Semillon and Shiraz. The cool climate of this region encourages winemakers to use malolactic fermentation to help tame some of the wines' naturally high acidity...."

Text from external site: "...While the first vines were planted in this area in the 1840s, the influx of boutique wineries in the 1970s introduced the area to successful bottling’s of sparkling wine, Chardonnay, Riesling and Pinot noir. The area is starting to see success with Cabernet franc, Merlot, Sangiovese, Sauvignon Blanc, Semillon and Shiraz. The cool climate of this region encourages winemakers to use malolactic fermentation to help tame some of the wines' naturally high acidity...."

Ashton 29 was notified immediately by CorenSearchBot, but he has yet to take any steps to correct this problem. Taken together, I cannot recommend an easing of his restrictions at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

On the rejected FFU submissions, I don't think the one that was already at commons should count against them. As for the other, if this wasn't someone who should be taking extra care, I would say that an editor could be taking an appropriate level of care and miss something like that note on flicker; though I can also see how you might demand a higher level of care from someone who is subject to such a restriction. Monty₈₄₅ 20:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who intends to be a prolific uploader of images should be taking extra care to get the licenses right—something that he isn't doing. (That includes, as you noticed, on images that survived FFU.) Given that these restrictions were originally placed because he had been falsely claiming other people's work as his own, the fact that he is copy-pasting content into articles – and can't be bothered to clean up after himself when it's pointed out to him – is not a good sign.

Actually, I've just taken a closer at the article, and I'm having trouble finding a single word he wrote himself, rather than copied from somewhere else. I'm deleting it as a WP:CSD#G12. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to address a few things. Particularly the two FFU rejections and copyright content on Adelaide Hills. As far as uploads go, one of the images already existed on Wikipedia but I had no knowledge of that because of the process that I have to use. If I used the regular uploader it would have told me that the file already existed. I only found out it already existed on the website after I went back to check the status of my request and I believe once I had realised it was already on Wikipedia, I removed my upload request. I am unaware which image was a copyvio and would like someone to point that out to me and provide me with a link so I can explain. It's very likely, no it's actually definite that I would not have intentionally uploaded copyvio because this would obviously jeopardise my chances of remaining unblocked on this website. Also, no, nobody pointed out to me that my requests were CC 3.0 but the uploads were different. When I request an upload, I'm usually meticulous in checking that the requested license matches the one on the Flickr page, so I don't understand how most of the ones you've checked have been contradicted licenses. The main thing is that they ended up on Wikipedia with the correct license tags, though.

As for the Adelaide Hills article, most of that text I took was from a related Wikipedia article (South Australian wine) and I had no idea it was copyrighted from another website/external source. That is the editor who pasted it onto South Australian wine's fault and I don't know who nor when that was. You can go to that article and see where I got the text from here. I'd like to state again, I did not know this text was lifted from another website, I assumed it was Wikipedia's content as it is from a Wikipedia article! I'm going to be more careful with what information I select from certain Wiki articles from now on and anything I type while be my own words, not words from any other article since the possibility of entirely original writing can be so tenuous. Also, I find it interesting that TenOfAllTrades states that he had "trouble finding a single word he wrote himself, rather than copied from somewhere else." The only bit copied from elsewhere was the bit already mentioned. I wrote the rest myself.

My intentions are good, honestly, and it's a some of you cannot see that. Why can't it be recognised that the aforementioned slip ups (the two FFU uploads and the Adelaide Hills article) throughout the past 8 months were accidental. I have no interest in sock puppetry and have completely learned my lesson with regard to that. There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily. Like I've stated, and thought I demonstrated since January, I'm trying to be a constructive Wikipedia member. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, the guidelines for copying Wikipedia content within Wikipedia articles are here. Flagging the copying in (at least) the edit summary can help avoid attribution issues like this. In passing, thanks for also removing the copyvio from the related article. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do so in future! Ashton 29 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the external site says (copyright 2013), and at least some of the material at our article seems to have been here since 2007. By Nov 2012, our article had pretty much all the content. Whilst that in itself is not conclusive (I haven't established exactly when the external site really added the material) - I'd say it might very well be unclear just which way the "copyvio" actually goes here, and we should probably be careful what we assume.
There's nothing at webarchive.org for lannister.com.au prior to 2013, and an Australian ABN search says LANNISTER GROUP PTY LTD was created 2012 (Dec) - though the content could have been at a different url prior to that, or it may have come from here, a mirror, or another copy. This kind of uncertainty often occurs when old content is copied/mirrored. Of course, that's why always getting the attribution right is vital, even when copying within wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 08:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

(Looking at the history of our article at South Australian wine, one also wonders if some of the phrasing is actually lifted from the sources cited there: The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia and The Oxford Companion to Wine. In particular, the phrase about malolactic fermentation feels very specific and 'dropped in' without much context. That qualm doesn't bear on the Ashton's request, however.)

I remain concerned about the "wrote the rest of it myself". The passage Ashton copied from the South Australian wine article is larger than the section I quoted above, and constitutes most of the article. The small remainder comprises some puffery (the first sentence of the article was "The Adelaide Hills are internationally renewed for its wine production.", which contains at least two errors) and a borrowed phrase from another external source.

From Ashton's edit: "The region...has produced 90 wine labels with over 40 cellar doors."

From the external source [51]: "...over 90 wine labels and 48 cellar doors...".

While Ashton did cite the source, this remains problematic from a number of perspectives. First, it changes what the source says, from "over 90 wine labels" to "90 wine labels" – which is incorrect – and from "48 cellar doors" to "over 40 cellar doors"—which is at least still correct, but less precise. Second, it seems to be trying to reuse another author's metaphors and turns of phrase (the rather artful talk of "cellar doors" instead of "wineries") while mangling the passage just enough that quotation marks can't be used. Third, the effort to launder and use the borrowed metaphors would have been better spent writing a clear and unambiguous paraphrase, e.g. "In 2014, the region's 48 wineries produced more than 90 different wines."

I wouldn't harp on this so much if this sort of borrowing weren't evident in other parts of his recent history. At Maggie Beer yesterday, for instance, Ashton made

this edit: ""Her parents faced issues with bankruptcy as she was growing up and re-invented themselves as caterers."

based on this source: "...her parents who, after going through the trials and tribulations of bankruptcy re-invented themselves as caterers."

Again, a totally unnecessary reuse of someone else's turn of phrase. Is there really no other way to become a caterer than to re-invent oneself? To be clear, I attribute no malice to Ashton's actions. But I cannot recommend relaxing restrictions on an editor who has not (yet) internalized the necessary attitude and skills to properly respect the work of others. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh - it's funny you mention that. I did look at the history of the wine article a little, and, yes, I suspect the 2 "sources" you mention may have been quoted from somewhat "enthusiastically", shall we say. As you say, that's not really pertinent to this request, and sadly, probably not uncommon, either.
Back on the subject of this request, I suppose, yes, I'd still be quite concerned that the copyright awareness still isn't there. I also looked at the SPI, and that is a massive amount of disruptive socking, which still makes me nervous, that not being helped much by the comment above - "There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily.", which might just be unfortunately worded, but seems to beg the question: "...and if you did think you could get away with it...?" If that sounds too strong an interpretation - yes, it may be - but it nags me it may speak to a mindset, in a way, so I've voiced it. As I say, I'm a little nervous about this. It's awkward, because the socking isn't really part of what's being asked - but neither do I find myself 100% able to look at the scale of it, and discount it from my thoughts. That's why I'd still be firmly on the fence. Sorry if that doesn't help, in the end. Begoon ^talk 16:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, the edit summary of "If casual editors are going to edit Wikipedia, then at least learn how to do it properly" for this minor correction: [52] doesn't seem like the kind of message we should be leaving for an IP editor who introduced that small issue as part of this series of a dozen edits: [53]. Perhaps Ashton might consider something along the lines of "fixed minor bracket error" next time, so as not to WP:BITE a user making positive contributions. There's still, it seems, a whiff of "ownership" in edits concerning images on Australian articles, which is worrying. Begoon ^talk 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Looking at the first edit ("The region...has produced 90 wine labels with over 40 cellar doors.") I don't see any problem. The number of labels and cellars is a fact and, provided the source is cited, is difficult to plagiarize. Sure, the order could be reversed or the sentence otherwise disguised, but there are only so many ways to state a fact about a subject. The second edit is a bit more like close paraphrasing, but remove the word "re-invented" and we're back to describing a fact. Protonk (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is how the numbers (the facts) are actually changed, though, surely. "Over 90" is changed to "90", and "48" is changed to "over 40". That's unnecessarily imprecise, and in the latter case inexplicably arbitrary, and shows that the skill of knowing what to rephrase and what not to is maybe lacking. It's not completely horrible, but when these factual things are altered, whilst creative phrasing by the author is copied without alteration, such as in the "re-invented" example, it suggests that while Ashton knows he "has to change something" so as not to plagiarise, he still lacks some skill and care in identifying how to properly do that and still remain faithful to the source. Begoon ^talk 16:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Of your last 10 FFU requests, all 10 have the wrong license version listed in the license field indicating Creative Commons 3.0, when they are in fact 2.0. Your link to license information leads to the correct 2.0 license. 3 requests, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The image being mentioned as a copy vio, is Image at flicker archived request. The problem with the image is that information on the Flikr page indicates the person uploading it probably did not have the authority to release it under a creative commons license because it says Image courtesy the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Honestly, its ambiguous at best, while its true that the uploader is not the copyright holder, it is possible, but unlikely, that the image was release to the uploader by the government under a creative commons license. Monty₈₄₅ 11:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would note that the preload templates for the forms Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Preload/Attribution-SA actually have a comment in the code <!-- You should be OK to leave the above section alone --> below the 3.0 license template this is in error in your requests. Maybe we should add a warning that flikr uses 2.0 to that. Monty₈₄₅ 11:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the incorrect license issue is happening because I have to use the FFU process and there are only two options for Creative Commons and I have taken a screenshot of them here: [54]. Not to mention the <!-- You should be OK to leave the above section alone --> message.TenOfAllTrades questioned that because I made the statement "There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily.", that I may possibly engage in sock puppetry if the process wasn't so easy to detect. That's simply not true and I believe you are taking advantage of what I said (or rather, the part that I didn't say). Of course I wouldn't do it, even if I could get away with it. I understand that the way I worded that was alarming, but I didn't intend to give it any malicious subtext or allude to the fact that I would do it again. Honestly, I have no interest in breaking the rules around here. It took me a long time to learn this, and during that time I did partake in extensive sock puppetry. That was then, and what we should be addressing is my behaviour now. The copyright text was just lazy editing on my behalf, and also probably the fault of the author who put it into the Adelaide Hills from either the sourced books or the external website. Who is to tell the external website didn't copy it from somewhere itself? I also find the reference to my edit on Maggie Beer a bit arbitrary or inconsequential - it's not plagiarism, the wording has been altered and it's suppose to give an outline on how her family's financial hardship have played a role in her career. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't TOAT who pointed out your "socking" statement, it was me, and I did give the proviso that you may have just badly worded it. It's one of a couple of concerns I outlined, including one with an edit summary, which you haven't addressed, and I also said that they result in me being "nervous", and "on the fence", not opposed. I certainly wasn't trying to "take advantage" of anything (whatever that means, in this context), just giving voice to how I personally reacted to that statement, along with an explanation and some pretty extensive caveats. Begoon ^talk 09:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the edit summary, it is not my intention to be hard on editors who are just trying to help, but I really don't like lazy editing and obvious mistakes. I admit I certainly make them myself from time to time and in future I will not leave such comments and just fix the errors instead, with an impersonal message in the edit summary (e.g. "fixed minor bracket error"). All I'm asking for is a chance, given my January 2014 broke repeal and the conditions in it. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Depression Quest

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

---

I'm bringing this here for review, just in case. I just semi-protected the article Depression Quest for three days, because there was a flurry of vandalism that looked like the start of a coordinated attack. Zoe Quinn, the developer of Depression Quest, has been subject to harassment online recently, and the vandalism is probably an extension of that. (Her page is already semi-protected, and is subject of a thread at BLPN.) The problem is that I am the creator of the Depression Quest article, so my protection could be argued to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. I thought that the obvious nature of the vandalism was enough to make this fall under the "any reasonable administrator" clause in that policy, but I would be happy to remove or adjust the protection if others here think that would be best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that you are involved. The question is, is that an OK admin action. I would have thought it better for you to alert an uninvolved admin to take action but I am unclear if this was wrong or not. Interesting and much appreciated for making this post.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would post at WP:RFPP and wait for an uninvolved admin to do this, but given the rate and the nature of the vandalism I thought that the article should be protected sooner rather than later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Endorse - I've been involved in fending off all the vandalism and BLP violations too, so I'm also involved, but I support your move under the "any reasonable" clause. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't personally touched the article but going by how Zoe's name is being made a mess of in social media circles, a semi-prot seems reasonable if there's IP's trying to reflect that on the article for her game. It's not wrong if you're involved with the article and are trying to prevent disruption particularly in relation to BLP-type issues. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse - I think the open and transparent nature of the protection along with the post here seems more than reasonable and I support the actions of Mr. Stradivarius.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Any reasonable administrator would have made substantially the same decision with regard to protecting the article. Where we have really really unambiguous vandalism, as we do here, I think acting while involved, and then seeking prompt review is fine. Monty₈₄₅ 02:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, my position is more permissive than the actual policy at WP:INVOLVED which deals directly with this in the third paragraph, for anyone who wants to see the actual policy. Monty₈₄₅ 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Per WP:BLPREMOVE: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. I should have known that as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch to call the edits BLP violations. While the person may be getting attacked elsewhere, the edits to the article that got protected were attacks on the product, not the person, plus some straight up vandalism that didn't attack anything. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Excessive topic-ban

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

---

I was given permission by the Administrator, Nick, to bring this matter to AN here.

Due to a dispute in the article Ghost in the Shell, Salvidrim! felt i was disruptive and had banned me from the article. If he feels so, fine....I'm not going to argue over it. However, i believe Salvidrim! over-stepped a bit. Salvidrim! has also topic banned me from Ghost in the Shell (manga), and Ghost in the Shell (video game).

The video game article has never been up for dispute nor disruption, and i have always been the main contributor. In fact, i just recently put it up for peer review, here to consider putting up in FAC, which i find too much of a coincidence and highly unreasonable. The manga has been relieved more than a while ago and since then, the article has barely been touched by me (mainly because the article looks fine).

As you can see here, Salvidrim! isn't really answering the questions i have, and i feel the response is lacking of what an admin should give. So i would like this to be reviewed primarily by what is allowed by the members under the current probation. I think the more appropriate way is focusing on the issue, not just make punishment for punishment sake. other members have seen the core of the issue. I believe right now, Ryulong specifically has an incredible advantage over Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga), by merging them, despite not being the main contributor, nor technically having the consensus. You can see my extensive comment on the situation here.

On a lighter note, (but not what i'm most concerned about): i feel the "indefinite" probation seems rather excessive (then again, i found a lot of issues in the past were taken care of excessively). I was more than happy when the appropriate topic/two-way interaction ban (not one-way) works REALLY well...and since then, i have been able to edit well and quicker, and even other editors have noticed my recent contributions. And i don't have to stress about members talking me and feeding fire to it all while i'm biting my tongue...it really takes care of the core issue. This however, i don't feel is necessary, just being excessive. Lucia Black (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I personally would not have restricted you from the other two pages, as the dispute that resulted in the restriction is pretty focused on just Ghost in the Shell. However in the application of a sanction like this, the question should be whether the administrative action was reasonable, not what I would due if I replaced the judgement of the sanctioning admin with my own. One of the goals of the probation is to avoid the need to have a discussion, so overriding a decision should only be done if it is clearly wrong. In that light, I think the 3 page topic ban is well within reasonable admin discretion. I might slightly encourage User:Salvidrim! to reduce the topic ban to the one page, but don't think there is a case for the community overriding that discretion. Monty₈₄₅ 06:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • He would have need extensive consensus to do so, either way as its outside of "automatic topic ban" that he's allowed to do. So i genuinely feel like there is a case....it may not be the biggest case, but i am bringing up valid points. Lucia Black (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your inability to comment on a merge I may or may not propose has no bearing on your topic ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past, you've merged without Consensus. So, what i'm saying is that

Endorse Topic Ban - If you look at the terms of the sanctions against Lucia, all it says is that it has to be an admin who feels she's being disruptive. She's been arguing with a battleground mentality for months there now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We probably share same kind of opinion about this complaint and user. I admire your skills of evaluating and drawing conclusions, Lucia has been also engaged in misinterpreting a number of users. I think that topic ban on 3 pages was a good idea, from "endorse ban" you mean WP:BANNED or you were talking about the topic ban? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I had only really meant Salv's topic ban. (I'd technically support both honestly, but there was no consensus to indef block/ban her last time that discussion was had, so I don't especially want to push for it now.) I've amended my first comment to make that clearer. Thanks for having me clear that up. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I will concede that extending to ban to the other two GITS pages seems like a bit broad, but there is ample history of unproductive disputes on all pages of this topic, which led to Lucia's probation and IBAN, as well as at least one previous pageban under the probation (applied by User:Nick). I felt it there was a more-than-reasonable probability that banning Lucia from the one page currently causing issue would cause the disruptive editing to carry on over to other GITS pages. I also stopped short of an actual GITS topic-ban because the wording of the probation specifies that she can be banned from pages and not topics, and I wanted to avoid seeing this reversed on a technicality. Lucia needs to realize we are putting these things (IBAN, probation, pagebans) in place to avoid having to ban/indef her entirely. As I explained to Lucia, the fact that she still sees disputes as combats that she can win or lose proves she is unable to conduct herself in a manner respectful of Wikipedia's behavioral policies. She also repeats this sentiment above, talking about how Ryulong now "has an advantage" despite "not being the main contributor". This convinces me that, at the very least, the indefinite probation currently in effect is still a perfectly appropriate remedy. I will not oppose removing the current pagebans from all but the main object of the dispute if the community thinks it is too broad a sanction. I would support a one-way (Lucia>Ryulong) IBAN. I would support a two-way Lucia<>Ryulong IBAN if Ryulong agrees to it. I agree with Ryulong that these IBANs would be potentially useless, but I think they can't hurt in trying to maintain a positive atmosphere. I would potentially, weakly support a proposition for a siteban+indef block for Lucia, as I think far too much time has been wasted in dealing with the drama that she seems to attract relentlessly, but I do not think that we are necessarily at this point yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Salvidrim!: The idea of indefinite bans, shows this isn't about how "disruptive" i am or how much you're preventing. Most of this seems mostly punitive rather than preventative. A topic ban of Ghost in the Shell, would've been plenty already, but the others just ostracize anyone from providing a consensus or establishing "no-consensus".

You know my history, but we also know how much it correlates to other members who have been equally (if not more) disruptive (even without me). Like i said, the topic-ban to the article you believe i was disruptive is more than enough. There is no "technicality", just misinterpretation. The point is to ban me from the articles i'm being disruptive...not to ban whichever one you want.

Whether you like me or not, shouldn't be a point Lucia Black (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Not this (Redacted) again. LB, I'm going to say this the same way that I said it to Ryulong, and to the other editor you love to conflict with. We don't give two rats asses who started it, who is contesting it, or who has an unfair advantage. What we do care about is seeing the persistent and perennial drama crops with respect to Japanese Culture (Anime/Manga/Video Games/Etc) and the 3 referenced editors to stop. Demonstrate that you can behave yourself and craft a appeal that addresses problems the community has identified with your actions. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support extended topic ban based primarily on this filing. Before posting here, Lucia should have read the boomerang essay. I don't know much about Japanese animation other than that it causes conflict between certain editors including Ryulong and Lucia. I know Ryulong enough from other areas to know that he gets into too many controversies, but that he is usually right and that he is primarily concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Lucia's post here does not focus on the quality of the encyclopedia, but on whether the topic ban gives Ryulong an unfair advantage. In other words, it appears that she is more concerned about her antagonism for another editor than about the encyclopedia in general. Based on her own arguments, I Support the extended topic ban. She is fortunate not to have a one-way interaction ban imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Like i said, my "disruption" has always correlated between specific members who are equally (and again, if not more) as disruptive, so i know my actions, i just feel a lot of times its looked at in a very specific perspective. this isn't about whether Ryulong is right or wrong, you don't need to know how familiar with anime/manga media, all you have to do is know the topic well. but i'm not here to discuss the issue....after all, i am "banned" from it, however, i am here to contest the other two articles that have nothing to do with my disruption. the Ghost int he Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) article neither have received any disruption by me, and i have done nothing but contribute to those articles.

@Robert McClenon: What exactly do you want me to get out of WP:BOOMERANG that is related to this situation? All i'm asking is that they topic-ban "appropriately" by only keeping Ghost in the Shell topic ban, and wait and see if i ever become "disruptive" over the other two. And so far no one has proven that this is "NOT" punitive. What i'm most concerned about is the article, but at the moment, am i even in a position to even discuss it? I'm not even trying to appeal for the current article, that Salvidrim believes i'm being disruptive.

In this case, your post requesting a limitation of the topic-ban is itself the boomerang. You, Lucia, gave as your reason for requesting the restriction of the topic-ban that the extended topic-ban gave Ryulong an "incredible advantage" over you in a possible merge, not yet proposed. You didn't emphasize the value to the encyclopedia, but your long-standing contention with Ryulong. It is true that you wrote the request stating your real reason for requesting the limitations on the ban, a contention with another editor. However, that isn't a reason of the good of the encyclopedia. As other editors have said, you (Lucia) don't pay attention to responses to your requests. We do answer your questions. You just apparently don't consider disagreement to be an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

why isn't what i'm asking for isn't fair or appropriate? Lucia Black (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the general flow of just about all the discussions that go unfavorably for Lucia. She proposes something. It's opposed for a variety of legitimate reasons. She doesn't agree with them, and then proceeds to not to acknowledge them. She'll just continue to act like no one has given an actual reason. It's one of the reasons her talk page arguments go on forever. This very discussion demonstrates why Salvidrim's actions were a good, preventative choice. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• For clarity, I oppose an anime/manga/VG topic ban as Lucia rarely edits outside those areas (she would be lost without them, I'd wager) and in my experience has been helpful overall there. I'm neutral on a GitS topic ban; I'd think how deep into the bedrock this discussion has sunk would set her straight, even if it wouldn't change her personal anger at the subject, but she has been obstinate and gotten warnings on the topic before. Tezero (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many threads about Japanese entertainment

Lucia Black and others: There have been too many threads here and at WP:ANI about Japanese entertainment. It doesn't seem to be such a contentious area, but there are certain editors who can't get along, including one who is usually right and who makes positive contributions to the encyclopedia. At some point, someone will get tired of all these disruptive threads, and will conclude that the only remaining forum is the ArbCom. Lucia: Every complaint that you bring here, and especially every complaint that you bring here that is poorly founded and where you won't listen, is one more step toward the issue going to ArbCom. Can you (Lucia) infer what will happen when ArbCom accepts the case? The first action, which will be a near-certainty, because it is what ArbCom does when there are conduct issues in a content area, is discretionary sanctions, optional one-uninvolved-admin draconian restrictions on editing. Do you really want discretionary sanctions? The second action, since Lucia Black is the editor who doesn't listen and doesn't learn, is a topic-ban on Japanese entertainment in general. Lucia: Do you really want to complain and complain and complain until you get topic-banned? I don't think so. Then stop pushing. If you keep pushing, the area will go to ArbCom, there will be discretionary sanctions, and a topic-ban for Lucia Black is very likely. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I assure you that Japanese Entertainment is a broad assumption. there has always been a specific range that has in WP:ANI between me, Ryulong, and the other member. I cover mostly media such as anime/manga and video games, Ryulong does very minor edits to those, mostly relating to format. The fact that you mention "including one who is actually right and who make positive contributions to the encyclopedia" shows me a lot of things on where your stance and reasoning is based on. It shows me this isn't out of whether my contributions are bad or not to merit a topic ban as broad, but because you know User:Ryulong's edits, and you personally feel he makes only good contributions t not even question it. And because i mentioned this allows Ryulong to get consensus by default, (not a true consensus), it shows more. And i'm not even misconstruing. SO here's my questions: What edits to Wikipedia have i done that have affected it negatively and it wont be cleared until i'm banned from anime/manga articles?

What makes this particular case "unfounded"? i have not made any disruption toward Ghost in the Shell (manga) nor Ghost in the Shell (video game), in fact, I've done nothing but good contributions to those, and even further. I recently just put up Ghost in the Shell (video game) to peer review to see if it gets to. So i make positive contributions to Wikipedia as well. You just have to actually "want" to see them.

You just asked me "Do you want to complain and complain and complain until you get topic banned?", and my response to that is "Are you suggesting that bringing up an issue can be the only reason to topic-ban? Is this what you were trying to imply when you provided WP:BOOMERANG? That i shoot myself in the foot, not because of disruption but the mere fact that the people who read the issue don't agree and that alone is "reasonable" enough to enforce even more sanctions?" i'm not treating this like a vote, i'm treating this like a discussion. I'm genuinely asking you these questions.

if you care about the well being of Wikipedia and the learning process of a member (even if its one you're not fond of), perhaps this is the chance to answer my questions. I recently asked you what WP:BOOMERANG had to do with anything. My questions have always been ignored. So it shows to me how punitive the method goes when it comes to me. Lucia Black (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick warning - please remember that you remain under an interaction ban with Chris and thinly veiled references to him here and elsewhere are still sufficient to have you blocked under the provisions of that interaction ban. This discussion needs to focus solely on your behavioural problems Lucia, you really need not mention Ryulong or Chris anywhere. Nick (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SITEBAN proposal

At this point, I believe a full siteban for Lucia is the best solution. The amount of time and effort wasted on the relentless drama surrounding her has far surpassed whatever benefit she may bring to the project. We have tried establishing an IBAN to try to get her to re-focus on content instead of editors. We have put her under probation to enable admins to summarily ban her from any page where she is being disruptive. We have banned her from opening a thread on any noticeboard due to incessant, unproductive ranting. How much farther will we go to enforce more and more restrictions around Lucia, for the sole purpose of avoiding having to indef-block her?

Now she has been topic-banned from 3 pages within the same topic because she was being disruptive in one, and mentioned that the dispute ranged across other GITS-related articles, under the provisions of her ongoing probation... and immediately sought approval to open an AN thread to rant again. When she was last blocked, she said she was "content" despite the block because her side of the editing dispute had "won". Just in the past days, she has demonstrated again and again that her attitude is almost the exact opposite of one that is seeking conflict resolution. She refers to editing disputes as "3-way tie"s, argues that her ban gives another editor "an unfair advantage" despite the fact that he "isn't the main contributor", as if that gave her some right over the content. I will admit I am floored and speechless by how casually she discusses "her disruption" as if it was just a fact-of-life. She gives no indication whatsoever that she recognizes the problems with her behaviour, and doesn't make even the smallest attempt at reassuring the community that she will not continue onto the same track in the future. Previous discussion - The last siteban proposal in January 2014 was archived before being closed and arguably failed to produce strong consensus for the ban, with a majority of opposers indicated they wished to give Lucia "one more chance", or that the circumstances at that moment didn't support a ban, or instead suggested an anime/manga broad topic ban. 7 months later, SSDD, I think the community's patience with Lucia's antics has expired by now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just reverted Lucia Black's attempts at WP:CANVASSING editors (1, 2). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just been notified these were posted following a misguided recommendation by Tezero, so I won't hold it against her too much, even though she should've known better. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if indeed that was a mistake, it was my mistake. I do wonder where her supporters will come from, though, as I suspect this page has a sampling bias towards people who are strict and unforgiving. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, but even if I did, I'd think you're familiar with the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? A WikiProject isn't the place to recruit help at AN discussions. (I'd "assume good faith", but your wording makes it quite clear that's what you're doing, so...) Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Salvidrim nails all the endlessly recurring problems with Lucia. My comments above also explain my stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support There is no more water in this dry well of AGF. I note that in the January proposals I was already fed up with LB, and their "learning" appears to have not changed any of the problematic behavior we previously idenfified. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment @Salvidrim!: So basically, you want me to ban me indefinitely simply because you're "tired" and your patience is wearing thin? Let me be clear that all i'm asking for the moment is to lessen the topic ban to only the one you believe i'm being "disruptive". So i'm not asking for a lot. To "rant" is your choice of words, it's not close to helping others describe the situation. And honestly, you're only sole reason to ban me indefinitely is how you personally feel about me, not that my recent actions merit it. This is WP:PUNISH. Here's some of the points that can be looked at:

Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

@Hasteur: if i'm not learning, maybe choose a better method. But i have not made any contact with you and you haven't made contact with me. so if you're fed up, its out of your own personal choice to do so. My learning depends on how you choose to teach me anything. SO far, the only thing i learned is "admins can do what they want, and if you question it, you'll be sorry" and i'm not even choosing to see it that way, that is exactly whats going on right now. And all i'm asking is for something completely reasonable. What reason do you have to ban me indefinitely? I rarely get an answer, my questions are ignored. Often times i'm being belittled, insulted, or certain things are exaggerated, not by my how actions affect Wikipedia but how you personally feel (for example: you just mentioned how "fed up" you are, not that my actions are worth being blocked indefinitely. Lucia Black (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG. Anything you reply with besides "I understand and will do what I can to fix it" only serves to put more nails into the lid of the coffin you've created for yourself. Hasteur (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I've seen many people use WP:IDHT against me for various things. to this day, people use it and feel thats all that needs to be said. I've seen people use WP:IDHT to make believe they have had consensus, I've seen it as an excuse to not answer important questions. The advice in WP:IDHT is to listen to what their saying and move on to the discussion. But theres a problem when one wants to "move on" to a discussion with no , and doesn't want to stick to the one that was provided. It shouldn't be considered disruptive to try to keep the integrity of the discussion.

The way WP:BOOMERANG is used that you don't tell us what you want to hear, than you're shooting yourself on the foot. But i dont need to say "I understand and will do what i can to fix it" because the situation doesn't call for it. The problem is that Salvidrim! banned me from an articles I've done nothing but good contributions to. I'm not trying to get rid of all of the issues, just the ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs)

What Sergecross, Hasteur and Salvidrim! are insinuating is that i "admit fault" but their forgetting. And even if i tell them what they want to hear, thats not going to satisfy them. and for the record, thats not what this issue was brought up. All i was asking is that they topic ban "appropriately". Because I've been doing nothing but good contributions to said articles. What their doing is just using word-choice to ban me indefinitely, it has nothing to do whether i learned or not. Its what they choose to interpret. As Knowledgekid has said, objectively, what recent edits have that affected the article?

What bothers me is that no one wants to analyze the situation further. Knowledgekid hit the nail on the issue. that there is something that's bigger than me. Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The other commentators get it right. More than anything, one more chance was given, taken, and squandered. Even such draconian remedies as an AN/ANI ban plus what I'd describe as "roving discretionary sanctions" have failed. From all appearances so long as Lucia Black remains on the project, articles in her preferred subject area will suffer, as countless editor-hours will be wasted addressing battleground behavior. Anything less is just too little, too late. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: How have i "squandered" that chance? What chance are you insinuating? I'm sorry, but what you're saying doesn't grammatically make sense. I don't even understand what you're saying. And overall, i'm tired of people Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Assumeably, Mendaliv's referring to how you were given one last chance after the last time it was suggested you be sitebanned, and here we are again, at a discussion about you being site-banned, due to your constant disruptive discussions all over the project. You haven't learned a thing from your past sanctions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Respectfully, if you think anything I wrote above is actually ungrammatical, the problem is entirely on your end. The longer you keep battling, the more people will be wasting time dealing with you rather than writing articles. It's a simple enough concept. The evidence demonstrates that you are a net minus to this project. I can't say it any clearer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; Lucia's contributions to anime- and game-related articles have still been beneficial overall. It's true that she comes off as confrontational and black-and-white sometimes, but to me it seems more like responding with anger when Ryulong disregards the importance of consensus. That's a "side" I don't want to win. The most problematic of her edits are focused on GitS-related articles, anyway, so I think a topic ban is the highest this should go. (What really needs to happen is a concerted, project-wide discussion on anime/manga article organization, because I've seen it be contentious before.) Tezero (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually recognize that a non-negligible part of her contributions are positive, but partially constructive activity cannot be used to excuse or justify the amount of time waster over the drama that she relentlessly surrounds herself with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The main issue seems to be a feud between Ryulong and Lucia, either fix that or have other editors weigh in on Lucia's proposals so more of a consensus can be reached. I have seen Lucia get articles up to GA status and feel she deserves to be here as a productive editor. Also I have noticed that editors that Lucia have had issues with in the past are saying Ban her indef which to me seems a bit biased. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the points raised in the proposal for the siteban even discuss the dispute with Ryulong or with anyone else. It's not a matter of dispute, it's a matter of general behaviour. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The most recent thing above deals with Ghost in the Shell all the other things piled on to her after the fact. As soon as her name was mentioned in the ANI board people piled on Lucia did ... back at such and such time. Are there any other recent reasons other than Ghost in the Shell and the long dispute between the two editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I encourage you to re-read the initial text of my proposal, which is solely about the long history of wasted time and unproductive behaviour. I purposedly avoided discussing specifics of any dispute, because even though this latest kerfuffle is probably the so-called "last straw", this is but the latest in a long, long line of incessant drama and ranting that never led to any change of attitude or even recognition of a problem on Lucia's part. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that in itself is a massive, month spanning argument that has wasted all sorts of people's time, whether it be ANI, DRN, etc etc, so you really shouldn't downplay just that. But beyond that, it's these sorts of disruptive discussions that she's constantly a part of. She makes a huge stink over something minor, and treats the talk page like a battlefield to be won, where she speaks with an unwarranted sense of authority and refuses to listen to anyone else. Time after time these lengthy arguments ensue where she completely fails to assume good faith and sums up the other side's argument wrong, to the point where she tries to tell the others their own viewpoint. It's disruptive, and she puts a lot more into these timewasters than her GAs these days. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Pretty sure all the regulars follow AN anyway, making the canvassing a non-event. I'll not be contributing a definite opinion here myself, since my lengthy absences from the project mean I have no sense of patterns of recent behavior. I will note that there have been far more intense previous arguments which she was not banned for, however. --erachima talk 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that a ban could've (maybe should've) resulted from earlier events; this just proves that even at her worst, we allowed her one last chance, and another; now I think that, considering the complete lack of change (or even recognition that there is a problem), it's finally enough. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, its the culmination of years, not just a single event. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Salvidrim. I consider massive arguments generally dealable as long as the involved editors are able to focus on content and go back to work afterward. Bans are for nuclear errors and various forms of terminal cluelessness. --erachima talk 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's exactly correct. "Nuclear errors" and "terminal cluelessness" are much more easily addressed with a summary indef block. This isn't a case that will uncontroversially end with a block. Formal sitebanning is appropriate where the situation is complex, and to give any wandering admin additional pause before lifting the block imposed to enforce said siteban. This is precisely the sort of situation that calls for a ban discussion, taking into account all the past problems, and carefully weighing the evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban-via-indef is the most common outcome for nuclear errors, ban-via-discussion for terminal cluelessness. --erachima talk 03:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support due to chronic, excessive battleground behavior that hasn't been corrected by lesser sanctions, and complete failure to acknowledge that behavior. I suggest that the editor contribute for at least a year without drama on another Wikimedia project, and then return here with a convincing explanation of understanding of past problems and a commitment to contributing positively going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban, though i do support the wider topicban Salvidrim! imposed and might well support an even wider ban (~Manga, animation, Japanese topics?) as appropriate to reduce the level of drama. I recall suggesting on this board, some time ago, that Lucia spend some time in a completely different area, and i suggest it again. If it is an area she feels less "interesting", all the better, as perhaps she'll be able to focus on the improvement of the project we all want rather than the competitive roundabout she seems to get stuck on at the moment. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason this seems like a rather mediocre solution is that since upwards of 90% of Lucia's edits are made within this topic area, a broad topicban and a siteban are functionally almost the same. Also, the issues leading to this proposal aren't about the topic of editing, they are about Lucia's general behaviour, and there is no indication whatsoever that this would be changed by changing the topic area, quite the contrary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely! She is so focussed on this one area, and yet is capable of performing good edits; thus, a siteban has the side effect of hurting us as a community, by depriving ourselves of those potential edits, while a topicban is a win-win, in forcing Lucia to refocus and (so i hope!) find a happier place. If this has the effect of a siteban, so be it; if it does not, well, that's good, right? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rereading this, it sounds more light-hearted than i intend. My point is that a "mediocre solution" is a good thing, if we are using the adjective in opposition to "draconian"; a full siteban is a last resort, something the community moves to with heavy heart when there is no hope for an editor; while there is even a small glimmer (10% of edits, maybe) suggesting the editor might be redeemed, the community should aim for that glimmer. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't exactly oppose a topic ban, especially after this incident, but, at the same time, I don't think there needs to be a site ban. A topic ban, however, might be best. More specifically involving video games. Why not have just a topic ban on video games? GamerPro64 03:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you think just banning me will solve any of the issues. Recently, Sergecross also mentioned disruption from Ryulong aswell in his ANI. So he also sees there's not just one side involved. I don't believe just banning me will solve anything. It'll just satisfy a specific group of members... there's more involved people with the exact same(if not worst) history. So right now, there has been no frequent disruption with WP:ANIME related articles, which is indeed 90-70% of the articles i make. One isolated event wont help. And the fact that i provide good edits. shows more...

This is punitive not preventative. Lucia Black (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A siteban is suggested to prevent having to waste more time whenever you're back at AN/I in a few weeks or months. The same pattern have been continuing for years, and you have never shown indication that you acknowledged the issues, nor that you desire to improve your behaviour. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I'm suggesting is a slap on the wrist. The topic ban could be temporary even. Like a couple months or something. I don't want to see an editor who tries to do their best on the site. But this is absolutely not showing you in a nice light at all. GamerPro64 03:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

GamerPro64: After years of slaps, an IBAN, a draconian probation, a noticeboard ban, can you quantify how many more "slaps on the wrist" you would allow Lucia before coming to the conclusion that her editing's positive side do not outweigh the drama's waste of time? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I don't even believe a site ban would even work. Most likely this'll end up resulting in IP addresses made and sock-puppetry and anything else that will also make this conversation frivolous. GamerPro64 03:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

True. I don't personally think sockpuppetry, even when deceptive, is necessarily wrong, but Wikipedia policy definitively does, and jumping to the largest possible ban is a virtual guarantee of Lucia doing just that if she's determined to. I don't think any number of "slaps on the wrist" count in this context when she hasn't gotten any temporary ones for this area yet. Tezero (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Has not annoyed the general WP:ANIME community, at least not more than any of the other regulars, and has kept the infighting away from those boards. If you're concerned about postings or sanctions on GITS then limit it to that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim:To prevent waste time is completely based on your choice.....and i find that reasoning counter-intuitive, and quite frankly "immature". What i brought up was completely relevant, and i was given permission to bring it up by an administrator. That should not warrant any reason to ban me indefinitely.

@GamerPro64: A temporary ban to WP:VG isn't a complete problem for me but to me feels like its more punitive though. Preventing disruption to articles isn't whats happening with me in WP:VG. I agree this isn't showing a nice light, but showing in a nice light is all about perspective, and how one chooses to phrase things. To me, SergeCross, Salvidrim and Hasteur's pattern is blowing things up out of proportion.

All right. I believe that I have no clue what to make of this conversation as a whole. I'll just end my contribution to this discussion by being overall Neutral on the whole ordeal. GamerPro64 03:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And i agree @AngusWOOF: that the main GITS article is fine to be banned from, however the other two feels excessive, and counter-intuitive as another disruptive editor is often involved too. Banning one, is enabling the other. Which is why i ask this be seen completely Lucia Black (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If those editors really have been disruptive for a long period of time, they should be listed here as well. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The one and only other editor who has yet to be affected by these type of bans is Ryulong, in the previous ANI, it was finally "preventative" rather than "punitive" because it finally caused a full two-way interaction ban rather than the one-way (causing sid member to take advantage of the situation and add flame) and topic-ban. But that's a history of where Ryulong was involved in some way. This is why i'm against a complete ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell (video game). Lucia Black (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Oppose: Lucia has certainly been the root of many ridiculous, unproductive disputes. But, if someone as impossible to interact with as User:SNAAAAKE!! has dodged the banhammer on content-generation grounds, Lucia should be treated no differently. Poor manners aside, she does do work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm against a site ban, as I was on the indef block in the last discussion. I did propose a blanket indefinite topic ban from Anime and Manga last time and propose it again. Proposing a ban on someone for just taking up time is harsh and very punitive. Although her attitude exasperates me as much as it does any number of other editors, she's not actively being pointedly disruptive, vandalising, socking, edit warring, lacking competence or any of the other things that editors are usually banned for. She contributes, she discusses, albeit confrontationally with a severe combative mentality, which she would do well to sort out, but on average does things in accordance with what is required on Wikipedia. If we banned anyone who was a pain in someone else's butt, there wouldn't be many people left here. Blackmane (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. I am aware that she has been given "one more chance", but maybe "one more chance" is punitive in her case. I support a broad topic ban on anime/manga/Japanese video games, where she is always getting into conflicts. If that amounts to a ban, that is her choice to be an SPA. Concur with Blackmane. I would also support a two-week block. However, just because she always disrupts Japanese entertainment and can't take part in discussions doesn't mean that she should be banned from the English Wikipedia, only from Japanese entertainment and from discussions at these noticeboards. Her insistence on responding to every post here by saying that we haven't answered her questions is deeply frustrating, and illustrates that she doesn't learn, but the remedy is already in effect, to ban her from posting to noticeboards. A site ban would be punitive. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - An immediate 24-hour block would be in her own interest to keep her from alienating her supporters, but that isn't the way we do things here. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - So, it seems pretty divided on whether or not a siteban is necessary. However, almost all of the opposes support a larger topic ban, related to anime and video games. Can it be assumed that the site ban supporters would also support this sort of topic ban? If so, then I would think we have a good consensus building for that at least. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sergecross73 I'm fine with an indef Japanese Culture ban (Anime/Manga/Video games/etc), but I see it only as kicking the can down the road 2 months till LB attempts to claim that the TBan was unfair and they shouldn't have to abide the terms that the community imposed on them (see also their indef article probation which the current "complaint" is a imposed topic ban from). I'll accept the indef topic ban if you promise that the next time that LB comes back stirring up trouble in the topic space that you carte blanche agree to sitebanning. Blocks haven't worked, Article probation hasn't worked, Limited scope page bans haven't worked, and Im almost certain that topic bans won't work. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. If this is all dropped as "no consensus" and no action is taken, then not only was all of this a waste of time, but it'll just lead to more disruptive Lucia discussions, which will just ultimately lead us right back here again in 6 months. She takes absolutely no ownership towards any of her shortcomings, so there's no reason to think she'll stop otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also support a Anime/Manga/VG broad topic-ban as an alternative remedy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One could consider a broad topic ban analogous to how a doctor may excise an area of cancerous growth (and I am in no way comparing Lucia to a cancer, I'm comparing the process) but to prevent it spreading may cut a much larger portion or even the whole organ out. However, if as Hasteur predicts that we're just kicking the can down the road, i.e. the growth has metastasised, then there's not much more that can be done than to close up shop and call it a day. And if Lucia takes offense at my analogy, I do profusely apologise. A shortage of sleep and an impending move has left my creativity desperately short. Blackmane (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In all the years I have worked in anime and manga articles, I have never had a problem with Lucia Black nor has most other editors in the same topic area. While I have seen her get bull headed at times with a couple of editors, I don't see that as grounds for either a site or topic ban. It appears to me that there is a small cartel of editor who are far too eager to ban anyone who they thing is creating drama. Such bans should only be reserved for editors who have demonstrated to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to work with anyone and should not be used for editors whom you are tired of hearing of or from. —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • TheFarix Surely we can agree that the sum of the positive contributions should always exceed the sum of the distractions for every user? In that case please consider the numerous times that Lucia Black (either in concert with other editors in the subject area or by themselves) has been the subject of a topic at any of the Administrators Noticeboards (AN,ANI,ANEW) and see that their first chance, second chance, one more chance, and final chances have all been burned up. It's not a few activist editors looking to punish a user, it's the community standing up and saying No More. Her disurptions greatly outweigh her positive contributions, so it's time to be done with this persistent irritation. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - Given Lucia's history (a half-dozen AN or AN/Is, 3 blocks in the last 2 years, 3 different sancions currently in place, persistent battleground mentality, unwillingness to compromise, etc.), the arguments made by individuals that they personally haven't had any problems with her and that consequently she should be left alone to carry on doing what she does are entirely unconvincing. Suggestions that those who have taken umbrage with her behavior are part of a conspiracy to silence her are equally silly. An editor's history can demonstrate patterns of behavior in need of correction. Once these patterns are acknowledged by the editor then they can be addressed. If the editor is unwilling or incapable of addressing these behavioral problems then further sanctions are warranted. I am interested to hear from Lucia Black A) whether she acknowledges that her behavior needs to improve and B) whether she can give any examples of steps she has taken to improved her collaborative shortcomings since the last set of sanctions were imposed. -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Answer to User:Thibbs: Your questions clearly are well-meaning and optimistic. Apparently you are hoping that, by using slightly different wording, you will actually get answers. I hope that you are right, but only in an empty sense, because I have no hope that she will answer your questions. All that she has done is to ask the same questions over and over again, such as what our real issue is, or to make the same statements over and over again, such as displaying her dislike for another editor. I haven't seen evidence that she intends to change her behavior, or any examples of changes to her behavior. Lucia: Can you answer these questions straightforwardly? I would prefer that the questions be ignored rather than getting the usual repetitive reply. Thibbs appears to be more optimistic than I. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not critique her response before she gives it. She is the single person in the best position to provide evidence of any actual efforts to improve her behavior and if she can acknowledge that she needs to improve further in order to meet the standards of the community, then perhaps a sanctions of the ban variety is not yet necessary. Basically I'm looking for any sign that she is trying to improve herself in response to the obvious annoyance of her peers and I want to hear what she will say for herself. If her answers demonstrate that she is unwilling or incapable of addressing these behavioral problems then I'd support further sanctions. -Thibbs (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite these allegations of battleground editing, I think Lucia's good contributions definitely outweighs all others. Several other members of the community including myself have worked well with her and especially regarding Anime articles, she does seem to do a lot of good work. I absolutely oppose a site ban and I hope others can see it that they think the same. A site ban will not solve any problems (and is harsh), and maybe even a topic ban wouldn't solve anything. Maybe some work can be done to prevent further disruptions and the disagreements, but a site ban doesn't seem to work it. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaguar Thank you for that wonderful "Xe's a good person" response. Your response if effectively a nullity. Her conduct in multiple locations (including that Video Games discussion) clearly indicates that she sees anybody who disagrees with her viewpoint as an opponent to be defeated by arguing every point over and over until the opponent relents. Low level discussions wind up to be multi megabyte threads that get argued into no consensus, Medium level dispute resolution (including DRN) gets argued into a "I'd rather see this trashed than a change occur", high level dispute resolution (such as AN/ANI) gets argued untill she skirts by with the most minor of sanctions. How many more times is the community expected to deal with her persistent and unreformed disruption before she is restricted to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia as a whole? Her contributions may not be Grade-A disruptive inside the subject area she edits, but when her actions cause multi-meagabyte discussions to occur outside the subject area her contributions redeeming values are greatly outweighed by the disruption they cause. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps when AN becomes a forum for neutrally weighing a user's actions, instead of an arbitrary and inconsistent mudfight, some of that will matter. I've changed my comment above to an oppose. Lucia is guilty of disruptive and obnoxious behavior, but I've seen far worse slide by AN and AN/I on far shakier grounds. Sitebanning Lucia, while users like SNAAAAKE!! run roughshod over every civility policy unimpeded, would be a laughable miscarriage of justice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • So you won't take care of the bad things on the sole basis that there are worse things also not being taken care of? That's so laughable that I'm not even sure you're being serious. Let's never ban anyone again, because there is obviously always a worse, unbanned editor. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) JimmyBlackwing, Niemti/Snake was indef blocked for quite some time, is currently in the middle of a 4 week block, and has been very close to being sitebanned again on a few occassions. I wouldn't see him as a bar of acceptable behavior, but rather someone who's probably on his way to another indef block himself... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • He's been "probably on his way" to such a block for years. And Salvidrim, the point is (as I said yesterday) that Niemti has consistently skated by on the grounds that he generates content. If that defense works for him—one of the most widely despised editors I've ever seen—, then it should work for Lucia. That is, if we're trying to be even remotely consistent, rather than arbitrarily picking favorites. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Wow, talk about setting the bar low. Also, "arbitrarily picking favorites" makes absolutely no sense. What are you proposing? Don't even discuss banning an editor until they pass below the extremely low Niemti standards of civility? It'd be one thing if you were saying that to a bunch of Niemti defenders...but I'm not sure you've done the research to see that's the case here, and that certainly doesn't describe myself. But we're getting off topic. If you tolerance for behavior is truly that ridiculous, I doubt I'll convince you of anything... Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
            • My point is that content generation apparently covers over a multitude of sins, even for someone like Niemti. Therefore, the same should apply to a productive editor like Lucia, whose tantrums are almost mild compared to Niemti's. I know that both you and Salvidrim have gone after Niemti in the past, but it doesn't change anything—I was criticizing AN and AN/I in general for picking favorites. So, unless everyone at AN has decided that the content-generation defense is no longer valid as a general rule (instead of being Niemti's get-out-of-jail-free card), Lucia should not be sitebanned. I've never worked with her, and I find her behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games repulsive, but I find arbitrary AN decisions even more repulsive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
              • While I don't know Niemti well enough (I think I've only come across him once) there are some editors here that despite their disagreements and disruption, they can produce good quality work albeit the setbacks that sometimes they provide. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 21:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment/Opposse Siteban - I only have a rough idea of the situation regarding Lucia's past appearances here so I'm not going to try and debate the details. I can't judge the time spent by people on this subject. Lucia is a passionate editor, which can be both a blessing and a curse. I'm reminded of a another editor who while very experienced and good at writing quality articles could also find themselves in volatile situations. Unfortunately when two passionate editors are on opposing sides of a debate, it's no surprise things can get heated - it's more surprising if they don't. It's not necessarily deliberate, these things can simply happen very quickly and as such get out of control before you realise it. That said, it's something that should be learnt for the future so reoccurrence isn't a good sign. Personally I simply don't get involved in potentially contentious pages for this reason. In general Lucia's contributions to Wikipedia are of quality and she is one of the most significant contributors to WP:Anime. Is that a defence for any questionable actions? No, but I Oppose a site ban on the grounds that a already overwhelmed project would suffer as a result of a site ban. However, I think Lucia would help her cause if she voluntarily dropped the whole Ghost in the Shell topic, regardless of what subpage it may be, simply because it would show an attempt to meet halfway and there are many other pages she could work on instead. I also suggested she back down on any other contentious matters or further attempts to argue against any measures and drag others into it which make things worse by trying to argue the same point continuously . In short, I disagree with a site ban based on my experience of working with her, but believe Lucia is really not helping her case. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Standard Oppose based on insufficient evidence to take the most drastic move. Topic bans and blocks are available before we go to a site ban. This does not seem like a site ban case to me. Doc talk 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Her content contributions outweigh the perceived level of disruption. A topic ban (of some scope that we could define) could be viable, but I think a site ban at this point would be incredibly inappropriate. Artichoker^[talk] 22:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Artichoker Thank you for your highly informed opinion. Clearly you've done your research and see that Lucia Black is already under an indef IBan with one editor, an indef TBan from filing AN* requests (even with leave of an Administrator), and an indef Article Probation (see Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions). If these lower level ways to dissuade LB from being disruptive, I think we would have found them already. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hey, that's not necessary. None of what you said contradicts Artichoker's statements. If you dispute that Lucia's content contributions outweigh her disruption or that a topic ban would work, explain why. Tezero (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hasteur said the same thing to me in the same manner... ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 13:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • When you all present the "She's not causing any disruption" argument repeatedly when it has been refuted many times (and proven in this thread), you only show your innocence. The fact that we have multiple people using this same argument suggests in my mind an externally coordinated campaign to keep enabling Lucia. A Interaction ban hasn't worked (as she violated it in this request when she tangentially referred to the editor she is IBanned with), a Topic ban on filing AN* requests has failed (as evidenced by this thread where she points the finger everywhere except at herself), and Article Probation is the cause of her current TopicBan across GITS, a one month block (back in October) caused no improvement in her editing. Having witnessed her unique method of debate, I can recognize the same hallmarks of "respond untill they get tired of you" debaters. Put a number to how many more times she is allowed to disrupt wikipedia and how many more times she is allowed "one more chance" before we write her off as a lost cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a strawman; we're not saying she hasn't been disruptive at all (in fact, I noted in my oppose vote that she has), only that we feel her positive contributions outweigh this. That you disagree with us doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afoot. Now, I will say I didn't realize a topic ban had already been tried. (I must've missed the word "TBan" in your last response.) Having said that, I don't think an indefinite siteban is an appropriate next step, particularly when Ryulong, who in my experience has been at least as disruptive, has had no consequences anywhere at near this level and no one besides Lucia seems to be advocating for that. (SNAAAAKE!! [sp?] I personally don't mind as he mainly just exposes policy loopholes in a sometimes irritating way, but with all of the widespread vitriol against him, I'm surprised he hasn't been put up here as well.) Tezero (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Tezero See above arguments of "Just because one more disruptive editor hasn't been sanctioned doesn't mean that we should sanction the user of discussion here", that's a pitiful Other Stuff Exists argument and not a valid reason for not sanctioning Lucia. Ryulong has been sanctioned before (Via Desysop by ArbCom remedy). Yes Ryulong's behavior is similarly disruptive, but they have the redeeming quality of enough enabling friends to defeat (or argue into no-consensus) any proposed sanctions. I've also advocated for heavy handed sanctions on Ryulong as well for the exact same disruptive threads that pop up at AN* over and over again only to be shouted down as being too strict. Ryulong is not the subject here, SNAAAAKE is not the subject here, Lucia is the subject when she is attempting to overturn a page ban. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Rude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hasteur, I would have more appreciated a reply that wasn't dripping with useless sarcasm. I don't quite understand how you can unilaterally judge my opinion to be informed or not; that honestly really puzzles me. Additionally, you don't get to randomly make unfounded accusations that people are colluding offline just because the hardline position you hold that she be banned doesn't seem to have enough support. Because it's within my areas of editing and I do have a vested interested in the Anime and Video Games Wikiprojects (the Anime and Manga Wikiproject talk page discussion was how I learned of this originally) is the reason why I chose to participate in this discussion. Person who contributes content to those areas -> someone I'm willing to scrutinize and see if I believe they really deserve a siteban. It's that simple. Just because I disagreed with you doesn't mean you get to throw around a bunch of undeserved snark. Artichoker^[talk] 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. LB has demonstrated no willingness to engage in collegial editing, and instead has repeatedly shown a battlefield attitude. Some here have suggested a topic ban, but since LB only works on one area, that suggestion is effectively a site ban. I don't think LB will ever become a courteous colleague, not in Japanese entertainment topics nor in other topics. There is too much combativeness for that. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any indefinite site ban or topic ban, but I'm open to maybe one more temporary topic ban. I haven't really interacted with Lucia Black as much as some of the other editors here, but from what I can see at the Anime and Manga WikiProject talk page, she really works hard, especially in a time when the WikiProject has relatively few active editors (there are maybe only 15-20 of us who are very active on the project), and has made a lot of great contributions, such as Good Articles. If she has to leave the project, it's a very large void that has to be filled, which may not easily be done given the apparent low interest among users in joining the WikiProject. I have noticed that she has sometimes been a little disruptive in her actions, but for the most part this is really only affecting a few users (mainly Ryulong), and her good points far outweigh her wrong points. Even in this case, I think a site ban, particularly one that is indefinite, is too much. I've read on this discussion that she has already been banned/blocked a few times, and soon after restarted her actions, but perhaps this time will be different, and she will change for the better after this discussion. If needed, I would support one more topic ban (Japanese media articles) for a definite period (maybe a year at most), then, if her actions continue, I'll see what happens. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This comment suggests someone has shared the benefits the user has brought to the project: "The amount of time and effort wasted on the relentless drama surrounding her has far surpassed whatever benefit she may bring to the project." But, I don't see any effort to identify the positives of the user. Just the negatives. I have to admit, I seem to always oppose bans, and maybe that's due to my own inexperience with all the forms problems can take here. I just don't like the way these discussions always seem to pile negatives on one side of the scale, with no effort even to mention the positives. The statement I quoted seems to be intended as a given, but, actually, it requires evidence. What is the user's best work? Shouldn't everyone wanting to ban know the best work of the editor to be banned? So we know what we're losing? Howunusual (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  Howunusual Shouldn't those who want to retain her effort in Wikipedia demonstrate how her positive actions have surpassed her detractions just the same way that those that want to keep an article at AFD must present a justification for keeping? Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No I think negativity has the burden of proof. Howunusual (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. What's more, I think it problematic that this user's request for review of a overly-broad topic-ban is being used as justification to eject her from the community entirely. betafive 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  Betafive If LB had asked for the topic bans for GITS to be overturned and presented a GAB styled justification we wouldn't be in this place. As it's evident that her appeal to have the page bans overturned is flying like a lead brick we have to consider her appeal in the history of all the threads that she has initiated, been party to, or the subject of to see that her contributions are seen as a significant net negative. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  You don't know that for a fact, if she did have her topic ban overturned the thing to do would be to have a discussion over at the article regarding Lucia's ideas. I highly doubt that Lucia just all of a sudden started acting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasonings by AngusWOOF and Knowledgekid87. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Lucia's recent participation at an organizational discussion on the manga Uzumaki is of note here. Personally, I think she's doing fine and conveying etiquette that is, at least on the surface, reflective of a changed woman. Tezero (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't think her justification for the modification for her sanctions was at all acceptable, I don't feel that she should be further punished for questioning the sanctions alone. This action if not passed in previous proposals should not be passed now on the basis of request for review. AlanS (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  AlanS see above response to Betafive dated this same time. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - there are other actions that can (and should) be taken before a site ban. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose- per Betafive. Excessively authoritarian. Appealing sanctions is not a crime to be punished with more extreme sanctions. Reyk _YO! 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

As I pointed out above I feel this whole issue stems from GITS, topic banning Lucia forever from editing anime/manga articles does not seem like it is the right way to go, or even for GITS for that matter. Looking back at the archives [55] there has not been any real discussion of Lucia's planned changes to the articles the only thing I saw was from a year ago. As for the merge discussion it did not get a wide scope of editors that joined in so I understand why Lucia feels like it was a weak consensus. My suggestion is to have an RfC on the GITS article on Lucia's proposed changes to the article to get more editors to weigh in and put this matter to rest. @Lucia Black: if you got more editors to weigh in on your ideas would you be open to accept the results and move on? I do not care what happened in the past as it all stemmed from this and would like to put this argument to rest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still convinced that if the GITS issue is fixed and Lucia accepts the results then things will change for the better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a huge if. These issues have been spanning months. I don't know why you'd have faith that a simple RFC would solve this problem where so many other RFC, DRN, ANI, etc, have all failed in past disputes with these anime-related articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Im looking at the first section here is all, what other anime related articles are there? Have the arguments been with the same editors to reach a consensus or have different editors been involved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinite ≠ forever. An indefinite ban can eventually be overturned if the editor re-earns the trust they previously violated, by becoming productive, civil, and non-disruptive in their editing in the rest of the wiki. If they can show that they can be an unambiguous asset to this project, and that they've learned from their previous infractions against community standards, then the topic ban can be rescinded. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• The issue is finding out the spark that ignited the fire to begin with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• As far as the RfC goes, we're going to need to have one eventually either way since the argument is long-running and the WP:CONTENTFORK implications are significant. The only question is whether we can get the Usual Suspects to limit their contribution to said RfC to just making their statements and letting the community hash out the argument, rather than sniping at each other or (as is the habit of one editor who shall not be named) constantly trying to restart the discussion in a more favorable venue. --erachima talk 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Question or Comment

If you, User:Knowledgekid87, are proposing an RFC on Ghost in the Shell as an alternative to Lucia's topic ban from Ghost in the Shell, I don't see that there is a consensus for the unban. There appears to be a consensus at least to retain the ban from the three GITS articles. I understand that you think that an RFC will be an alternative to the current limited ban and any proposed bans, but it appears that you have a reasonable opinion against consensus. I suggest that this subsection be closed (unless I have misjudged consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel the RfC will help as that is where I feel the source of all of what unfolded lies. A choice was made that involved just 3 or so editors for a major merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a merge though. The action of the subsequent dispute resolution et al. was that my words were misinterpreted and after circular arguments someone unrelated broke the tie and everything was split up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever there was then regarding GITS it needs to be fixed so the river of calmness can flow once again here (Feels like a fortune cookie). Seriously though something major was left unresolved and it led to all of this, I feel that Lucia's ideas should be heard out and a firm consensus be held on it rather than people taking these issues to ANI, AN, ect.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC's necessary due to the content dispute, not the conduct issues. The conduct issues are a relevant concern because they have been what prevented the content disputes from being resolved previously (either by active disruption or by rendering the environment so toxic that nobody was willing to engage the issue) but even if all the belligerents were on block the underlying disagreement would require a conclusion founded on something other than attrition.
  The real challenge is how to conduct the RfC without it itself being disrupted by attempts at other process run-arounds or the page being flooded with hundreds of kb of bickering that drown out all community discussion. I believe an associated topic ban actually would be useful there, not from editing any particular article—they can burn the articles down while the discussion is ongoing if they feel like it, won't alter our ability to determine community consensus at the end— but from participating in the RfC beyond making initial statements or attempting to start other DR processes before it ends.
  And if the conduct issues continue after consensus is achieved? Well then, as far as I'm concerned you can just global-ban everyone involved. --erachima talk 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to clarify that I propose the removal of the topic ban for the talk pages of GITS so that this RfC can be had regarding Lucia's ideas. Like erachima said if there is a firm consensus on GITS as a result and Lucia breaks it then I can say no more and would be more supportive of punishment being handed out that does not involve a full site ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We're getting to the stage that discussion seems to be winding down a bit. To my eyes, there is obviously no consensus on a site ban and as such it may be pertinent for the ban discussion to be closed off, if an uninvolved admin would care to do so. I proposed a topic ban from Anime, Manga and Video game related articles but I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence produced that would warrant such a measure and will withdraw that option. As it stands, the only remaining point would be to ascertain whether there is community endorsement of the ban from all Ghost in the Shell related articles. After which, this should bring to a close this particular episode. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• As one of the initial proposers, I agree with the assessment that there is consensus against a siteban, and no concensus on an Anime/Manga/VG topic ban. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is no consensus on a topic-ban from Anime/Manga/VG. There are more supports than opposes. I am satisfied to let a closer decide whether there is consensus. I think it is clear that there is no consensus to reverse the ban on all GITS articles. In any case, I request that the closer also warn Lucia that the community's patience has already been exhausted, and the only question is what if anything should be done about her disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I will clarify that is not true. about 2/3 (if not more) of the votes are oppose. so i highly suggest you recount. Lucia Black (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Since TParis is a respected, uninvolved admin, and also closed the previous discussion (and thus is familiar with the situation), I have asked him if he would be willing to assess this discussion also. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If he (or no one else) does not do so, I would be willing to look at it tomorrow, although please note, as there is much reading to do, I would likely shut down the thread by closing it, and subsequently post a finding thereafter. Of course, hopefully someone will close it before then, but if worse comes to worst, just call my name, and I'll be there. Go Phightins! 03:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, not all votes regarding the topic ban are placed there. For example, I oppose a wider anime/manga/VG topic ban, but I implied this in my oppose vote to the siteban when I said I didn't think it should get any wider than the GitS topic ban. (I'll add a notice, but other voters may be in the same situation.) Tezero (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the discussion, there were only a few voices that discussed the topic ban from anime/manga/VG, mine as proposer, Robert and Salvidrim as support, Tezero as oppose. Given the sheer number of participants in this discussion there's no way that could be deemed a consensus. For the time being, I'll put my endorse of the wider GITS articles ban. We might be kicking the can down the road as was mentioned before, but I don't really see the benefit of pursuing an anime/manga/VG topic ban. I'm sure most participants here have more or less exhausted themselves on Round N-1 of Lucia. Whether something else crops up to give us a Round N or a Round N+1 is to be seen. @Lucia Black: I believe that you've mixed up Robert's reference. He was referring to a consensus for a broad topic ban, not the site ban. Blackmane (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i was refering to that aswell. i'm sorry, but i dont understand how you explained that in the last few sentences. what does "N" stand for? Lucia Black (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Variable (mathematics) --erachima talk 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

Wow, I got to start off by saying that I am also completely oppose to a topic ban. Lucia Black has not been disruptive to want such one and such a ban is effectively a site ban. In fact this whole charade was nothing more than a headhunt by a few certain editors. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree. The topic ban could be a bit too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was, too, but it's a bit late for that now. Hit up her talk page to see what's happening now. Tezero (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with all of the incidents either, but I watched it unfold here. I am baffled that this topic ban had to happen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure review

As someone who is uninvolved with the original discussion, and the closure review, and as far as I can remember uninvolved with all mentioned articles and the specific parties discussed, I feel I am an acceptable person to make the close of this closure review.

Closure reviews are a look at whether applicable polices were followed in making the discussion close and that consensus was interpreted correctly. In this review, there was much discussion about the actual topic ban which is not relevant to the closure review. There was also further discussion about alternatives and/or changes to the topic ban, but once again these do not affect the actual closure review.

It was stated that the closure was a "close call," and many uninvolved editors felt the interpretation of consensus was sound. Multiple involved editors claimed they felt the closure was incorrect as the topic of the discussion was about a site ban. It was further explained that, like all good closures, the context of the whole discussion was considered in the closure.

Judging from the whole close review, in this case there is consensus that the close is endorsed and the topic ban stands. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The topic ban was the "closest" and toughest consensus or lack thereof to read. I would welcome any opinions of uninvolved admins or experienced editors to ensure I read it correctly. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved as an editor in this particular circumstance, I'll disclose briefly before beginning that I have worked with Lucia Black before on WonderSwan and we've had a few agreements and disagreements before. Speaking strictly on an interpretation of consensus, I would say, Phightins, that you have read it correctly. Consensus does appear to indicate a topic ban is supported by the community, but a site ban is not. Personally I question how specific or nonspecific "Japanese entertainment" necessarily needs to be, but at this point that's irrelevant to the determined consensus, and I believe that it is being interpreted correctly. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I question the interpretation of any consensus for a topic ban because (a) it was not the focus of the discussion relating to the site ban and (b) those opposing the site ban would also oppose any actions that would have the same affect as a site ban unless stated otherwise. As Lucia edits were entirely withing the subject area of Japanese media, a topic ban of Japanese media has the same affect as a site ban. —Farix (t | c) 03:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Farix, the discussion was focused on a site ban, this is the thing that editors were addressing, the full ban on Japanese entertainment with minimal responses was brought along for the ride. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Knowledgekid87 and TheFarix, a full ban on Japanese entertainment with minimal response has the same effect as a site ban (which in my view, is a little too much). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It does have a bit of a feel of "Welp, the siteban didn't get up, let's just ban Lucia from all the articles she'd ever want to edit". Reyk _YO! 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Guys, he asked for possible uninvolved editors input, not "Opposers, continue to argue your point after it's been closed" - which is basically the last 4 responses. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this discussion I have had nothing to do with Lucia Black. I looked into it as an uninvolved editor, and the whole thing struck me as excessively punitive. In my view, those clamoring for a site ban did not make a good case for it. I also think that the topic ban is completely equivalent to a full site ban for this editor, and was imposed based on a very limited discussion- when there was clear consensus against a full site ban. You are now claiming my comments here are invalid because I voted to oppose the site ban. I also see that you commented many, many times arguing in favor of all kinds of sanctions on Lucia Black. Could I not just as easily try to invalidate your comments here, on the grounds that you're just pushing your own view? I also note that this post-close discussion has now had more conversation than the topic ban discussion itself, and it is overwhelmingly against the topic ban. Look, I get where you're coming from: too much dissent regarding this topic ban makes it much more likely that it will be overturned once she appeals it, and you'd like to prevent that by trying to invalidate these contrary opinions. But you actually can't do that. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I imposed the topic ban considering all discussion from the entire thread, not just the subsection on the topic ban itself, as many editors addressed the topic ban proposal in their discussion on the site ban. Just for clarity's sake, thought I'd point that out. Go Phightins! 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reyk, That's not it at all. This section is called "closure review", and GoPhightins asked for "uninvolved editors" - I take that as editors uninvolved in these AN discussions, something that, you cannot claim to be, considering you took a stance in the discussions. Merely pointing out that those four responses were not what he was requesting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Kudos to Go Phightins! for starting this review. Great example of true adminship! I'm not sure if I would count as uninvolved since I participated in the AN but only to ask a question (which ultimately went unanswered), and I have had both positive and negative interactions with Lucia in the past. But for what it's worth, I think the interpretation of consensus made by Go Phightins! is within the bounds of reason. I'm not saying it's my preferred solution. Frankly it isn't. But it's supportable and I don't think such decisions should be overturned lightly. According to WP:Closure review, "most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." The only new information I see as relevant is Lucia's recent comments on her talk page blaming Sergecross and Hasteur for her ban and claiming that "this is just for punishment's sake." These comments indicate to me that she still acknowledges no share of responsibility for her problematic history of battleground behavior. It's understandable that Lucia is upset right now but if I were her I'd refrain from making unhelpful comments like that. Go Phightins! has offered a clear path toward rehabilitation and I think Lucia Black should seriously consider it. I would like nothing more than to see her redeem herself. I am very confident that she can return to editing Japanese entertainment articles if she is willing to make substantive efforts at collegiality, collaboration, and similar forms of self-improvement. I've seen hopeless cases. Lucia Black is far from hopeless. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment suggest that i recognize Sergecross, and Hasteur's campaigns (which at this point, several members are noticing and referred to it in this discussion and in my talkpage) and that i find it for punishment's sake. i consider that "factual". I do not consider it batteground. I would've believed the same if it happened to someone else. Let me be clear, there are more WP:BATTLEGOUND happening in the siteban proposal.

Japanese media such as anime/manga was my passion. Not too long ago i improved "heavily" 4 anime/manga related articles and one of them is at GAN as well. So an indefinite ban, right where a GAN was at? I'm sorry, but you can't expect me to have any more passion nor any motivation. You all want me to prove myself, but i think you're asking for a lot more than just to prove myself. You all want a complete transformation, and in your eyes, that may be good. but its literally starting over for me. and i don't know where to start...this is indeed a site ban for me. I've attempted other articles in the past, i have no familiarity with them whatsoever, I've gotten practically nowhere in other articles that i attempted to fix such as WP:COMICS and WP:NOVEL. WP:VG i been helpful to japanese video games more than western ones. Not only that but WP:VG has the least amount of help. Every article i have remote interest in that is outside of Japanese media is always being heavily sourced, or everything that was needed to be found at the given time is already found.

Keep in mind Wikipedia is still a "Hobby"....people still have to edit articles they enjoy editing and fixing. And right now, thats taken away from me. its not that i'm helpless....i have no motivation to even continue...i have no other topics that makes me ant to even try to get my preferred topic back.....this is most definitely a site ban. Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• A closure review seems to be a matter of examining the law not the facts. I have never to my knowledge interacted with any of the editors involved in this discussion; in fact, I have not even looked into the evidence beyond a careful reading of the above thread. From that vantage point, I think that Go Phightins! was within reasonable grounds to find consensus for a topic ban. As Thibbs correctly pointed out, overturning a close should not be taken lightly, and as no additional issues of fact have been raised that would call this close into question I endorse it. Regards, Crazynas ^t 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • fact-wise, the topic ban was indeed "underplayed". not much was focus. and was only used as an alternative, but was never suggested that was the best course of action. Keep in mind, there is still a split between "no additional action" and "additional action". Which is too close to even suggest there is a strong consensus to warrant. Basically, opinions are too split and would require an additional discussion. Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • When I said law not facts I meant that I was not personally examining the actions that led to this discussion. I realize (and so, I think does Go Phightins!) that this was a close call for them to make. However, since the burden of proof in this case is on those wishing to overturn the close, I believe that there is no reasonable doubt to overturn it. To be clear, I am not making a factual statement as to the correctness of the decision reached by the participants in this discussion (I have no opinion on the matter), but just a statement that the close was within community standards. Regards, Crazynas ^t 01:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the fact that it is a "close call" is reasonable doubt. afterall, its upto interpretation. if its that close, it should be "no consensus". I think that there is reason enough to ask for a proper discussion at least for the topic ban. Lucia Black (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• The closer asked me to look over the matter, and I agree with the close. See also my talk page, "Request". Good work. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Question Since LB has violated the terms of her Editing restriction in the 00:14, 21 August 2014 post (in addition to continuing to make further posts disruptively attempting to overturn the closure in opposition to multiple editors) I ask if an admin would like to pick up the General Probation restriction and further apply it in terms of Blocking to prevent her from causing more harm both to herself and to the community at large. I'd rather she didn't need to be blocked/banned, but her complete passing the buck and claiming that it was a campaign to get her punished for punishment sake indicates that she continues to disavow the cause for her sanctioning. If this were a block appeal, it would have been declined because it doesn't deal with how her editing caused this situation. I would also note that LB failed to provide me a notice of mention in this further discussion after I had clearly dropped out of the main discussion here. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Meh, while technically the topic ban is effective from the moment of the closure, the fact this it is under review seems like appropriate justification for her to continue being involved in the discussion. Let's wait until the closure review is completed and the decision is fixed solidly before we start handing out enforcement if needed. She hasn't edited anything but her own talk page and AN since the close was first made, so I would say she is actually respecting the topic ban and continuing to discuss it, just like we are. I however recognize that she failed to notify you when mentioning your name but that's hardly a blockable offense, and you obviously got aware of it anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just count up the votes in a more easier way to see.

• Salvidrim! - supports site ban.
• Hasteur - supports
• Sergecross73 - supports
• Mendaliv - supports
• Tezero - opposes site ban. suggests keeping the GiTS related topic ban. Suggests finding the core issue that started it all.
• Knowledgekid87 - Opposes any further action, siteban included. Similar comment to Tezero's
• Erachima - no determined vote. suggests oppose a site ban. not sure.
• Lindsay - Opposes site ban, but supports Japanese related (admits that this is equal to a site ban)
• Gamepro 64 - suggests topic ban on video games. (but then seemed undetermined. no confirmed vote.)
• AngusWoof - opposes site ban, or additional action.
• Robert McClennon - Oppose site ban. suggests indefinite Japanese media ban.
• Thibbs - undetermined
• Jaguar - opposes site ban
• SephytheThird - opposes site ban.
• Doc9871 - opposes site ban(briefly mentioned topic-bans and blocks are to go before indef site ban, but wasn't suggesting any in particular. which leads me to believe he was only concentrating on the site ban itself)
• artichoker - oppose site ban, supports a topic ban as alternative. (However, no specific topic ban was recommended)
• Sergecross - supports indef site ban. (You listed Serge twice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC))
  • Cause we like Serge. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Binksternet - supports site ban.
• Sjones23 - oppose site ban.
• betafice - oppose site ban.
• Dusti - oppose site ban/additional action
• Reyk - oppose site ban/additional action

I will say it again...this is a site ban....some people have admitted to this during their voting. There is a significant amount of people suggesting it, however, over all the votes together, its still not a clear "consensus". Mostly within the supporters. the opposers however, very few mentioned it as an alternative, but did "not" suggest which is the best topic ban to use. With that said, there was no consensus for an "indefinite" topic ban either, or how far the range should go. Reading it thoroughly, will leave you attempting to count each vote at a time to make sure where it leans most, but if its not "obvious" what the decision should be, that's where "No consensus" has to be established. Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: What you're asking for is more out of rage, then necessity. This campaign of yours has gone long enough. If no campaign exist, you can let it go, but it tells me alot when you want to put further probation, further restrictions out of an opinion. and no, i did not break my editing restrictions. You're just looking for an excuse for more. Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative: consider changing the duration from indefinite to one year. I've been following this debate almost since it began, but being a generally un-involved editor, I haven't considered myself informed enough about past incidents to impartially take part in the debate proper. Given that this is the final call for any further discussion or comments on the result, I'll step in.

After reading the debate, it does seem clear that there is a consensus for a broad topic ban related to Japanese entertainment articles. There is also no question, in my mind, that some action must be taken... given the behavior discussed in the debate, and the behavior exhibited by Lucia during the debate itself. But because of Lucia's history of being a single purpose editor in this topic area, a broad topic ban seems excessive - especially since it is indefinite.

A broad topic ban lasting for one year, however, might be more reasonable. Hopefully it will strongly communicate to Lucia the urgent need to be less combative and more civil in her editing and discussions, while still giving her a final chance, of sorts, to demonstrate change after the year is up. Meanwhile, during that year, she might discover a new area of interest on Wikipedia. As it is, an indefinite topic ban will likely drive her away from the project entirely.

I therefore think that changing the duration to one year should at least be considered as an alternative. If Lucia returns after the year is up, and continues her previous behavior, an indefinite topic ban would clearly be justified... perhaps even specify that if she continues her previous behavior after the year is up, the topic ban will be reimposed indefinitely. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Call to close the closure review

At this point, I think the closure review is outliving its usefulness. A few uninvolved editors have commented, predominantly endorsing my closure, while other editors who participated in the discussion continued to promulgate their personal viewpoints. I will leave it to an uninvolved administrator to determine and enact an appropriate course of action at this time, and will support whatever he or she decides (though hopefully we will not need a close review of the closure of the close review ). Go Phightins! 03:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not too late to comment . . . I saw this discussion earlier and was planning to comment once I got home, but then I was busy doing other stuff. I think I am uninvolved, even though I edit anime/manga related articles and am sure I have participated in discussions where Lucia Black was also a participant. Anyway, I wouldn't read the above discussion as having a consensus for an expanded topic ban. It seems that the majority of participants were opposed to a site ban and didn't comment on a topic ban. Since a topic ban was kind of an incidental proposal in several comments, and not the primary focus of discussion, I doesn't seem correct to me to consider anyone who didn't address the issue as approving of a topic ban. It also seems to me that several of the people opposed to a site ban would also be opposed to a topic ban (for instance, betafive, AlanS, and Reyk all seemed to be opposed to any increase in sanctions). Also, I want to mention that all the people commenting on the site ban who I personally recognize from anime/manga discussions seemed to be opposed to a site ban (not necessarily all opposed to a topic ban), while people in support of a site ban seemed to me to have more often interacted with Lucia Black in AN/ANI discussions. I agree that I've seen too many AN/ANI discussions involving Lucia Black, and that she often comes off as annoying in those discussions (including in this one). However, my understanding from this discussion is that she isn't allowed to start such discussions without permission from an administrator. My impression is that much of the problem with Lucia Black would be solved by just denying her requests to start these threads unless there is a really good reason to allow them (i.e., a better reason than she had this time). 71.178.44.182 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in. Now that I do realize, I'm not sure I want to log in here. My main computer is being repaired, so I'm using an old computer running Windows 98, which hasn't had security patches in about a decade and has no working antivirus software . . . I'm not sure if I type in my password if someone could steal my account on this computer. Anyway, I am User:Calathan when logged in. 71.178.44.182 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Catathan, where else aside from GITS has Lucia been disruptive when it comes to Japanese Entertainment? Is this coming from her rants over at ANI/AN or is it coming from something not brought up yet regarding articles or such? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a comment at the end of the closure review section, just wanted to make sure to mention it in this section, so that it is not skipped over. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is whatever the consensus was, its not based on disruption of the articles or combative behavior as much as they claim it is. There really needs to be a WP:double jeopardy rule. I'm being tried for the same thing twice. I was permitted to question it. So theres no need to bring this about in general, regardless of consensus. (even then, there is no "clear" consensus. there is a consensus that is widely construed). Lucia Black (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between questioning the sanction respectfully and completely denying that the reasons for sanction are of your own making. I've said it before and I'll say it again (because you conveniently forget repeatedly) Unless Lucia Black starts taking responsibility for her disruptive actions that have caused the community to see SiteBanning as the only option to prevent further disruption, we only have further disruptive AN* threads and further SiteBan proposals in the future. Even this closure review is entirely about "It's not me who caused this problem, it's everyone else". As I discussed on my talk page with another editor, if this had been crafted as a block appeal it would have been denied long ago as WP:NOTTHEM and LB would have been referred to WP:GAB. Therefore each time she comes up in the future I will refer to this (and the ~6 previous AN* threads where she has come within a hairs breadth of sitebanning) as evidence that Wikipedia is insane. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I think some of this discussion exceeds the scope of a closure review. I don't think this is the place to be re-litigating the previous discussion in stronger terms. I also don't think it's the place to be bringing up new alternative solutions for discussion. A close call had to be made and someone made it. The question is not whether we love the call. The relevant questions are: 1) whether the summary of consensus was reasonable, and 2) whether new evidence has come to light that negates the summary. Forgetting about question 2, we can examine question 1 narrowly. We all agree this was a close call and up to interpretation, but if that's true then it is obvious that the summary is one that other reasonable admins could have come to. In short I agree with Crazynas above. I have sympathy for Lucia Black, but I honestly think her best bet would be to take a wikibreak and then return soon to editing in other parts of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if other areas don't specifically interest her. I don't for a second buy the idea that she's incapable of improving the encyclopedia outside of anime and video game topics. She should treat her edits in the next few months/year as demonstrative or evidentiary edits. Their purpose isn't to have fun, their purpose is to demonstrate that she has the maturity and self control to get the ban lifted and resume the "fun" editing of anime and video game articles in a collaborative manner. It's really not an insurmountable hurdle. If there are no more comments to be made specifically on the propriety of the closure then I echo Go Phightins!'s call to close the review. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Long-running Hoax at Ceefax?

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 may be better places to mention this, but I don't know. I could be wrong (and hope I am), but I think that there may be a rather obvious three-year hoax at Ceefax. See my comments on the talk page. The problem is that, precisely because this information has been in the article for so long, it is now repeated all over the Internet. What's more difficult is finding any reliable sources that predate or are otherwise separate from the Wikipedia article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have commented there: I don't think there has been intent to deceive, but there is a large chunk which should be removed as unsourced personal reminiscence, failing WP:V and WP:NOR. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Reference desk trolling

I have only just seen the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Troll at Reference Desk where it was requested that an edit filter is used to block an IP range (the "Toronto troll") from the ref desk. Such a filter already exists; filter 618. I have added the Toronto troll to it and activated it (it was logging only). Pinging those that took part in the previous conversation @Red Act, Robert McClenon, OhanaUnited, Blackmane, and Nil Einne:. By the way OhanaUnited, the range is not so big as you make out, it is only a /21 range. SpinningSpark 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason User:Newmancbn has valuable contributions that need to be made to Jewish articles

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 Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: I'm not a Christian. I am an Orthodox Jew who is of half Sephardic and half English ethnicity, I was raised non-observant, and am a biblical and Hebrew scholar in training who studied at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, with ambitions to attend Oxford. I am fluent in biblical Hebrew and have expertise in the Tanakh, the Mishnah, the Gemarra, proto-Masoretic texts, Karaite topics, Jewish history, ancient Israel, and archeology, among other things. I made corrections to articles in the topics mentioned above because they contained vital missing information on details of the Bar Kochba revolt, namely how it resulted in the Roman exile, which does not have a page or even a mention on wikipedia, the proper use of the terms YHWH and Yahweh in academic settings, the genetic and historic ties that the Buba clan, Bene Israel, and Palestinian Arabs have to ancient Israel, and the Ipuwer Papyrus, which is not even mentioned in the Exodus article, which currently states no artifacts have ever been recovered that could indicate the Exodus, which is untrue and deceptive to readers, since the Ipuwer has been known for 150 years, and even many atheist scholars think the Ipuwer indicates the charter myth of Israel has some historical basis, who usually think the reference to the Nile becoming blood is a description of a natural phenomena whereby algae discolour the water, and the Hebrews took advantage of the natural disasters and escaped, I am in agreement that the plagues of Egypt could have been all caused by natural disasters, but the Ipuwer Papyrus really needs to be mentioned in the Exodus article, and the sentence "no archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit" needs a serious qualifier, because as it stands now, it is an actual falsehood appearing in an encyclopedia. Another problem is there should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans, or change the article "Tetragrammaton" to read that way. The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, where is the page for our god? The issue people seemed to raise was not that my edits were inaccurate, but they were un-sourced. I provided sources from scientific papers, the books and chapters from josephus, or whatever other citations were required, but was told they didn't count because I needed the exact quotations from them and not just the name of the paper, a level of rigor I don't really see applied universally across wikipedia, but maybe extraordinary claims (like Palestinains are descended from Israelites) require extraordinary evidence (which exists), but I digress. I think I may understand why these mistakes occur on wikipedia, perhaps I wrongly assumed the errors were intentional in a passive anti-Judaic way, which explains why I came out "guns blazing", like my Rebbe Sgt. Lincoln Osiris from the film Tropic Thunder, and for that I apologize, but now it becomes clear to me. There are billions of Hindus, Christians, and Muslims in the world who will voice their opinions to make sure Hindu, Christian, and Muslim topic articles accurately reflect their history and traditions, however the only people who are qualified enough, and know enough about the Tanakh, Jewish history, and Judaism, to be able to correct the Jewish topic articles, are Orthodox and Karaite Jews, Samaritans, (secular Jews outside of Israel usually know very little about Judaism), the average well educated Israeli, biblical and Hebrew scholars, and some archeologists. The people who wrote and monitor the articles are most likely none of those things, in my discussions with them it seems none are versed in biblical Hebrew, or know extensively about Jewish history, (one in particular named User:Nishidani is an open Japanese anti-Semite and I seriously suggest barring him form editing Jewish and Israel related topics), which would explain the gaps in Jewish history and misrepresentations of Judaism, which are actually very few, and the articles as a whole are surprisingly accurate I must gladly say, however the errors that do exist are rather significant and result in a misrepresentation of Jews and Samaritans. The pool of Jews and other people to speak up for the accuracy of Jewish articles is extremely tiny, which I think better explains some of the obvious errors on these pages, and my frustrations, rather than a cultural bias on wikipedia, or a case of Esaw soneh l'Ya'aqov. I may be back in six months, I may be back in a year, and will have amassed a legion of sentence by sentence, line by line quotations from an exhaustive list of peer reviewed academic journals for each and every one of the above mentioned topics so there can be no ambiguity about the sourcing, or just gather an army of Zionist Israeli scholars from Hebrew University and Bar Ilan University to aid me in correcting and adding the missing bits of these articles. At which point I hope the information can be published, and in the mean time if anyone wants to ask me any questions about these topics, just post it here and I will respond soon. I hope this clears some confusion, and I would love any of you to respond if you have time, sincerely, Newman.--Newmancbn (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Really N? ANI was not the proper place for this and neither is AN. You need to drop the stick because you are not going to get anywhere with this kind of thing. I would suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS as well if you ever want the topic ban to be lifted. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, the person who banned me seemed to direct me here, I'm confused, where should I post this? Also I read Great Wrongs, there is no "great wrong" in history I am trying to correct, I am trying to simply make Jewish articles more accurate about Judaism and Jewish history, like give the details of the Bar Kochba revolt.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @MarnetteD: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: The ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 Jewish articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH', which I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects, because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it and say Adonai or HaShem, so to write Yahweh on a Jewish topic page is deeply offensive, especially to Orthodox Jews. Some compare it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs, like kike or nigger, or like saying Muhammad Pig-Raping bin Abdullah, so it really is a big deal for us. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. I didn't brake any rules intentionally, and until the YHWH incident I was engaged in what I thought were fruitful and meaningful discussions on the talk pages. It was said I wrote too much text, and I am working on that. I didn't brake any rules intentionally. I think it is kind of a misunderstanding, do you think so or not? This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere one.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)--

As I posted on your talk page your faith, in no way shape or form, had anything to do with your topic ban. You have now posted this "Wall of Text" for the second time on this page. You have had useful advice given to you by numerous editors which you have ignored. I am starting to have concerns about WP:COMPETENCE problems. Oh and this post violates the topic ban again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Newmancbn, you're pinging me and everyone else with the same insistence you displayed in the edits that got you topic-banned. This is not the way to turn people your way. One of the problems was that you seemed to care less for working on the basis of reliable secondary sources, and you have an opportunity to prove that you can do that, but in other areas. Good behavior elsewhere (that is, sticking to the community norms--policies and guidelines) is what might get a topic ban lifted eventually. Constantly pinging folks won't, and violating said ban here in this forum won't help either. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Need for a new page titled YHWH that is distinct from Tetragrammaton or Yahweh, or the rephrasing of "Tetragrammaton" to reflect the views of normative Judaism

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 hope I am proposing this in the right place. There should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans. Or the article "Tetragrammaton" should be changed to read that way (which currently states that YHWH is a pagan god called 'yahweh' from the Canaanite pantheon, a highly speculative theory with little tangible evidence other than the assumption it must be so, because where else did Judaic monotheism originate?). The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, if I type in YHWH I currently get Tetragrammaton and its pagan views, where is the page for our god?--Newmancbn (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A better place to ask about this might be at the talk page for WikiProject Judaism. This is more a noticeboard for administrative issues, rather than article writing issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, this is not really an administrator issue at all. What you need to do is discuss the matter either on an article talk page (such as at Talk:Yahweh), or at the talk page of a WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Administrators don't involve themselves (in their role as administrators) in content issues; this is the board for dealing with technical aspects of the administrator job. Good luck with your discussions! --Jayron32 02:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of the topic ban? MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This post and the one above it are a direct violation of a Topic ban -- see User_talk:Newmancbn#Topic_ban. Time for a site ban, it appears. The Bushranger administered the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, I just saw that. Newman is topic banned from Abrahamic religions, and a great deal of other topics. See WP:ANI#Topic ban for Newmancbn. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I was told I was banned from editing Abrahamic religions, so does that mean I can't suggest the creation of a new page to administrators? I am confused, I thought the ban only applied to Abrahamic religions? Can I comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism?--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Sorry I messed it up, it won't revert now. I didn't see your edit my bad.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Newman, what a "topic ban" means is that, for the duration of the ban, you are not allowed to edit, discuss, propose, or have anything at all to do with, the entire topic you are banned from. It means you find other areas of Wikipedia to help with. When it says you are "topic banned" from "Abrahamic religions" (among the other things) it means that you don't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole. You don't enter into discussions, you don't edit articles, you don't propose changes, you don't come up with ideas, you don't ask other people to help out with the topic, you do nothing with any thing at ALL related to the topic; as though it didn't exist for you. That's what a topic ban means. Your banned from working on ANYTHING related to the topic, in ANY way. --Jayron32 03:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Okay I understand now. So if it is a violation of the ban for me to request the ban be removed, what is my recourse addressing the ban? Especially since the one who proposed it thought I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, I am a Jew trying to help wikipedia accurately represent Jewish articles, and I think the ban was founded on the wrong assumption.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the ban terms was that you take 12 months before you request it be lifted. The community has lost its trust in your ability to work peacefully and collaboratively in this area. If you want to earn the community's trust back again, you need to show that you are capable of working well in areas you don't have the same emotional attachment to, and show an understanding of Wikipedia community norms, and then we can revisit it in 12 months. It's been one day. Find some other, less controversial area to work with, establish an ability to work well with others, and then after 12 months of that, we can revisit the issue. We're not saying you can never have the ban lifted ever. We're saying that one day is not enough time to establish that you've learned from the mistakes you made earlier, and that you're accepting of Wikipedia community norms. Do that first. --Jayron32 03:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: Okay I get it, however the ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH' on Jewish articles, I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it, so to write Yahweh can be highly offensive. Some comparing it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. What are your opinions? I am asking sincerely.--Newmancbn (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks with this edit Newman removed the section header that they created and - again - removed posts by other editors. I have been trying to restore them through several edit conflicts but I may have missed something so please feel free to restore anything that slipped by. This has got to stop and I would recommend a block should anything else be blanked. MarnetteD|Talk 03:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD That was an accident, for that I apologize. I was told it was the wrong section, and so I removed it. I didn't know it wasn't allowed. While it was reverted, I was making an edit and when I hit save I saw the revert and the page got stuck. I apologize again. Thank you for restoring the section.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will someone non-involved please close this violation of the topic ban? And inform him he can't use User:Newmancbn/sandbox to violate the ban either? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Unsourced BLPs

 Done Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can an administrator go through and remove the unsourced BLPs?

Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs jps (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren

 Done Semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Could someone please put an end to IP: 171.207.219.221 constantly inserting lunar calendar stuff whereby deleting data which we all are accustomed to – the Gregorian calendar? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

King Flight

Per a CU on the Commons, King Flight is a  Confirmed sock of Over the Limit/7alawa el3antbly/et al. (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7alawa el3antbly/Archive for an older local en.wiki CU case). They have continued to upload copyvios on en.wiki (e.g. File:Clothesline from Hell.jpg is NC/ND at Flickr source) after a Commons block. Please take whatever action is necessary. Эlcobbola _talk 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged, SPI opened for local sleeper check, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to review the user's uploads, so I'll leave to another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI and G5'ed the image uploads.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Blatant vandal

User: Freewhitechristianmale has made three disruptive edits so far to 2014 Ferguson unrest, in which he insinuates that Michael Brown's family has connections to ISIS. See [56], [57] and [58]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for all sorts of reasons. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Considering the six (that I'm able to count so far) vandalism hits today (so far) can we get 24 hours of semi-protection to slow things down and make sure things are properly reverted? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm disappointed your block reason wasn't literally "for all sorts of reasons". Also, not sure protection is necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was a little pressed for time and have been away since, but I could think of at least half a dozen reasons to block. Perhaps we need a template for "too many reasons to enumerate here." I don't see protection as needed for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim's wish is performed. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, WP:IDHT and a British IP

There has been a problem with a British IP that has a case of WP:IDHT with regards to sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, and future broadcast dates across a large number of articles. A non-comprehensive list of IPs the user has used in the past:

• 85.211.138.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.195.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.204.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.203.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.142.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.196.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have been hiding the future broadcast dates by commenting them out on the base that they were added in good faith and time will eventually be able to verify the dates, but the editor comes along, sometimes minutes later and removes the comment brackets.

The some of the affected articles include:

• Tokyo ESP[59][60][61][62]
• Rokujyoma no Shinryakusha!?[63]
• Glasslip[64][65]
• Tokyo Ghoul[66][67][68][69][70]
• Argevollen[71]
• Hanayamata [72][73]
• Magimoji Rurumo[74][75][76]
• List of Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya episodes[77]
• Rail Wars![78]
• Futsū no Joshikōsei ga Locodol Yattemita[79][80]

—Farix (t | c) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

hello sir

my name is rajvir singh randhawa and i make Randeep Singh Nabha,Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk two of three is deleted sir and one is still there Randeep Singh Nabha i'm blocked on wikipedia but i dot know what i did wrong and if i wrong so why you do not delete Randeep Singh Nabha and if i make good right thing so why deleted Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk that's it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.13.226 (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

your all bocking me without anything as some of other rajvir singh randhawa but why

user:Kumioko ban review

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review for ease of access to this page, and to allow for a dedicated talk page for other issues surrounding the discussion. Regards, Crazynas ^t 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Postdating to prevent early closure. Mike V • Talk 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

LGBT topic ban requested

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

---

Following a minor edit war and then a thread on DRN, I would like the community to consider a topic ban for Plarem, an editor who has a habit of making POV-edits to LGBT articles. A laundry list of edits is laid out in the DRN thread (and I don't wish to add/rehash it), and the two latest additions speak for themselves: this and this. I'm pinging editors involved in the situation: Fæ, Ron 1987, CombatWombat42, Randykitty, Bbb23, Mark Miller, and SPQRobin.

The topic ban should cover LGBT topics broadly considered. The emphasis is on same-sex marriage (or same-sex "marriage", as the editor calls it), Gay Pride events (they rename sections and piped links to articles as "Same-sex promotion" and that sort of thing), and LGBT legislation. I have no opinion at this moment on whether they should be topic-banned from related article talk pages, but others may have one. Thank you for your consideration. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per the evidence presented in both threads mentioned by Drmies. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support plenty of provocation here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support thank you for raising this request. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per evidence provided via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Croatia.23.27Public_promotion_of_LGBT_issues.27_bias. User in question is trying to impose his personal views. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support SPQRobin (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I encountered this editor for the first time yesterday and saw some disturbing edits. I raised the issue at the Wikiproject LGBT studies to get other editors to weigh in. From reading his comments, I would guess this editor perhaps lacks the maturity to edit articles dealing with topics he is uncomfortable with. There may also be a language issue (the editor identifies as Polish so English is not his first language) as he does not seem to understand that the word "pride" in this context is not POV and that altering it to his own terminology actually is POV. He seems to be doing credible work elsewhere so perhaps he should stay away from controversial topics. freshacconci talk to me 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would have done so earlier but it's Saturday and I had to run some errands. I even ate lunch. This is not a language issue. This is a bias issue. He doesn't just say he's Polish on his user page. He says he's against same-sex marriage (twice). He's entitled to hold those beliefs, but he's not allowed to transport them to Wikipedia pages. These edits are not in a gray area. They are way beyond neutral. The terrorism diff is a truly nasty piece of work. (BTW, it should be "broadly construed".)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - And I think calling someone a dumbass in edit summary is enough to lose faith that they could handle a discussion calmly and dispassionately on the corresponding talk pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support: even a cursory glance at the evidence at DRN shows me a topic ban is needed. Repeated POV violations, not least the deplorable terrorism comment, and incivility to other editors when discussing the changes. Since I doubt he will have much productive to say, a ban from talk pages is also warranted. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't believe such people should be allowed to contribute to this wiki at all. The user clearly fails to understand what an encyclopedia is. Vogone (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not a good fit for the topic in terms of competency or neutrality. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an administrator and I rarely support topic bans, and have been outside of the majority view when it comes to them. I don't usually support them unless they're unambiguously disruptive, and I see in this case that it is indeed necessary. The user in question may have a lighter head when they edit areas where they're able to contribute civilly and without a predetermined POV. Tutelary (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The editor is not here to improve LGBT articles, he's here to push an obvious moralistic negative POV on them. They should stick to the topics they don't have a problem with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. User is incapable of editing the topic in a neutral manner. Maturity issues also come into play. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, we don't need that sort of bigotry or trolling here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

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

Very small backlog needs clearing

First of all, sorry if anyone feels that I am an impatient person. Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has a small backlog. 3 users including me have asked for permission to use AWB. The last admin activity on this page was on 21 August. Can someone respond there. Sorry again, if you don't like this method of asking for permission.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I will get around to looking there, but I am concentrating on content creation in the last couple of days. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions for Malleus/Eric Corbett

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

---

Hey all. Eric Corbett can't answer a question of mine (really, my characterization of what I think he thinks about RfA as a process) because, well, "Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia". Can we not make an exception for, like, my talk page which is a happy place and a well-known conflict-free zone? I promise no dirty words will be spoken or personally offensive statements made. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's Arbcom restriction, no, it appears we cannot. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that sucks. So I'd have to file some ArbCom/Request/Case, and sound all official, and make a big deal out of what shouldn't be one. It's just a guy on someone's talk page... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that you have to do anything, but, perhaps that is cold comfort, or not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If Malleus is topic banned from discussing ArbCom RFAed: corrected, why are you involving yourself in such a situation by attempting to summarize his pre-topic-ban position or whatever it is? Is your opinion not enough? Why drag Malleus into it when you know he can't comment? --Jayron32 17:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Who said I was topic banned from discussing ArbCom? Eric Corbett 17:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

sorry. Misread. So corrected --Jayron32 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Jayron, maybe I'm genuinely interested. I could take if off-wiki, I suppose, which would do little more than add to the chatter around Wikipedia about Wikipedia. Eric, watch the western skies for smoke signals. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Still, it seems unwise to bait someone into violating their topic ban. It would be best to let one's curiousity simply be unfulfilled, and allow Malleus some peace. I'd suspect this sort of thing is a sore spot, and Malleus probably has better work to do at Wikipedia than to be distracted by this sort of nonsense again. --Jayron32 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For reference, the current editing restriction on Eric stems from WP:ARBCIV#Amendments. This might not be the right venue to seek a clarification or modification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See also the ArbCom motion proceeding on which that amendment was based. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Clarification and Amendments page, would likely be your best route. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always talk about it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Chillum 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Drmies didn't drag Eric into the discussion, Eric joined the discussion of his own accord, saying that he had long disagreed with someone about "what's wrong with RfA and how best to fix it". Up to that point the discussion had been about admin behaviour (and anti-admin behaviour) in general, not about RfA in particular. Drmies isn't responsible for Eric breaking his topic ban here, Eric is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What topic ban would that be Demiurge1000? Simply repeating falsehoods doesn't one day make them come true. Eric Corbett 17:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge, why can't you leave this alone? No topic ban is broken. No one will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd made one comment, and I haven't said anything about anyone being blocked. Why can't you leave it alone? You're the one that brought it to this noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is in fact a very good example of one of the major problems that many WP processes face; enemies simply lie in ambush waiting for an opportunity to wreak their revenge, even if they have to fabricate the evidence to do so. Eric Corbett 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia as a battleground, with "enemies" and "ambushes" and "revenge" everywhere, is an attitude that contributes to making it so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's simply an observation that it is so. Why else are you here falsely claiming that I've violated a topic ban? Eric Corbett 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge please strike your accusation Eric broke the ban or have the courage to try your luck at WP:AE (Warning: There be boomerangs). NE Ent 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to original post: Drmies, why not ask your question at meta:User talk:Eric Corbett?NE Ent 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems that this discussion cannot result in any change, I just filed a request to arbcom. See here. It strikes me as a relatively simple request which will either be granted quickly or ruled out of hand just as quickly. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbitration amendment to Tea Party movement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.

The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.

Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected.

The closed amendment request may be reviewed on the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Whiffs of Wiki-PR

What are we doing about SPA editors with fairly obvious COI that have no disclosure statements on their accounts? Anything at all? Are we starting SPIs for them tied to the Morning277 account or what? Not naming them now to avoid notification but it's not hard to tell when an account is doing paid editing. There's nothing inappropriate in the article creations, some might even be notable, but some are not. More importantly there is no clear disclosure per WP:COI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What we usually should first do is tell them to do it, right? See further general discussion here Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did. Let's see how it goes. I think we should have a bit more teeth in these cases. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's behaviour that could be the result of someone not knowing/understanding our policies, then it's probably best to assume it is the result of ignorance, and avoid baring our teeth for a while. ( Didn't that used to be a policy round here? ) The Land (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing newbie about the account, and I didn't intend to bite them, but rather make sure that they are adhering to COI, such as it is. But I wasn't sure if for example we were retroactively moving their created articles to Draft for review or something like that. Maybe we should, but that's another matter. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, OK, I think I understand the issue better now. So the question is what do we do when there is good evidence that people are breaching the COI policy (and/or the Terms of Use), but with contributions that aren't otherwise particularly problematic; have I got that right? Well, ultimately, blocking them will be appropriate if polite reminders about the policies don't work... The Land (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. But not following the COI is a problem. Thing is, there is no specific policy-based rationale for blocking someone on the basis that they are not following COI, nor is there a "mandate" for sending all their created articles prior to disclosure to the draft namespace for review (as an example of something we should be doing IMO). Of course they can be blocked for disruptive behavior and whatnot, but that's it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The specific policy based rationale is the policy WP:TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The TOU specifies what you cannot do, but not what happens when you actually do it. This FAQ doesn't go into it either. It's not clear to me if an admin action would require consensus or what. Or what actions could or should be taken beyond the standard disruptive/socking/etc blockable behavior. I've never seen a block for "TOU violations", although I suppose that doesn't mean they don't exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the TOU says it may be enforced, that's warning and grounds, so do what you administratively think improves the pedia, and defend it if necessary, as with anything it will depend on circumstance: intransigence/ignore reasonable policy based request; COIN discussion; SPA; Duck, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

user:Kumioko ban review

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 discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review for ease of access to this page, and to allow for a dedicated talk page for other issues surrounding the discussion. Regards, Crazynas ^t 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Postdating to prevent early closure. Mike V • Talk 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

RfC/U problem

There doesn't seem to be anybody home at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment where I asked why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress isn't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. The user evidently wasn't notified properly either. I'm also a bit confused in that although Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance says that an RfC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" that's exactly what is being asked for:"Topic ban for nine months from all Somalia military and political articles, broadly defined. By observation rather than participation, it is hoped that the necessity to follow the fundamental wikipedia rule of WP:NPOV will be learned during that topic ban.". I've commented on that in my response. Pinging the certifiers: User:Anotherclown and User:Nick-D. I was asked about this by Middayexpress and since my original question at what I thought was the appropriate talk page hasn't been answered I thought I'd come here. I'm not clear where the various editors who have responded are coming from. One of them has only a couple of hundred edits, the last of them before responding to this RfC being April 2013 so it appears that there is some sort of canvssing going on. I apologise in advance if I'm wrong, but that has certainly puzzled me as it seems unlikely that an editor who hasn't edited for for well over a year would stumble over this. I have no comment on the main issues being raised as my interactions with the editor involved haven't touched on those. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Vote Stacking" has been an endemic problem for years on RfC/U pages (up to 14 or so editors being notified of such an RfC who have had disputes with the subject of the RfC) -- and some admins have, in fact, issued blocks or bans as a result of such vote stacked RfC/U pages. IMHO, where any such canvassing is evident, the RfC/U should be immediately shut down, as the probability of a WP:False consensus becomes too high. Where a process has such flaws, it behooves admins to not ignore such flaws. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The request wasn't listed because the posters didn't follow the complicated instructions ... I've added the listing. (And of course an RFC/U can't impose a ban). NE Ent 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Gday Dougweller. Was there something else I was meant to do as a certifier? I'm rarely involved in RfCs so wasn't aware I had any responsibilities, i.e. to inform people or list the RfC etc, guess I just assumed the process was being sorted by the volunteers there. My certification was of the statement of the problem, not the requested outcome. Was this incorrect? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Anotherclown here, and note that the RfC/U initiator is an experianced editor in excellent standing who's also not-that-familiar with the RfC/U process (to my knowledge), which doubtlessly explains the technical issues here. I very much doubt that they'd even consider canvassing, much less do it. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just inexperience that led to it not being listed. I'm still puzzled how an editor who hasn't edited for such a long while discovered it. I have asked him but if he is sporadic he may not respond. It wasn't Anotherclown's responsibility to do anything else. The requested outcome remains a problem. The RfC should be about specific changes in behavior such as those at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56#Desired outcome. As it stands there are no desired outcomes other than a topic ban which is an inappropriate request. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I should have pinged User:Buckshot06 who is the one who initiated this. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not around it seems. Nick-D, Buckshot06 did in fact notify a number of editors about the RfC/U. Unfortunately none of them were Middayexpress (who also notified a few people including me). Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Pursuant to [81] from Newyorkbrad

Perhaps we could consider DS on articles relating to active candidates for office, in the X months leading up to the election. But I'd want to see this taken to an RfC for community input before taking it any further.

Ought the community enact standards relating to articles of strong political campaign interest allowing for categorization of such articles as being under a "community imposed general sanction" allowing protection of such articles and strong edit war and WP:BLPenforcement on such articles during any campaign season (not limited to American Politics)? 15:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

discussion

Presented here for discussion, and not proposing what any such standards should be, only posing the question as to whether a policy RfC should ensue after any discussion here, as suggested by Newyorkbrad as I read his post, and seeking any proposals for such a policy discussion. Collect (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Surely one of the village pumps would be a better place than AN for this discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Or WP:BLP or WP:BLPN. It might even be a big enough topic for its own Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. This is certainly not the place for this as it is not an "Admin only" discussion. Believe it or not not every editor has this page on their watchlist :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is primarily a function which I thought was a good fit here - Village Pump is the final resting place for hundreds of proposals - but this is not even a proposal - it is to find out if a proposal should be made, and what form such a proposal might take. Also I find this board is not "admin only". Collect (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So, you're starting a proposal to see if there is consensus to start a proposal? Perhaps you should have first started a proposal to see if there was a consensus to start a proposal to see if there was a consensus to start a proposal. But that may have been too rash, no? Maybe it would have been best to discuss if we should start a discussion about having a proposal to see if there is consensus to have a discussion to draft a proposal to have a discussion about starting a straw poll, to see if there is any support for having a discussion to float the idea of starting a proposal to discuss if there is consensus to start a proposal to put this before the community. Yeah, let's do that instead. --Jayron32 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually I am following a suggestion from an arbitrator here. As it encompasses more than just BLPs, posing it at WP:BLP would seem a tad bootless. Monty Python discourse is, alas, not very helpful here. So rather than go around Robin Hood's barn, might we simply discuss the question posed? Should Wikipedia by community action establish policies and guidelines in general covering certain political articles, including BLPs as well as other articles, during campaign seasons? Cheers. And John Cleese does the routine far better. Collect (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• If this is for Community Sanctions, this or perhaps better WP:ANI would seem appropriate. With Notices to BLP and BLPN, since it will be mostly but probably not all BLPs (think "binders full of women"), etc. And details about the precedents in proposals might be helpful, i.e., if there are some because it's temporary across a range of articles. Plus details: like does every article have to be templated, or just ones where there are major issues as a first warning, before sanctions considered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That is precisely what I am asking for -- my initial personal thought is to add a series of hidden categories (to account for different sets of political seasons in different nations) for articles within any given political season, and then have admins determine the dates applicable to that season, with the ability to (say) apply semi-protection across that category at the start of that time period, and to remove semi-protection at the end of that time period automatically. This would mean each article would only need categorizing once (and it would likely only be done if an admin felt an article might pose problems) and in future years it could easily be semi-protected automatically. But that is not to say that others will not have far better ideas, to be sure, and I think we would be well-served to examine them. As I noted, this is not limited to BLPs at all. And some editors might, indeed, propose a system of "community sanctions" and again this board seems the best place for such discussions. Collect (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• This is not the right venue -- there's nothing in the proposal that is specific to the role of admins. Village Pump, as suggested. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• I've never really liked the Pending Changes process, but it seems to be that this might be a good place to use it. It's much less fuss than DS, which I think should be reserved for more substantial problems than pages on individual candidates. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Review Shopping.

STATicVapor is review SHOPPING at My Nigga. He is trying to ignore, hide and delete Talk:My Nigga/GA1. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_shopping, but he persists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: in the future please notify the user that you've started a thread on their behavior. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought a {{u}} served the same purpose. Duly noted, although I still may forget because I don't come here that often.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with ANI process for whatever reason, particularly if you are experienced enough to know you don't know and to know what gives guidance, you logically should read at least one of the page header or editnotice. And so follow the red box which says to notify users on their talk page and not via other methods. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that quick failing a GA nomination for the reasons you used do not appear to be among the reasons to do so. You did not allow the editor the chance to make any changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the guidelines say that that an article should only be quickfailed when "the issue(s) can not be solved in a reasonable amount of time or without major rewrites". Even if Tony's concerns were valid reasons for failing - which they aren't - they're easily solvable. I would suggest rebooting this GA, either by deleting /GA1 or simply rolling it back to the point before Tony answered it. Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_shopping to help us come to a consensus. However, I believe normal procedure during an erroneous QF is resumption of review. Comment there on whatever you think is normal however so we have a unified discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: and @Black Kite: thank you both for seeing the situation as it truly is. The quick fail of the first GAN was not for valid reasons at all and if it is possible, should be expunged from the record. Tony, it is not the normal procedure at all if the one that wishes to review the article does not understand the GA criteria, also after the way the discussion you linked to went, I doubt you would be anything but neutral in your review. STATic message me! 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt we need to expunge anything, but the GA should probably resume.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 06:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al arbitration case:

The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored.

is vacated and replaced with the following:

Guanaco may regain the tools via a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Folk Radio UK

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 Folk Radio UK page promotes a commercial website

[[82]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.211.140 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Bughian to Andrei Zlatescu

User:Bughian has been continuously adding books that haven't been published yet, adding not relevant sources and deleting some books with no justification. --RomaniaEXTERNE (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And this user only has one source, which is outdated that he depends on.--RomaniaEXTERNE (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 86,400 seconds. After that, I checked the page history and counted ten reverts by each of you — way way past the three-revert rule. Any administrator who believes the protection no longer to be needed should remove it, but if either of you then resume edit-warring, I would hope that this administrator will block you without warning. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi all, I would be greatful if someone could revdel this lot and edits by Comsatsinstitute on this page. It is a copyvio of [83], [84] and [85], among others. Semi-protection may also be warrented, as user appears to have ownership issues per User talk:Mdann52#COMSATS, and is on a dynamic IP and now an SPA. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 2 weeks. I also revdel'd nearly the entire article history, as the problems stretched all the way back to 2006. Please feel free to warn/block repeat offenders. Mike V • Talk 17:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: thanks for that! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Byzantine Bulgarian Wars 970-1018

There's a move war going on in the article. See also the discussion, please. It's possible that the two new editors are sock puppets or a tag team. José Luiz ^talk 20:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

CU has come up positive for both socks. They just got indeffed and the SPI is closed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Clacton by-election, 2014

I have been having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly removed a standard piece of an articles format. For UK by-election articles, there is a standard layout that follows a template. Unfortunately, the person who created the article didn't follow the template layout and wording. I have made additions and changes so that the layout meets the standard layout. This involved adding a blank infobox, a candidates box and changes to the opening paragraph. Unfortunately, one editor User:Arms & Hearts, took it upon themselves to delete the candidate box in an edit titled "cleanup, rm inference of a "hint"". While there were some constructive points in that edit, I reverted it as it is not so easy to copy and paste a formatted table from the edit history screen into an article. I explained to the User on their talk page that I didn't have a problem with the bulk of his/her edit but that removing standard pieces of an article layout is not acceptable therefore I would revert it. The editor in question has repeatedly undone this and ignored my clear reasoning for using the undo facility, if it were so simple to copy and paste, I would. This has now passed the three reverts rule, so I thought it best to report it here and let the editor in question also know. Owl In The House (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you actually seem to be the problem here – you have clearly broken 3RR on this article by reverting two separate editors four times within the past 24 hours ([86][87][88][89]), and should be blocked. You might also want to see WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 11:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not the one removing content and I have explained that I am happy for the individuals edit to stand and that I was only using the undo facility for formatting reasons. Whereas the other editor has deliberately used the undo facility to revert an edit that removes material. You have got that the wrong way round. Besides given other ongoing discussions and your choosing to disagree with me (and at times misrepresent my actions and positions on here) I don't think you're an appropriate editor to pick this one up. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I haven't blocked you myself. The fact that you are trying to justify breaking 3RR (and also failing to admit that it is two separate editors who you have reverted) is not a positive move. Number 57 12:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point us to a place where this default layout is discussed? If you can, we need to consider this an exception — standardisation is highly important, and when you explain that an article's been taken away from such a standard, it's a problem with the person who intentionally and knowingly takes the article away from that standard. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can, every single by-election since the 2010 General Election has had a candidate box in the run up to the by-election. You will see from looking through this [[90]] that every single article follows a standard layout and that if you look at the edit history of every single article that while ever the by-election is ongoing, ie prior to there being a results table, there is a candidates table. That is the problem here, that is what has been removed from this article and that is why I restored it. It is also worth noting that I tried to direct the editor in question to the talk page and that I said to them there changes to the text were fine but the removal of standard layout and sourced content wasn't. I said to the editor in question that I was only using the undo facility because it isn't easy for formatting reasons to copy a table from the edit history and then paste it. I was very clear about that, I was consciously trying to prevent an edit war, whereas the editor in question thought it appropriate to put this in the edit log: "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child" - his words, not mine. It was clear that he hit undo in order to annoy me and to play games, he knew perfectly well that there was no dispute over his changes to the text and that he could replace them manually but he chose to react in that way and to deliberately remove content that shouldn't have been removed. Anyway I feel myself getting aggravated by this situation now because I am being misrepresented and so is the situation. Thank you Nyttend for coming to look at this. Owl In The House (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at this diff; are you talking about the little box at the bottom of Candidates? I've chosen five random post-2010 by-election articles and examined an immediately-before-election revision of each (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), and the only standardised thing I can find is that little box. It's one thing for other namespaces, but when we're trying to standardise articles, we definitely need to have some sort of page discussing the standards so anyone can see them. If you expect administrators to act on your complaint, you need to show us that someone's intentionally going against a standard, and if there's nothing better than "go dig up the histories of the pages listed at this article", there's no standard. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed talking about that little box at the bottom of the candidates section. Yes, there is a good reason why the edit histories of those earlier articles will look different, its because things were only standardised in 2012, it was found that the articles were all higgledie piggledie so a standard layout came about the layout is as follows:

Infobox (mostly left blank until after election but includes a constituency map)

Opening Paragraph - use of/style of language is largely standardised

Background

Candidates (including candidate box at bottom of section - box is removed once result is revealed)

Result (only applicable after the election has taken place)

Polling (not relevant for all articles, especially the earlier ones)

Previous Result - copied over from constituency article

See Also (this is a standardised list of similar articles - with other specific related articles as well eg a previous byelection)

Notes (references)

You are better looking at slightly more recent articles (post standardisation) and you will see some real consistency, here are some versions of byelection articles immidiately before the election: Newark, Wythenshawe, South Shields, Mid Ulster, Eastleigh, I could go back further down the list, I know this consistency goes back as far as about Corby as that is roughly when things were standardised. You'll probably notice that the map doesn't appear in all of the pre-election versions, that is largely because of copying over infoboxes and deleting their content and editors not bothering to add the map until the result comes out but in reality the map of the constituency isn't going to change as a result of the by-election and it's relevance to the article isn't affected by the result.

Anyway, I hope this helps and paints a clearer picture of the standard format we have been following on by-election articles for the last few years and have in turn largely backdated to 2010. In any case it can be in no doubt that it has been standard practice to have a candidate box for quite some time and this is part of a standardised layout for by-elections, therefore it's removal isn't really appropriate. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this "standard format" should really be documented in a project guideline as casual editors and those who are not "we" know that a consensus exists. It would have been easier to point User:Arms & Hearts at that consensus or raise it on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You know what, perhaps you're right, it would certainly save any of this in the future. It's clear that there is a standard format and what that is, maybe it should be formally documented, where do you suggest? I do take point. Thanks for your input. Owl In The House (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be overlooking why the box was being removed by the two other editors - it's because there is currently only one confirmed candidate (and possibly actually none), and they deemed the box useless at this point. The rationale given by @Bondegezou: in this revert is perfectly reasonable. There is no justification whatsoever for Own in the House breaking 3RR here. Number 57 15:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a point that has been picked upon on the Clacton talk page but Bondegezou hasn't replied/got round to replying. As I have pointed out on the talk page there are two parties who officially have candidates for the seat, UKIP's NEC have confirmed Carswell and Labour have a PPC and have not in anyway stated or implied that anyone else will stand instead. It is true to say that there is a lot of hearsay, rumour, suggestion etc but nothing in terms of hard facts. Indeed the hard facts that can be reliably sourced suggest that there are 2 candidates at present and one former PPC who seems rather annoyed. Bondegezou's rationale would be correct if it didn't rely on hearsay, there are 2 party's who have selected a candidate for this seat, that is a clear fact. I repeat I was merely restoring the article to it's original/standard format and directing people in dispute to the talk page, no one else can say the same but there is another individual who was deliberatly edit warring (when I actively tried to avoid doing so - see here) and that person is User:Arms & Hearts. Owl In The House (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still trying to justify breaking 3RR. What you should be doing is apologising and saying you won't be doing it again. Number 57 16:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, Owl in the House continues to claim that they were perfectly justified in reverting four times on the article, as the edits they were reverting were "unjust". It might be worth someone else reminding them of the rules. Thanks, Number 57 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The denials that 3RR was broken continue. Number 57 16:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous, Number 57 is being incredibly selective and seem to be deliberately trying to wind me up. I am not the one who was edit warring here, indeed it is provable that I did everything I could to prevent an edit war but Number 57 chooses to ignore the evidence. Anyway I have cut and paste the section Number 57 started on my talk page, it's better that everything is in one place, especially when an editor is trying to be selective in the arguments they make. Owl In The House (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to another admin reviewing your behaviour. Number 57 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

From Owl In The House's talk page

I was considering writing this comment to you last night, and having seen your comments at Talk:Clacton by-election, 2014 made earlier this morning, the need is even more apparent.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and needs a positive atmosphere to help foster this. However, the attitude in which you approach editing Wikipedia is currently rather the opposite. Almost every comment you make on a talk page (and some of your edit summaries) seem designed to annoy other people. Your attitude is highly condescending and patronising, and all you are doing is winding people up. Collaboration inevitably involves compromise, but you putting everyones's backs up means that no-one is going to be willing to compromise with you. In the long run, this is going to result in you getting into an increasing number of edit wars (you have already broken WP:3RR at Clacton by-election, 2014).

You really need to change the way you interact with other people on here, otherwise you are not going to find it easy going. Number 57 12:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but it is not me who has broken the 3RR rule as I was not the one removing content. Furthermore my reaction is entirely in reaction to the mood other editors put me in, I do not have run ins with every editor on here. I do however get irate when being ignored, though I do so within the rules. Furthermore I do not take kindly to people effectively putting words in my mouth, in misunderstanding the point I have been making in various discussions. This is apparent on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, I can't suggest enough that I was not against some form of change out right, I am just against endless discussion provoked by (what others concur to have been) politically motivated edits by disruptive editors. Now I am not accusing any of the people active in present discussions of that (so please do not say I am), I am merely pointing out how this issue came about several months ago. There was nothing wrong with the main format and therefore no need to change it. However, if a sensible proposal of something better came along then I would look at it fairly, as it happens what was eventually proposed seems quite agreeable to me but only if implemented consistently. I do not want to come across as aggressive etc, I just want this issue resolved and not to be silenced and dismissed in the way I have been. Owl In The House (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have quite clearly broken 3RR - it doesn't matter whether content was removed or not - you reverted other editors' edits four times within 24 hours. And if you don't want to be dismissed, try not being so dismissive to others. Number 57 12:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You are being selective in your interpretation of the rules, what about always reverting back to the baseline (original) when an issue is in dispute. It is very clearly stated within the edit history that User:Arms & Hearts was undoing edits out of spite (using wikipedia to play a game - wind another editor up). He did not engage in the talk page when I asked him to and he even said this in the edit log: "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child" - his words, not mine. Reverting such an edit is not unjust. Thank you Owl In The House (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not being selective in my interpretation the rules. The only exception to 3RR in cases like this is reverting vandalism (see WP:3RRNO). An edit being "unjust" is not in any way a valid reason for violating 3RR. Number 57 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced material that is part of an article's standard layout is vandalism. Furthermore when the editor in question signs off their changes in the revision history as "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child)" (his words not mine) kind of makes it plain that the edit was deliberately disruptive and that the intention was not to improve the article, it was specifically to wind me up. You have ignored this fact 3times now and therefore you are being selective. It's not like I didn't try and engage with the editor on their talk page and direct them to the articles talk page as well. Yes you are definitely being selective here. Owl In The House (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it. WP:3RRNO very clearly states that the vandalism clause refers to "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." I do not want to hear any more excuses - this is not page blanking or adding offensive languages. Just accept that you broke the rules and learn from it. Not accepting that you were wrong only increases the likelihood that you will be blocked. Number 57 16:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You've done it again, you have completely ignored the editor in question's use of bad language, you are continuing to be selective. Technically I made more then 3 reverts of the same edit but that does not mean I broke the 3RR rule, you have said so yourself and have even sited examples, incidentally which also apply to this case. If you want to be uber technical, I broke one rule to uphold another which as MilborneOne has pointed out is not in breach of Wiki policy. May I remind you that it is well documented that I did what I could to avoid an edit war, by talking to the user on his/her talk page, I was actively engaging trying to remove the need to undo his edits (another fact you deliberately ignore. You really are getting yourself worked up here (as I was yesterday....pot calling the kettle black rings to mind). Anyway, the issue has been resolved and Arms & Hearts has stopped edit warring and deliberately being disruptive. Owl In The House (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proof Owl In The House tried to avoid an edit war by engaging

Below is a section copied from Arms & Hearts's talk page. It shows Owl In The House (myself) trying to tell the editor in question not to edit war, it shows that I tried to engage by saying that the only thing wrong with the edit was that they removed sourced material that is part of the article's standard format. As you can see they repeatedly ignored my attempts to engage with them and continued to revert the edit and in the end swore on the edit log, making it clear that their edit was an act of spite (not for the betterment of the article). The facts speak for themselves. I'd be grateful if Number 57 could get off my case and his attempts to defame me are ignored. Thank you Owl In The House (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Arms & Hearts's talk page

Hello, I have reverted an edit you made to the Clacton by-election, 2014 article as you have removed a standard piece of layout for UK by-election articles, namely the candidates table. Please refrain from edits that will cause the article to deviate from the standard format for UK byelections, we need to remain consistent. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have again reverted your edit, please do not remove standard pieces of the by-election article format. I was about to rerevert the good changes that you had made. It is not easy to put a table back into an article without using the undo facility as it is to redo your changes manually. I will redo your edit but please do not remove that table again, if you do it will constitute an edit war, this would be a breach of Wiki policy. I am not saying your edit is rubbish, it is merely a case that you shouldn't be removing that table and that for formatting reasons it is not easy to restore the table manually. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Clacton by-election, 2014.

Your conduct over this issue and indeed the comments you have made in the edit log of the article are completely unacceptable:

____________________Copied from the edit log of Clacton by-election, 2014 (top)___________________________

because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child)

____________________Copied from the edit log of Clacton by-election, 2014 (top)___________________________

Wikipedia is not a playground and such games should not be played when making edits. I gave you a very clear and specific reason as to why I had to use the undo facility, I also stated I didn't have a problem with the rest of your edit (in the most part). The only changes I have made are for formatting reasons. You are in breach of several Wikipedia Policies including: Wikipedia:Content removal, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (Wikipedia:Offensive material). I will put this incident on the edit warring noticeboard, consider this your final warning.

I repeat it is not so simple to manually replace a box or table with specific formatting once said table has been removed from the article, that is the only reason I used the undo facility, if it was so easy to copy and paste, I would have done that. It is simply unacceptable for whatever reason to remove a standard piece of the article format, every single by-election article has had a candidate box just as soon as more then one candidate has been announced. I repeat I have no problem with your edits to the text.

However again I must stress that "United Kingdom Independence Party" must not be used on Wikipedia, it is "UKIP", "UK Independence Party" or informally within text as "Ukip". Firstly, "United Kingdom Independence Party" isn't even the party's official name, secondly it has previously caused formatting issues when it comes to tables etc, so on Wikipedia we stick to 2 clear names. I realise it wasn't you that typed "United Kingdom Independence Party" but it was you who undid an edit which replaced it, this is why I am explaining this to you.

I don't want to fall out with you, I don't want to to revert or hold back your constructive editing of Wikipedia but it simply unacceptable to conduct yourself in this way.

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. I have logged this incident on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I hope no further action is required. Let's try and move on from this constructively. Owl In The House (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I was mentioned in the discussion above. I felt the edit I made was reasonable at the time, but I have since found a citation confirming Young as the by-election candidate (and have added it to the article), so I am OK with the candidate table that is currently in the article. I was unaware of the subsequent edit war until now. Personally, I see no need to rush to a candidate table when only a small number of candidates are known. We have had problems with by-election articles before of all sorts of people claiming they will be candidates, but failing to get themselves properly nominated; so I'm happy to leave candidate tables until nearer the election date.

Owl In The House, might I politely suggest that you take this as an opportunity to think about your editing behaviour. You have had a rather forceful approach of late, with several articles around the Clacton election and at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#RfC:_Should_the_Green_Party.2C_along_with_other_parties_be_included_in_the_table_of_polling_results (and following sections). If I may, I would suggest WP:OWN and WP:3RR are valuable reading to take to heart. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I realise Bondegezou that your edit was entirely in good faith and down to incomplete information. I have no disagreement with you, thank you for accepting the restored version. I do agree with you on the instance of unconfirmed candidates, Goggins in Wythenshawe was a clear example. It seems clear that people should only be entered into the candidate box when their party confirms them as an official candidate. As far as Independents go, well I think that would be a judgement call but generally I'd say wait until the statement of persons nominated is published or when it is clear that an independent has enough funds to cover the deposit.

On the matter of myself, I realise that at times I can be a bit firm and irritable, this is largely in reaction to the inconsistent nature and attitudes to changes made by various editors and also that those IP editors who have come to Wikipedia with an overtly political agenda have been allowed to consume so much time and that there have been efforts to appease them. Whereas in the past when disruptive editors from different political persuasions have caused disruptions there has been a zero tolerance approach, this is inconsistent. I have found myself in the position where I have had to be the one who polices this behaviour, whereas in the past that would be more evenly shared, it just seems editors are prepared to turn a blind eye if it suits them. It's infuriating, I do my best to keep my political views out of editing, I'm not saying others don't actively do that but it has gone conveniently quiet at times. Anyway, I don't want to be so forceful but it is entirely in reaction to recent events on here. Owl In The House (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

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

---

On Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results. Was my close in error?—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse It was a sensible compromise. The real issue is that one editor is clearly unwilling to accept anything except their own opinion. Number 57 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not an error The close was logical, since the discussion had been already settled. The closing proposal made was, at the least, enough of its own to become worth of some debate. Impru20 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support the close, as an uninvolved close reviewer. The closer's conclusion should be a partial win - partial win. One editor disagrees. I see no need to re-open the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry: if you're saying that an RfC close should always be a partial win then I respectfully disagree. Sometimes the encyclopaedia needs a decision rather than a compromise! But in this case I was faced with a binary RfC (this or that) where the options weren't mutually exclusive, so I felt the optimal outcome was a win for both sides. Thanks for endorsing the close, though.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. I wasn't saying that there should always be a partial win. Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. However, a partial win - partial win is even better, so good work by the closer. A decision is usually needed, and in this case, it was both a decision and a compromise, even better than just a decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Looks fine to me. A quite sensible compromise that accurately interprets consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• I really should have been notified about this discussion opening, since I have been referred to in it. As for Number 57's comments about myself, that is hardly fair. I suggest you actually look again at what I have said on that talk page. I am not against making a change, I am merely saying we need to be consistent in the way we make that change to the article and for there to be a firm proposal, there is now one and I like it but only providedit is implemented for the whole article, we shouldn't just make a change from today or whenever. If you guys are prepared to put as much effort into making the change to the article as you have for arguing for it, then I'm fully in favour. Surely you can see why it wouldn't be right (and indeed inconsistent with your own arguments) to suddenly start adding the detail from a certain date, instead of for the whole article. Owl In The House (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, the close seems reasonable to me. You're never going to make everyone happy, but it appears to be a fair reading of the comments made. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
• Not an error. It was appropriate to close that discussion, indeed it should have been closed earlier and a new section started instead. Eventually that was done. That said that discussion is still ongoing with actions outstanding. Owl In The House (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article)

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

---

I'm seeking the second opinion of an uninvolved admin (not involved in this topic area) on the removal of an author from the Further Reading section of the BJP article. Thanks!

An RFC has been started because an user was insisting of removing a book by Koenraad Elst ("BJP vis-a-vis Hindu resurgence) from the Further reading section of the BJP article.

The RFC ended with 3 votes in favor of keep and 2 votes for removal.

Now an admin has closed the RFC as "delete".

The only user in the discussion who was impartial (no history of editing in this topic area) voted for keep. All others, including the admin, have edited the topic area previously. Therefore I'm looking for the opinion of an impartial editor. Because the discussions are scattered over several pages, it is likely that the closing admin has not read all the arguments. The discussions are at:

1. RFC This talk page

2. talk page,

3. External_links/Noticeboard

4. Koenraad_Elst_in_further_reading

5. RFC_Closure_at_Bharatiya_Janata_Party

6. Discussion

7. Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_2#Koenraad_Elst_and_LK_Advani_book

--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Have yo asked the closing admin about this first? Remember, we don't hold !votes, we hold policy-based discussions, and if indeed that admin was unaware of the linked discussions, then by all means let them know - but not with the accusatory tone above the panda ₯’ 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed on the admin's talkpage since a few days without result. I didn't want it to sound accusatory, all I'm asking is a second opinion by an uninvolved admin, and that the closing admin reads all the previous discussions (because it is spread over many pages, this was likely not the case).--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So, if after the closing admin has read it all, explained their final position one way or another, then come here - no admin should second guess while a discussion is still ongoing (you're STILL making accusations with "this was likely not the case"). the panda ₯’ 10:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely understandable if one has not read all the previous discussion when entering the discussion at the end, as they were spread over several pages. I don't reproach that to him. But all I see are general comments about WP:BURDEN (it is not about verifiability) and WP:ELPOV (it is not about an External Link). There is simply no policy that says that an on-topic and notable book can be removed from the Further reading section. Also, wikipedia has many other books by controversial authors in Further reading sections (Robert Spencer, and others). So I am merely asking for a second opinion from an uninvolved admin in this topic area. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Having glanced at all the discussions, I concur that community decision is to NOT include that book in the "further reading" section. the panda ₯’ 11:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very quick. Can you also explain your decision based on wikipedia policy? --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just left a snarky comment at WT:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship#Removal of book by Koenraad Elst from Further reading section. Arguing about a book in "further reading" is not productive. Further, it is up to anyone proposing an addition to justify the proposal based on policies—a policy is not needed to remove unwanted text. Look at it another way—how many books do you think exist on the BJP topic? A thousand? Should each be added? Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I accept that. Although I am not convinced that the consensus was for "delete" when the majority of votes was keep. And arguing based on policy - there is no policy about Further reading - maybe one should be written. Thanks again for looking at this, I accept it since there are now two uninvolved editors (Panda and John) arguing for "delete" and only one uninvolved editor arguing for keep. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not each of the thousands books should be added, but with this argument every book could be removed. This one is notable, adds value because the pov is missing now in the section and is by an expert on the topic. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin and I am regularly involved with Indic stuff. Elst's reputation as an "expert" is tarnished somewhat by his extreme POV. You might have more of a case if, for example, we regularly included the works of David Irving in FR sections of articles relating to Nazism and, in particular, the Holocaust. (I've no idea if we do or do not). Since consensus is indeed not a vote, it looks to me like the RfC closure was ok. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

He is quite controversial, yes, but no need to invoke Godwin's law - Elst is also very pro-Jewish in his writings. However, this particular book is not one of his controversial ones, I would say. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a peculiar interpretation of Godwin's Law: the academic status of Irving and of Elst are very similar and if you can demonstrate that we give Irving's generally discredited ideas the oxygen of publicity across a range of articles other than his own biography then you might have a decent point. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a case of Godwin's Law. You could have compared Elst to any other controversial author who is not tainted by nazism, like maybe Robert Spencer. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over that discussion and would note that as described in the close, all or nearly all of the arguments in favor of inclusion were based on misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies - the arguments based on notability of the author, the one that WP:FRINGE only applies to references, the one based on "all views should be presented," etc. Sunrise (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody argued that FRINGE only applies to references. Notability and "all views" are valid points. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only recently become aware of this discussion, which has been apparently going on in the talk pages of BJP for some time. I think it would have been appropriated to post an announcement on WP:IN, which is monitored by most editors of India-related topics. I understand the point that the proponents of the book's inclusion haven't made a proper case. I don't think I can make a case either, since I haven't read the book. But a few general points: (1) I understand the "Further Reading" section as listing items that we, as the editors of Wikipedia, recommend for further reading, without necessarily endorsing their views. (2) Koenraad Elst has done a PhD on Hindu revivalism from a respectable University. Despite the fact that he hasn't been academically active, he is able to tell us about the ideology in an academically acceptable language. (3) While Elst is rightly regarded as a "fringe" writer in academic circles as well as in news media, he is certainly not a fringe writer within the Hindu nationalist movements. Given that the BJP has been voted to power by millions of Indians, many of whom presumably sign up to Hindu nationalism, we the wider public have an obligation to understand what it is that they believe in. Elst is certainly a good source to understand those views. For all these reasons, I believe we should not give the appearance of excluding or censoring Elst out. I recommend that the RFC be reopened, and the supporters of the source be invited to make a stronger case. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful input Uday Reddy. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the bulk of my arguments can be seen at all those links, and other people have covered them here, so I will not rehash. What I do want to mention, however, is that the RfC was begun while the dispute was going on over inclusion; that is, the version prior to the dispute, which IMO determines the consensus version, did not contain the book. Therefore, I feel that even if the RfC were simply closed "No consensus," the result vis-a-vis the book should be the same. And even if there is some dispute over whether this close was correct (I don't think there is any dispute; it was correct) by no stretch of imagination can the RfC have been closed "consensus to include." Therefore, the entire debate here has no implications on the content dispute itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that it is not the single case of censorship which is worrying, if it would just be this isolated case I would not have worried and perhaps even agreed with it, but the fact that there is a pattern where Hindu or pro-Hindu views are censored on wikipedia. Here is an example of this pattern on wikipedia (taken from a wiki talkpage):

Survey

I am conducting a survey to understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence,Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles.My personal opinion is that he represents Hindutva ideology and hence quotes from him will creep in bias in these articles.Since it is a Socio-religious issue.I will appreciate views from users of all religious - non religious followings.
Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source?
Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses hare.

• Answer here. ~~~~
• Big..No..No ..He is not a first hand information source for Gujarat..while Aid Agencies,News agencies,HR organisations,Police,Government comments will have weight

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Renata Przemyk / User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

i have problem with user User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, on page Renata Przemyk he add copyvio, althrough as evidence he used Wikipedia mirrors, and mtv.com page that directly states that the source of their biography is Wikipedia, i mentioned this on edit summary and on his discussion page, but there is no responce, thank you for your help in advance 66.102.129.154 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I note there was more than one site mentioned. And I asked you to take it to talk! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

as i written you used Wiki mirrors and mtv.com, besides you did not asked me anything, you undo my edits with sources and accused me of vandalism, also, i did not add biography in a first place 66.102.129.154 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not sitting here ready to reply you. Don't you read edit summaries? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to discuss on the article talk page (which is empty). User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It is better to discuss edits by an unregistered editor on the article talk page than the user talk page, because IP addresses sometimes change dynamically. IP: Discuss on the article talk page before coming here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Check. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

IP: I see no attempt on your part to discuss these edits except by coming here. Read the boomerang essay before posting to a noticeboard. You (the IP, original poster) don't appear to have raised any issue that isn't a content dispute, and content disputes should not come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

for second time i heave problem with User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, he undo my edits on Anna Maria Jopek, i i did provided sources for information alread written in article, i did use good sources Interia.pl, ZPAV, OLiS, Universal Music, and still this user destroys my work 66.102.129.154 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bro, I think you're paranoid. What about that other guy? Was that your sock? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

those are your edits 1, 2, and i'm not your bro 66.102.129.154 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify here that the other IP involved in this spat, 2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was a sock of an unrelated banned user, who has a habit of just randomly jumping into other people's revert wars for no particular reason, so everybody please just ignore those reverts and counter-reverts sparked by it. No opinion so far on the underlying dispute between Fortuna and the 66.* IP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by that fella too. Kept citing Germaniac. No dispute w/ IP as long as he cites his additions. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a Block

Once again, 66.102.129.154 doesn't discuss anything on the article talk page. Also, 66.102.129.154 doesn't use edit summaries. It should be no surprise that FIM is reverting his unexplained edits. I suggest a 24-hour block of the OP/IP for disruptive editing of this noticeboard and of the Polish singer articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Robert. He is effectively trying to force an edit war methinks. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

whats is actually the problem with my edits ?, in articles are discographies with chart positions and certifications, i did use wikitable to sort that informations, and i did add more sources which are reviewed with articles on Wikipedia, my edits are very simple, just because coding seems big it isn't hard to check those edits, tell me what justify removing updated discography, chart postions and certification on this aritcle, and this, why i should discuss about my edits in point when somone removes sourced information, isn't that vandalism ? 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

one more thing, i can't add english sources while they don't exist, if you have problem with that remove articles about all Polish, Japanese etc. singers, which are only recognizable only in their home countries 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I should point out here that after three days the IP still has not discussed this o the talk page, despite being asked to; he has continued arguing his points on both mine and User:Donner60's TP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

if there was a good will form your side, there would no problem on witch page the discussion was, i did ask you questions, you responded offending me 66.102.129.154 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith since we began these discussions. Discussions on the TP allow for a wider audience and input- or is that why you have assiduously avoided it? Also, I assure you, that any offence you may have felt is from your own imagination. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

as the place of discussion is so important for you i did started it on Talk:Anna Maria Jopek, i am waiting for response 66.102.129.154 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, let me apologise in advance for the offence that you will undoubtedly feel in a moment...

As usual you do not understand. It is not important to me; it is important to WP. If you go placing remarks on individual users' talk pages, what are the odds on others who may have (and are entitled to) an opinion actually finding it? The TP of the topic is the place for this. You have been repeatedly told that, and yet you believed the rules were not for you, in much the same way as you seem to think that you define what is and is not a WP:RS. You are showing signs now of ownership. And unluckily for you I am forced to interface every so often with other stuff so will be unable to be at your beck-and-call. How dare you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

you undo my edits, its your opinion that sources are wrong, so i am waiting for your explanations in a first place, but as i sad there is no good will form your side, at the moment you would explain what is wrong, but you don't want to, i dont have problem with opinion from other users, if any other user can explain to me what was on your mind be my guest, besides you do have time to undo my edits, but you don't have time to answer the question 66.102.129.154 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you know any users here who are mindreaders, please let me know, and I will expect them over to dinner. To which I have just sent out a mental invitation. *Sigh* _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Reflinks is down again

@Dispenser:, WP:REFLINKS is down once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet, media viewer and the visual editor keep chugging along. Funny how the stuff we want never works and the stuff we don't want never goes away. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "We" Neatsfoot (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I could define it as the absence of approval for those things, but I'll just define it in terms of "I". I have all but stopped clicking on images because of media viewer, and just today, the mandatory use of the visual editor on the Greek wiki, resulted in an unintentional Google translate extension pasting English instead of Greek as my edit, getting me into trouble. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Search WP:VPT to see a couple of discussions. There is a strong conflict and a resolution may not occur soon. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Jimbo's talk page; there's more than one section about it there. JMP EAX (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply -So does this mean that we will have linkrot, and no more reflinks for the foreseeable future? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Media Viewer will allow you to look at a large image and do nothing else and Visual Editor will allow editors to vandalize more easily. So you should be happy. Who needs links anyway? Just be quiet and stare at the image on your screen. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply - @Viriditas:, you took the words right out of my mouth. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case has been suspended for sixty days and to be subsequently closed. In the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either at the request of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA. The motion notes the following:

• Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia while an arbitration case was pending and may only regain administrative rights on their personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship. This does not prevent them from holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account.
• From 15 September 2014, the WMF will require require staff to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts respectively, with work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
• The WMF aims to improve working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Not true. The actual motion states:

Case suspended (II)

Passed on 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.

Since then, the following has occurred:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.

2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.

3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for sixty days and then closed; in the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either by volition of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Main page error report removed; Image licensing error unfixed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMain_Page%2FErrors&diff=623787693&oldid=623787569 worries me. The main image for yesterday's Today's Featured Article was mislicensed, and, of course, I couldn't fix it because of cascading protections. It worries me, though, that the error report was removed without fixing the error (I've done so now). Had I not thought to recheck, and explicitly dug up the error report to see if it had been dealt with, the lead image of a featured article would likely have been mislicensed for years.

Pinging @Stephen: as he did the edit, though I think this is a systemic issue of people being very sloppy about image copyright, not anything to do with him. I mean, this problem wasn't spotted at FAC either. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the place for CBANS?

It says on the CBAN page that this is the prefered place for CBAN discussions. I wanted to ask about that, this seemed like the most logical place. ~Technophant (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the details? This is probably the right place; and since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, if it isn' then the discussion will be moved to the right place, while leaving a note of that here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking because the CBAN documentation says "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." However most editors only mention AN/I. If AN/I is prefered then the help page should be changed. ~Technophant (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Most times when somebody starts a cban discussion on AN/I the chorus saying 'wrong venue, go to AN' is only drowned out by the chorus of 'De Facto Ban'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, What does 'De Facto Ban' mean? ~Technophant (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

De Facto means that even if not technically true, for all practical purposes it is the case. So an editor who is not actually banned, but who no one will unblock, is effectively banned, even if we never make it official. This is even more the case where an unblock discussion has firmly resulted in a decision to keep the editor blocked without offering any unblock conditions but no formal ban !vote has occurred. Monty₈₄₅ 00:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So it seems like the help page at WP:CBAN IS correct that this is the prefered place (over AN/I) to start a new CBAN discussion. It seems that CBANs rarely come from a single "incident" but from a persistent pattern of problems. ~Technophant (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course the flaw in the 'De Facto Banned, no cban required' argument is that an editor who is simply blocked just need one unfamiliar-with-the-case admin to extend a little too much good faith and unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Incivility from User:UxUmbrella

Hi. User:UxUmbrella responded to my removal of his/her edits from an article, and a message I left on his/her talk page explaining the removal with this message on my talk page and an identical one on the talk page of User:Chasewc91. Could someone politely admonish him/her that this is not tolerated on Wikipedia? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Short term blocked because this is unambiguous and severe but there is no block history for incivility. User recently edited logged out from 96.234.44.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I enabled autoblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans

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

---

In 2011, I was topic banned. At some point in 2012 or 2013, I believe my topic bans were lifted. However, the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions list does not reflect this. I don't know where to begin looking for the necessary links to resolve this issue. Can anyone help me?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Try this? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

... and this? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it from the list of bans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Why was it on the list? Wasn't it removed before?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Deleted article - Henry Self

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 a kindly admin let me know what was in the article Henry Self, which was speedily deleted in 2010 as "A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content"? The deleting admin is no longer an admin and so cannot provide this (and is anyway retired from editing). I think we should have an article about him (had a significant career in the civil service, including getting hold of the P51 Mustang for us in the war) and it could be helpful to me as I gather notes in preparation to know what was written previously. DuncanHill (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sir Albert (Henry) Self (1890-1975) was a Britsh goverment worker. He was also responsable for the creation of the P-51 Mustang. He was also in the Ministry of Civil Aviation as the Deputy Chairman." That's it. Bencherlite^Talk 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Bencherlite: - nothing of use there but good to be sure. Am currently digesting my notes and hope to create a rather less useless article soon. DuncanHill (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, it's pretty poor that it was deleted as A3 (or speedily deleted at all). Sometimes makes you wonder how much stuff like that slips through the cracks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that A3 deletion should be reverted. ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as a good A3 candidate, but I'm not going to undelete it at the moment — I'd have to redelete it immediately under A7. There are lots of deputies and chairmen thereof in the various UK ministries, and because the North American P-51 Mustang was a US airplane, the claim about him being responsible for it is reasonably ignored. We need something more here in order to have an article; unless DuncanHill or someone else writes a proper article, this ought not to be undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The P51 was built specifically in response to a spec drawn up by Self's mission (as you can see by reading the P51 article - the Americans weren't producing anything good enough before then). He had a shedload of other positions, including chairman of the Electricity Council. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I read it before leaving that comment. My point is that this isn't something generally believable, and you really shouldn't have to read another article before assessing something's eligibility for A7. If you don't know anything about the aircraft, you can still know that aircraft don't have single creators, so again you're going to think it a huge exaggeration or a hoax entirely. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's that unbelievable actually. (By the way - it's good form to either link or explain a term like A7 at first use, we really shouldn't have to search to know what you are on about). Anyway, it wasn't me asking for or suggesting undeletion, I just wanted to know if there was anything that could be useful to me in writing an article. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As a side-note: at the time, many aircraft did still have a single creator, although that would be the designer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Given he was awarded a knighthood he passes WP:ANYBIO and should not have been deleted, speedily or otherwise. Graemp (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. Fram (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

MfD backlog

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 long backlog at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. It would be nice if the admins take their mop and close them. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:@TLSuda: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did 2-3. I'll happily do more (if there are any left) when I get to a point when I have more time (most likely tomorrow night). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I got through 20 August, 2014. Still plenty needed to be done. TLSuda (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Doing some now. ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

UTRS

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 don't know whether the usual UTRS admin crowd are on holiday or not (I only just got back from a break myself), but the UTRS queue is looking horrifically long at the moment. If you're an admin with some experience of the unblock process and you'd be up for helping out, today would be a good day to sign up and get stuck in. Yunshui ^?_? 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried to sign up about two weeks ago. Never heard back from anyone. *shrugs* ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: I'm seeing nothing on the interface side indicative that you applied. Did you get an error/send an email to anyone about an error? I don't see anything in my inbox. -- DQ (?l??) 02:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I just tried half a dozen times and it won't accept my diff link no matter how I format it 1. ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

ARV 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.

---

Could somebody please look at the WP:AIV requests... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

As suggested re: image tags

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 been suggested that I bring this to your attention, a problem, as I see it, which seems to be spreading throughout WP. We need to know if this is inappropriate or not before it spreads much more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Revision history

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

---

Hi, could someone please share with me who the original author of Bob Dole Memorial Ocean was? And the date when that redirect was created? Thank you very much. 74.129.214.237 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been multiple creations and deletions. Why do you ask? ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it may have been me from a long time ago. Actually I'm almost certain that it was either myself or a friend that I told about the idea to create the redirect. I was a kid, immature, etc. I'm only interested in the oldest revision, Salvidrim!. Thanks a bunch for considering my request. 74.129.214.237 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit of a special case. For the moment, I will tell you that I am looking into it, and I will respectfully ask other admins to not answer this question until I have completed my investigation, thank you. ? · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP Block

Not going to happen. Wikipedia is not a venue for any kind of political activism. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Please block all IPs from Israel until 4 September 2024 due to apartheid and massacres carried out by Israel against the Palestinians. This is part of a BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) campaign against the Israelis. Not all Israelis are bad or hate Palestinians, by any stretch, but at the same time we need to find a way to make an impact so that the Israeli people have no choice but to protest against this brutal, Nazi-like oppression. If I were a Wiki administrator in 1944 (I know it didn't exist then) I would have blocked IPs from Nazi Germany; if I were an admin today, I would block IPs from Israel. Please understand that I am not a racist or anti-Semite, I merely care about human rights.

Sincerely,

A British person who cares deeply about the rights of Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.148.158 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Replacing Formatting on unblock request.

I have recently had an unblock request accepted, [91] however the formatting of my request has been lost; it originally looked like this [92].

As you might imagine after going from an indefinite full/hard block to being unblocked, things are still a little sensitive around my talk page. I feel very leery about touching anything there, I seem to be able to get in trouble easily. Is it policy to remove formatting? Can I replace the formatting? I'd like the record to be easily read. Thank you. CSDarrow (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While I think the formatting of the unblock request is the least likely thing to get you in trouble again I have fixed the formatting for you. Let me know if I got anything wrong. Chillum 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, appreciated. CSDarrow (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I also want to mention that the removal of the formatting was done by the template as part of the auto-generation of the unblock-reviewed template and was not done by a person. Chillum 16:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Should my lone active ban continue?

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.

---

Now that we have clarified that two of my three bans have been lifted per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_bans (Original edits: this and this) but not recorded properly at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I am wondering if my September 2013 i-ban with Khazar2 needs to be in force. Last week, I contacted many highly productive WP:GAN contributors and had to omit Khazar2 because of an i-ban. Is there a reason for this ban to persist?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Khazar2 has been gone for 9 months. Why does the IBAN matter to you? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess he doesn't want the stain of an active IBAN? Seems simple enough to me. Eric Corbett 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is understandable; I should've phrased my query better: Khazar2 should've probably been omitted from your discussed "notification" due to inactivity, IBAN or not. With that being said, without evidence of problematic behaviour in the past 6+ months, and in light of Khazar2's retirement, I am inclined to Support lifting the IBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Your IBAN should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support lifting the remaining IBAN. Miniapolis 22:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support- The ban is clearly accomplishing nothing useful. Reyk _YO! 23:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable given the passage of time and inactivity of the other editor. Monty₈₄₅ 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If the IBAN hasn't been lifted, why did you contact him? Someone else could've made that notification. Seems to me if things got that out of control in the past that an IBAN had to be implemented, it should remain so. Is there a compelling reason, beyond your apparent shame, for the community to take another chance on your behavior? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you start a discussion about an editor at AN, it is mandatory to tell them about it. There is nothing wrong with what TTT has done in this case. Reyk _YO! 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Reasonable discussions about a ban isn't a violation of the ban, and notifying the other party is a core part of such a discussion. It would have been unhelpful if he hadn't notified Khazar. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:BAN explicitly states that "Any editor (such as a prior victim of harassment) who may be affected by a possible ban appeal should be informed, so that he or she can participate in the ban review"; since this is written under the section titled "Exceptions to limited bans", it's reasonable to assume that it was intended that an IBANed user notify the other user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support reasonable given the other editor's inactive state. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support -since the one thing he did 'wrong'.... wasn't. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Khazar2 might not be returning, if Khazar2 returns he shall be avoiding the conduct that leads to IBAN. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'll join the chorus and say that it doesn't seem necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I just noticed this and it's fine with me. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support This seems reasonable. Chillum 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since Khazar has stated today on his talk page that he has no plans to return to editing, the ban no longer serves any purpose and can be removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review

The deletion discussion, the fourth of its kind on this issue, is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14#IPhone 6. Although I feel that there is no hurry to close most deletion discussions, I do feel that this particular discussion is a special case. Not only is this the fourth discussion on this topic, and the third in less than 5 months, but this is a "redirect" deletion discussion, which means that every time someone nominates this redirect for deletion, it disrupts the redirect by placing a template on the page, so that the redirect cannot do its required job. Obviously, the first three discussions ended with the redirect being kept. The last discussion before this current one lasted a month and a half. This latest discussion has been opened for over a week. Nothing new seems to have been presented, and there is a clear majority of users who feel that the redirect should be kept. The user who nominated the redirect this past time has less than 200 edits, and most of those are dedicated to getting this redirect deleted. The user has even threatened to continue nominating this redirect for deletion a fifth time if he/she does not get his/her way (notice in that last edit that he/she struck out my previous comment without explanation. The user has even said that he/she will continue to resist even if its the tenth time. You will also notice in the previous discussion that that user tends to shout and will have ZERO TOLERANCE of this redirect.

I not sure how anyone else sees this, but it is clear to me that this user is very disruptive and has vowed to stop at nothing to get his/her way. I'm just looking for closure on this so we can move on with more productive work.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Closed. I don't normally close RfDs so let me know if I broke anything. No comment (yet) on the disruption allegations above. Did you let the editor in question know you brought them up on AN? Protonk (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the close. About informing the other editor, I was only really concerned about the close and this wasn't a discussion about the editor in question. I only really mentioned that users edits as a basis for the close and wasn't reporting that user. Anyway, thanks again for the close of that discussion. If reports are correct (which they always are on iPhones), that redirect will an article in a few weeks anyway. But until then, its nice to know that the redirect will serve its function until then.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. They haven't edited in 3 days and they were blocked a few hours ago for a period of 31 hours? @Orangemike, can you give some color on this? Protonk (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, clearly I wasn't watching the chronology closely enough. Proton, do you think I should assume that this person has suddenly seen the light? Or alternatively, do you think I should have just permablocked them? Because frankly, I was leaning that way, but was trying not to live up to my rep as a bitey admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was literally just confused and figured I was missing something. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'm open for suggestions, and you're a pretty savvy guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say unblock them and leave a note that you got the dates wrong. They seem pretty shouty on the subject, but I don't know if a longer block (which would, paradoxically, make more sense here) is warranted. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a topic-ban needed?

If the editor says that he will continue to propose redirects for deletion even after they have repeatedly been kept, is a topic-ban needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, what's needed here is a block, and probably a lengthy one, as he has explicitly stated he intends to continue pointy nominations because he refuses to listen to the community. "I want that page to be deleted"; "It's time for you to support the deletion party and it's the only way to prevent the 5th discussion" - complete with striking out an opposing editor's comment. AGF is not a suicide pact - the blocking should continue until clue improves.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well my goal was not to get anyone, including this account, blocked. I was only trying to list a pattern of behavior by this editor that would lead to the discussion being closed. I was actually surprised that there was a block implemented. Especially when there hadn't been activity from that account in nearly three days. (I'm also surprised that there hasn't been any activity from that account in three, now four days.) So I support the unblock, at least for now. But since a pattern of behavior has now been established, its up to that user to decide what to do next. This won't be a redirect very long anyway since its most likely going to be a full fledged article in two weeks from today, so there is little to fret about.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban This is someone who doesn't appear to be here to make Wikipedia better, they appear to be mostly interested in winning the game they've created for themselves in their head. I'm willing to remove the locus of the distraction for this user to see if they develop into a productive editor in other areas; WP:ROPE and all. If this doesn't work, we can always block later. --Jayron32 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Per User:Jayron32. Keep them away from the topic of iPhones, and perhaps they'll be a non-disruptive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban if a block is not going to be reinstated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per unhealthy refusal to respect consensus on the subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived in order to get a discussion closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Topic bans should be a (nearly) last resort. They're a pain to define and enforce, frustrating for the subject and only really useful in narrow cases. Worthy of noting in this case: the editor in question has not edited since the 22nd of august and may not return to editing. That doesn't mean we couldn't enforce a community sanction but it certainly saps this discussion of any real urgency. I'm dismayed at the (recent?) community enthusiasm for topic bans and our willingness to shit on an editor from a great height without their participation in a discussion. RfD, iPhones and the wiki will all survive without a community topic ban (as evidenced by the archiving of this discussion without result!), so we can all dial it back a bit. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - Historically, the community's decision to impose a topic ban on an editor is mostly a solution to avoid having to remove an established editor from the project entirely when the problems are confined to a single topic but the editor is deemed otherwise constructive outside that topic (same for IBANs). In this case, the editor hasn't been around for long and has less than 200 edits; that tells me there is no justification to settle for a lesser remedy, and that a topic ban will not "let the user continue contributing positively outside the TBAN". I support a block (indef or escalating at the blocking admin's discretion) if the user returns to disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• No topic ban necessary, though a block for disruption will be in order if they try to nominate it for RfD again (along with speedy closure of the RfD). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal, block if the user causes more disruption at RFD - unless the user is clearly helpful in oter areas of Wikipedia, there's no advantage to banning him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Gringoladomenega

User:Gringoladomenega is evading block with IP 187.4.212.34. See Munir El Haddadi, Sevilla FC, Denis Suárez. SLBedit (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

HistMerge needed

Wangath Temple complex and User:Ambar wiki/Wangath Temple complex --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

PD undeletion request

Image:Whitehorse1.jpg was deleted in 2007, due to an invalid fair use rationale. The artist, Eric Ravilious, died in 1942, so the image should now be PD. Please can someone undelete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored to wiki and "70" template added. Nice picture Victuallers (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I love his work. Perhaps pics deleted under such circumstances should be logged on lists by year of artist's death? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we do that here, but they do at Commons; see Commons:Category:Undeletion requests. For example, Commons:Category:Undelete in 2073 contains deletion requests for images that will come into the public domain in their home countries in 2073 if their copyright laws don't change. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometime, somewhere, the children of our children will be old and croaking and still get this through the commons bureacracy. KonveyorBelt 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request warning to be expunged

Last week, I left some comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment regarding the context when evaluating whether a word is offensive. Several users replied to me in my section against the instructions. First time in my section, Second time in 'uninvolved admin' section, Third time in unvinvolved admin section, 4th time in my section I left a comment asking the Morons to stay out of my section. I was rightfully counseled by Sandstein regarding conduct in Arbcom cases per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Decorum, however, Sandstein also inappropriately logged my case first as part of the Manning dispute and then as part of sexology. Ironic that I had just been discussing context. My comments were in the context of Arbcom instructions and had nothing at all to do with Manning, TERFs, or Sexology in general. I believe it is an inappropriate log and I'd like it expunged or moved to a more appropriate place/case. I discussed this with Sandstein a week ago and he disagreed. I gave it a week to cool down, now I seek appeal per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications #2: Administrator's noticeboard.--v/r - TP 22:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you TParis, the bad behaviour was outside the scope of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. A case of rudeness but not going against arbcom sanctions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sanctioning admin's comment: I recommend that this appeal is declined. I warned TParis for disparaging others as "morons" in the context of a dispute at WP:AE about the Chelsea Manning transgender/naming issue, in application of WP:AC/DS#Decorum and also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions, which, as clarified by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable, apply to "any dispute regarding the (...) manner of referring to (...) Chelsea/Bradley Manning". For these reasons, TParis's conduct at issue is within the scope of discretionary sanctions. I originally considered a block, which would also have been logged, but then decided that a warning was a sufficient sanction. Because TParis does not contest that the sanction was appropriate on the merits, there are no policy grounds for removing it from the log; such logging is even explicitly mandated by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable.  Sandstein  06:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Disproportionate for a single outburst of incivility. I think that it is out of scope, as his "morons" comment pertains primarily to procedure rather than content: he is scolding others for not following protocol, not belittling their arguments related to transgender issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have all the respect in the world for Sandstein. However, this one was such a bad read of the sanctions and the situation. I watched this discussion take place on Sandstein's talkpage, and I honestly believed that "changing his mind" was going to be the obvious decision. It didn't happen, and I was quite surprised. Yes, you need to be fairly firm in ArbEnforcement. Yes, you need to be fairly sure of your decisions, and stick by them. At the same time, yes, anyone can make an actual mistake, and yes - change your mind without showing weakness. the panda ₯’ 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The comments were unfortunate, but certainly not this user's typical communication style. Also, this was in the context of an ArbCom case and not a content dispute, so it does not belong under the rubric of discretionary sanctions. At this point, a simple informal reminder not to let oneself become irritated by irritating individuals would be more appropriate. Indeed, we all need to be reminded of that on a daily basis here. I would also encourage the use of the arbitration committee's clerks as a buffer, and ask them to move out-of-process postings in these situations--that's what they're there for. —Neotarf (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This all seems kind of moot. I thought the only functional difference between "Discretionary sanctions" and the regular kind, was that DS could be enacted by admins without a warning (as long as the editor involved clearly knew the sanctions were in effect). This "sanction" being discussed is a "warning". It doesn't matter if it stays or goes, or whether it was merited or not, because any theoretical DS on any theoretical future actions by the involved editor wouldn't need evidence of an existing "warning". This could be moved to "notified" and it would have the same net effect.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's actually in the case history, and I don't understand the reason for that. I thought the reason for the notification system was to make it publicly invisible, especially to trolling. The biggest difference, as I understand it, is that if this is logged under an Arbcom case, it becomes a matter for WP:AE, not WP:AN, and therefore under the jurisdiction of Sandstein, who is well known for his unusually literalistic interpretations. —Neotarf (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Closure of RFC on main image of upcoming DYK

I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Closure_of_RFC_on_main_image_of_upcoming_DYK, but I will leave one here too. treats! is going on the main page in a little over 24 hours. It has an WP:RFC regarding its main image that has been waiting for closure at WP:ANRFC since August 31.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems it was closed without any note being left at the DYK discussion. Apologies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if either note had actually linked to the RFC. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

About Bluff Europe

Hi all. Looks like I've created a Circular redirect when moving Draft:Bluff Europe to Bluff Europe. Could someone much smarterer than me fix the horrible mess I've made of this? (I've skipped the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" step, as I don't think I need to tell myself I've thoroughly borked things up, yet again.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was really simple. The two visible edits needed to be deleted, while all of the deleted edits needed to be visible. I just deleted everything and then restored everything except for the two that had previously been visible. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on admins, please look into and comment on this

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 unarchiving this thread--we owe it to Martinvl to at least have this be reviewed by more people than just two. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving, would an uninvolved administrator please close this? Crazynas ^t 02:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

An appeal from User:Martinvl

I'm pasting this exactly as it was sent to me: Martinvl is asking for a specific kind of permission, of a limited kind, and I can confirm that Martin is in fact working on an appeal to the block. The specific request here is of a kind I haven't encountered before, and I cannot possibly say what its merits are, but I wish Martin the best. --Drmies

I received an invitation from Jonathan Cardy requesting assistance at one or more of the following training sessions:

• 20 September in Lancaster (contact: Joanna Hayward)
• 23 September in London (contact: Richard Nevell)
• 11 October in London (contact Jonathan Cardy)
• 14 October in Oxford (contact:Liz McCarthy (?))

I have received formal instruction (at Wikipedia's expense) on training, but I am currently subject to an indefinite block given by User:Drmies and a topic ban given by User:TParis. These sanctions are the result of an ANI lodged by User:Wee Curry Monster. It is therefore difficult for me to volunteer to assist at any of these event. I am currently working on an appeal against the indefinite block. In order for me to volunteer, I really need an account from which to work and to use when demonstrating Wikipedia facilities to students. Some trainers use their own accounts, others create special accounts as per WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses. In order to volunteer my services, I need a guarantee that I have an account from which I can work in front of students. I therefore request permission from the community that I be permitted to volunteer my assistance in the knowledge that if, for some reason, I am still subject to an indefinite block, that I be permitted to create an account strictly for purposes of the training day as per WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses.

For the record, I have assisted at a number of training sessions, the last one being on the day that I received the topic ban mentioned above.

--All this from User:Martinvl. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I blind (very possible) or are there no links to the ban and block discussions?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I posted what Martin asked me to. Funny, I may need special glasses too to see the topic ban: here. Ha! Here it is. TParis was the closing admin. Notes for the block (and an unblock request with commentary) are still on User talk:Martinvl. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• So let's unblock them so they can do the training. NE Ent 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd support unblocking Martinvl's primary account for the purpose of participating in a training session (while keeping the topic ban in place). A permanent unblock would require the posting of a formal unblock request, I think. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure about unblock, but I propose that, despite being blocked, Martinvl should be authorised to create a new secondary account, "User:Martinvl (training)" or similar, which (a) is to be used only for training purposes as described, and (b) is subject to the same topic ban as his main account. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • JohnCD, that's an interesting option--thanks. Perhaps a crat can weigh in here as well--Writ Keeper, are you up yet? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not really sure what insight a 'crat could provide here; if y'all wanna do it, do it. For my part, I'm a little nonplussed at the idea--if we trust a person to be training others in Wikipedia things, surely we trust them enough to just unblock them for reals? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You do names and accounts, and you're more important than us. On the second, more important note, I don't know what to think of it myself. Martin is apparently working on an unblock request but the request sounds more like an appeal to the topic ban (he's drafting it on his talk page). An unblock request ought to be simple: "I'm sorry, I messed up, I won't do it again", and I for one (that is, plussed) wouldn't (likely) oppose. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock and keep topic ban. A year block is enough. If he returns to disruptive behavior, reblocks are cheap. He was angry before, no surprise he'd lash out. I don't hold any grudges for his comments directed at me on the other language Wikipedias. Let him return.--v/r - TP 18:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • To make clear, I support permanent unblocking regardless of his employment opportunities/training period. Indefinite does not mean infinite. We're well past the time that he was being disruptive and if he can edit without the disruption then there is no reason to make this unblock a temporary one.--v/r - TP 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock, retain topic ban – Having been involved in the dispute that lead to his blocking, I believe that an unblocking is now in order. As TParis says above, "reblocks are cheap". Let him do the work he wants to do. In other words, given him WP:ROPE. If the disruption resumes, he will be swiftly reblocked. It is as simple as that. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Now having read his "drafts" of various un-blocking/un-topic banning appeals, I realise that I spoke too soon. It is clear that his behaviour has not changed at all. It is filled with legalism, lack of responsibility, and otherwise potentially disruptive behaviour. No matter how many positive edits he has made (as he likes to go on about), he cannot healthily contribute to the encyclopaedia if he continues with the behaviour now exemplified in those draft requests. I do not think that someone in his situation, showing no sign of remorse or acknowledgement of the problems that led to his blocking, should be teaching other editors how to edit, as the Snowman below has noted. Therefore, I oppose unblocking. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock, retain posting restrictions If you derive employment by editing wikipedia (or training) you should be extra careful in how you edit. I have no objections to thawing the restictions for the duration of the training session, but would much rather prefer Martinvl to have mounted a sucecessful unblock campaign as we're now on a slippery slope of "What use is a block if there's more exceptions to the policy than swiss cheese?" Once the training session is complete I'd like to see the block put back in place and a WP:GAB modeled rehabilitation occur. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock - why is an editor with an indefinite block being asked to teach others how to edit? GiantSnowman 20:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Unblock for only the training period, retain topic ban - Editor should be temporarily unblocked on his regular account but only use it for training-related activities. A search of admin noticeboards shows a huge amount of trouble due to this editor in the past. He got into one dispute after another about measurement systems. The mere passage of time is not enough to put this behind us. See a permanent unblock request which Martinvl originally posted July 3, but later withdrew. (You will need to open the collapse box to see the draft appeal). The tone of that request shows that the issues were far from stale as of July 2014. Without a change of attitude it is hard to see a permanent unblock request being successful at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Changing my opinion after more thought. If Martinvl wants to help out with training he should first convince the community to grant a permanent unblock. At present that seems unlikely to be granted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for any purpose Even his recent drafts of an "unblock" fail completely to meet wP:GAB - he continues to deny he ever did anything to deserve a block. He most certainly should NEVER be training anyone, anywhere on anything to do with Wikipedia - might as well elect a Lutheran to be Pope. Someday, when Martin successfully returns to the fold, he can return to training, etc. Until then, he sets a horrid example the panda ₯’ 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have to admit that I'm troubled by the framing of the request. Apparently, Martinvl's difficulties are entirely the fault of other people – "...I am currently subject to an indefinite block given by User:Drmies and a topic ban given by User:TParis. These sanctions are the result of an ANI lodged by User:Wee Curry Monster..." – and he has nothing to say about his own conduct in the past, or about his intended actions in the future. Martinvl's request fails to provide any context or background, without which it is impossible to offer an informed response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support appeal. I have not yet read the draft unblock request, but if I am read his block log correctly, then the blocks he was subject to for this topic ban went from 48 hours to indefinite, and as indefinite is not meant to mean infinite giving someone a second chance after a year would be a reasonable thing to do. I don't see any reason not to give him this second chance, but would retain the topic ban until he demonstrated extended compliance with it (requiring a separate appeal after at least 3 months). I would also make the unblock conditional on not edit warring anywhere, not just in the banned topic, with the penalty being a 1 year block. This would mean that if he returned to his old ways he would be liable to be bocked immediately. I do not see any reason to restrict his use of a separate training account if he wishes to use one. Full disclosure: I am also a trained trainer for Wikimedia UK and may be involved in one or more of these training events if I'm required and available. I do not recall having trained alongside Martinvl though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer to this is that he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on ANI, in attempt to set up a section that only he was allowed to edit. This was before consensus was found for the topic ban. Three days (and two appeals) after being topic banned he was indeffed for disruptive editing. Though he did violate the topic ban in those three days (and I would contend that he has done so since), he has not actually been blocked for any topic ban violation per se. Kahastok talk 16:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with proxy to Cardy and other organizers. I'm troubled by the request; it's an interesting twist on block evasion. It would be better if Martinvl got his own house in order before training others. Yes, it is sad that diminishes a WP investment in training a trainer. The form of User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)'s invitation is not specified. Was it a personal request or a form letter to a mailing list? Having stated objections, I will bend here. I'll give my proxy to Cardy and other event organizers (none of whom have commented here?). If any state the need to have Martinvl at the events despite the baggage, then Martinvl can be unblocked for those events. Glrx (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Glrx, good point: I wonder if the pings to WereSpielChequers, Jhayward001, Richard Nevell (WMUK), and Liz McCarthy went through correctly, because it seems to me that if Martin is supposed to do something for them, they would have an interest in his being able to actually do anything. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

    Hello Drmies. The notification from yesterday came through, but oddly not the one in the initial post on this page.

    On 1 September Wikimedia UK emailed its trained trainers with details of opportunities to volunteer at the four events Martinvl mentioned. The charity has some 37 trainers who have been through an accreditation process and help at events, with a further group of unaccredited volunteers who also help out. Martin is one of the accredited trainers and has previously helped train new editors at WMUK events before his block.

    Wikimedia UK isn’t seeking to influence blocks or topic bans, so I cannot offer an opinion on the matter. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Declaring involvement. Martin does not demonstrate any understanding of the reasons for his block, and his request puts the blame for his block firmly on other editors rather than with his own behaviour. For clarity, those issues were described at the time by an uninvolved editor as "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT and extreme Wikilawyering". Looking through his talk page (including collapsed sections) will show ample evidence that the issues that existed last year are still in evidence. Ultimately, it is better for the community if blocked means blocked.

There is a question of his suitability as a trainer. While Martin declares such discussion "does not come within the remit of English Wikipedia", I think it is an important point to consider as I doubt that WMUK would want to disregard community opinion on the subject, even if it is formally free to ignore our conclusions. I would question the viability and logic in allowing indeffed editors training others to edit.

I would note that several people have said that we should maintain the topic ban after any unblock. I agree. Note that the topic ban is currently slated to end on 25 October - in about six weeks' time. If we leave it as-is, it's basically useless in assessing how viable his return to such topics is. We should extend it to indef, with appeals allowed in the normal way after 3-6 months of productive editing after any unblock. Kahastok talk 16:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Cut and paste move

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

---

Brighton and Hove Built-up Area looks like a cut and paste move of Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton. Could someone wave their magic wand to carry the history over? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted the redirect. There was only one edit at the new title, so I don't think a history merge is required. I've notified the editor and told them to use the WP:RM process. Number 57 22:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was really hoping that the history would be moved - now it can't be moved simply. Oh well. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I request a move? The "move page" feature gives no help at all when it says the page can't be moved. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, think I've found it. user friendly it isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've just checked the message - it's quite clear in the big red text (see MediaWiki:Articleexists). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Od Mishehu:, no, you are wrong. That version of the message does not shew to users who have set British English (and I believe any other languages other than the default) in their user preference. See discussion on my talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, the infamous en-CA and en-GB localized MediaWiki messages! Such a pain. I remember Mr. Stradivarius showed me where to fix them a while ago, I'll try to see if I can recall and track this one down whenever I have time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:VPP how to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That probably should've been WP:VPT; anyways, I have fixed MediaWiki:Articleexists/en-gb and confirmed it now display the intended message. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Renaming account without user intervention

Is it possible to request a rename of an account without the user having to log in and do it themselves? Let's say that someone wrote to OTRS requesting that a now blocked account with their company name that was created "without authorization" (snicker) be deleted. They see it in Google and panic. So we tell them to log in, request unblock and request rename. They say they can't. Is there a process for this type of thing? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's not normally done, but it's a clear corporate username/role account and it's clear from the OTRS that the person requesting the account "deletion" is an agent of the company, I don't see why this shouldn't be granted. Call it a IAR-based action if need be. If it's not obvious that it's a company role account, then at worst we should consider courtesy blanking the user talk page or something. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, I suppose it is very reasonable to NOINDEX the relevant page(s). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's probably a good compromise solution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, we shouldn't even require proof if the account has no substantial non-deleted edits. There is no attribution issue here, and the only obstacle to renaming is the entitlement for someone to keep their desired username, but in this case they had no right to the username in the first place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Probably this discussion belongs at BN. I would say if there is verification from a company agent we could rename it in the same manner as impersonation accounts. That said, we are moving to a global rename regime and Stewards might have to be consulted because we wouldn't only be acting on the local enwiki account anymore. –xeno^talk 11:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Will stewards soon be the only ones able to perform renames? I figured the global rename thing would still permit local bureaucrats to perform them, as long as the desired target didn't already exist. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No, both Stewards and meta:Global renamers are able to perform global renames. –xeno^talk 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The short answer is no, local renames will not be possible anymore. We want to move towards having a truly global login system, and the nature of the system we have means that performing local renames actively detracts from that possibility. Local rename is a major reason why we don't have a global system right now. So if someone wants to have two different names on two different wikis, then that's fine, but they'll have to have two different global accounts. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • So what will bureaucrats be able to do? Just granting-and-removing userrights such as admin and bot? Of course I understand that our bureaucrats have responsibilities such as closing RFAs, but anyone's able to do that; I'm just asking about their technical abilities. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • [93] Bureaucrats will need global renamer privileges at meta to continue to perform renames. There is a list of bureaucrats with global renamer at WP:BUR. –xeno^talk 17:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thank you! They have not requested that yet, and I've been simply telling them to go the normal route, but this happens fairly often and I was wondering if it could be done at all. I'll make sure to use the 'crat board instead when and if they do. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Civility 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.

---

Tachfin broke some rules, such as:

1. Offended me directly, not meeting civility code of conduct for being a sock muppet, making this a personal attack and named me as a conspiracy."Wikipedia AfD".
2. It's recommended that he assume good faith for new contributors and exhorting them to get better instead of attacking me (us)

Maromania also felt accused."Acussing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fevrret (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Crazynas ^t 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as stated above, I felt directly offended by Tachfin. Crow also is agree with the offense [94]. --Fevrret (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Crow agrees that new-editor mistakes of moving conversation threads about does not warrant a personal attack in general. I'm no longer sure either condition applies here though. Crow^Talk 22:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that the Jim Henson crew was into editing Wikipedia. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 04:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you (User:Scottywong) mean by this. --Fevrret (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there's no such thing as a "sock muppet". Sock puppets, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, seriously. We have a contentious AFD about an article that is rife with promotion, obvious COI editing, and a high possibility of muppets, puppets or even collusion going on. We have some horrid English in both the article and the discussion that probably adds to the confusion and issues overall. The article itself has been recreated so many times it had to be salted from recreation, so someone tried a new title. This is, indeed, all very fishy, and a lot of people need to question their personal ethics - I won't say who. A few key points, however:

• WP:CONSPIRACY is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Essay's are non-binding, and serve to emphasize/clarify policies and guidelines - you can't "break" an essay
• When a new editor suddenly shows up to vehemently support another editor in something like an AFD, we obvious do have concerns about WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Accusing someone of being a sock isn't only normal in that case, we have an entire process to support those accusations, and indeed we have immediate blocks based on the Duck test
• Saying someone is promoting, violating policy, violating COI, might actually be the subject acting unethically is, indeed an accusation - so? Sometimes someone has to point out what might be the obvious - it's not uncivil or a personal attack (well, if you ARE promoting, violating policy, violating COI or acting unethically, then you might see it as uncivil or as a personal attack).

When faced with the truth, don't cry foul. When faced with misunderstandings, prove the other person wrong. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Very fishy...". An excellent choice of words, O Panda. I've tried to assume the best and counsel this user, but as more information comes to light I cannot help but feel that I've been played. Consider the below chronology around the article (Achraf Baznani (photographer), hereafter "the article in question"):

  Aug 4-8: User:Maromania repeatedly creates the article in question, and it is deleted each time (Salted as The Panda says). Of some significance, note the appearance of his User Page. Of more significance, note that the article subject's main website is hosted by "maromania.com".

  Aug 30: User:Rojer1212 is created and submits Draft:Achraf Baznani.[95] I contact the user and inform him that is it a copyright violation.[96] No further edits by that user.

  Aug 31: Maromania re-creates the article under a variant spelling Achraf baznani. It is quickly tagged as a copyright violation by CorenSearchBot. (At some point subsequent it is moved to its current title by an otherwise uninvolved admin.)

  Aug 31: Approx. 3 hours later User:Fevrret is created. Note the initial appearance of his user page: [97]. His first edit is to remove the copyright bot template from the article.

At this point, I feel I have sufficient evidence not to assume anymore, and suggest that someone with CheckUser investigate the 3 above linked accounts. Crow^Talk 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Time for a boomerang?

What we have is a new account (not editor) that has been problematic from the start. Tellingly that this is not a new editor is jumping straight into afds and Articles for creation, use of Page Curation, extensive knowledge of tags eg., unreviewing dodgy eg and this telling comment "Also, recommend you to assume good faith for new contributors (as seen Maromania is one of them)." (Just Maomania, not Fevrret).

Aside from the first edit mentioned above one of the earliest edits was creating an article with a copy paste move in a disambiguated location to avoid salt. [98] (now in whith old history after a histmerge).

Then xe quickly moved on to provide fake verification on an article created by a sockpuppet and supported by sockpuppets. [99] (the first three refs here do not verify the text they follow)

Other problematic edits.

Removing another editors comment at afd [100] (removed comment from Tachfin)

Bad afd closes: 1 An early NAC Keep close on a subject xe is shilling for, despite the lack of a clear consensus and having a close involvement including a keep !vote, removing another editors comment and heavily editing the article in question. 2 A Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn when there was no withdraw.

Disruptive afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fonville.

Problems with speedy tagging as document on their talk page. [101] [102].

Adding protection tag to unprotected page. [103]

FWIW, I don't think Maromania is Fevrret's puppeteer, Just an employer. I think someone else is the puppeteer and is probably blocked. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As user:Crow hinted, Maromania is not only the hosting company for the subject's website but a bit of research quickly shows that a certain "Achraf Baznani" is the CEO of this company. (see Twitter Twitter search Viadeo profile)

Echo user:Duffbeerforme, this case reminds me of another user that created a promotional article about Mouad Gouzrou/Moad Gouzrou (who probably is connected to this "Achraf Baznani" in real life) before being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. The same workflow was followed: draft, recreate with a different spelling, same arguments (as in pretending that a "new page patrol pass" is "an admin validation"). See the relevant AFD discussion here. But all this strongly suggests that it is the same PR agency as the Moad Gouzrou case.
One can only regret such a waste of volunteer's time, we ought to deal with such cases more efficiently. IMO, this had all the ingredients of a speedy (and indeed was speedy deleted three times) but they eventually got through the net after insisting --Tachfin (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review

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 Request for Comments was opened at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#RfC:_Should_we_change_article_name_to_.27Judaism_in_Nepal.27.3F, asking whether to rename the article to Judaism in Nepal. I closed the RFC on 12 August 2014 with a finding that there was consensus for the renaming, and renamed the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#RfC:_Should_we_change_article_name_to_.27Judaism_in_Nepal.27.3F

By way of history, there had been an AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal.

The consensus had been KEEP, but there had been suggestions to rename the article, because the association between Nepal and Judaism is modern, consisting mostly of Israeli tourism, rather than traditional.

There was then a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_30

The deletion review endorsed the keep.

On 10 September, User:IZAK undid the move: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal&diff=624882523&oldid=620856115

IZAK argues that the DRV should have halted the renaming RFC. (I don’t know why the DRV should have halted the RFC.) User:Ubikwit rebuked IZAK, and attempted unsuccessfully to reverse the renaming. IZAK is now claiming, on his own talk page, that the move was based on “fraud and trickery” and “smoke and mirrors”.

I request a review of the RFC close and resolution of the article title. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that this is what IZAK should have done instead of unilaterally acting to reverse the outcome of an apparently uncontested close of an RFC that occurred about a month ago.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: That the RFC close was tainted from the get-go because instead of waiting for an uninvolved user or admin to close it (while the RFC started on the 30th of June 2014 and the DRV started a day later on the 1st of July 2014, yet the RFC was instead unjustifiably held over for over a month until the the 12th of August 2014! after the close of the correct prompt close of the DRV on the 8th of July 2014) leaving the RFC moot that was then incorrectly closed [104] by an involved user, namely User:Robert McClenon [105] who already in the AFD made his POV known to "Keep or Move/Rename". It is now this same involved user who wishes to impose a decision he made acting as both a voter in the AFD as well as the closer of the RFC when he should have left well-enough alone and based on the AFD that he knew about (because he was involved in it) and the subsequent DRV that endorsed the original AFD decision. IZAK (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? have been informed about this discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

Main pages: History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30, and Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal

Surprisingly this relatively minor and unimportant article has nevertheless been the center of contention for some time by a few editors who are hell bent on getting it deleted and failing that melting its title and content down to the lowest point of content and significance, see User:Ubikwit's recent rash of merciless choppings that I have just reversed [106]. Seems that some people just don't like the notion of Jews in far-off exotic Nepal! There is no other reason to justify such vehement opposition to the article all the time. In the process a few editors including myself [107] and users Pharos (talk · contribs) & Ravpapa (talk · contribs) & Gidonb (talk · contribs) & Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) and a few others have spent a good amount of time adding WP:N & WP:V & WP:RS that are WP:NPOV. Yet ONE user Ubikwit (talk · contribs) stands in relentless and obsessive opposition to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE waging a one man WP:WAR & WP:BATTLEGROUND against this article never tiring of various maneuvers and excuses to keep attacking the article for some unknown thus far inexplicable reason. My efforts to defend the article and stop it from being erroneously labelled and degraded are being questioned by him as he wages the never-ending war against the article, in the process now trying to kill the messenger because he hates the message. Let me be clear and re-state what I have pointed out very clearly at:

1. Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#History of the Jews in Nepal: For some or other odd reason many people do not understand that for many, Israel and Israelis are very secular and thus have nothing to do with Judaism! Israel is the Jewish state but the majority of its Jews do not adhere to Judaism. So it is absurd to make this into an article about "Judaism" when the Israelis do not practice it and often know nothing about it. In addition this article also discusses topics not related to Judaism, such as Islamic terrorists targeting of Jews that has nothing to do with Judaism as such. Thus Jewish history is the correct all-inclusive nomenclature for this article just as it is for virtually all articles about "History of the Jews in ____" in Category:Jewish history by country. Finally WP:CONSENSUS at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal (AFD) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (DRV) clearly established that this article remains as History of the Jews in Nepal.
2. User talk:IZAK#Illegitimate move of "Judaism in Nepal" & Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#Out of confusion is illegitimacy born: @Ubikwit: The majority of LEGITIMATE WP:CONSENSUS is on the side of History of the Jews in Nepal based on the 9 Keep votes (versus 6 Deletes) at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal and the 14 Keep votes (versus the 8 Deletes) (I tried to count them as best I could) at the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30. The RFC you refer to is OUT OF ORDER because it was started on 30 June 2014 and closed on 12 August 2014 during which time the official DRV was opened on the same day (by you) on 30 June 2014 and closed on 8 July 2014 that should have shut off the DRV or at least made it moot and irrelevant, but it got dragged out for over another month and half, not taking into account that it was put out of business by the DRV, and then just by dint of laziness and lack of attention or just ignorance on the part of the closer, the RFC was left open just long enough for just 5 votes to Support the RFC versus 2 Opposing since the majority of users would have seen the notice on 1 July 2014 Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV that the main debate was moved over to the DRV: "There is now an official WP:Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal". Trickery and fraud does not create "consensus" and results that are illegitimate have no validity. So cut the bull, and make sure that you do not get blocked for supporting such illogical, irrational and illegal "decisions"!
3. User talk:IZAK#Illegitimate move of "Judaism in Nepal" & Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#Out of confusion is illegitimacy born: @Robert McClenon: Thanks for asking. User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) knows full-well that the HE opened a request for a DRV the SAME day the RFC was started, (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30). Ubikwit LOST his DRV gamble. I even posted a notice as such on the article's talk page right below the request for RFC (see Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV). It is now Ubikwit that escalates the discussion by threatening me and by citing a totally out of order RFC when he knows (or should know) that he is himself out of order! The formal DRV settled the matter of the naming of the article as "History of the Jews in Nepal" once and for all by an overwhelming majority. Yet the RFC lingered for more than a month after the DRV was closed. You should have been aware that the DRV had shut off the RFC debate, and I am assuming you simply were not aware of what was going on, that the RFC was old and had been settled by other means (i.e. the DRV), unlike Ubikwit who comes along and screams his head off as if the RFC is "holy writ" when in fact the DRV had already settled the matter. The net result, is that the decision to move based on the RFC alone is illegitimate and in practical effect amounts to a sleight of hand arrived at by smoke and mirrors.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• The DRV does not bind the article name based on its results. Consensus can change - and in fact that is not what AfD/DRV is for. The DRV closure does not and did not "settle by other means" the RFC; claiming it "shut off the RFC debate" is a statement that is entirely wrong. The RfC on the article name is, in fact, the correct venue for deciding the article name. Also, the fact an editor !voted in the AfD and/or DRV does not make them WP:INVOLVED with regards to the RFC; only !voting in the RFC would. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Bushranger: I am not disputing that a user can be "involved" by voting in both the AFD and RFC, rather, such a user should not be the one to close the RFC and "decide" its outcome and application because he has his own POV that he is pushing. If an involved user closes such a RFC then the RFC is invalid on simple procedural grounds. The correct procedural thing to have done and expect was that a truly neutral and uninvolved user or admin should have closed the RFC. IZAK (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Etither you've misunderstood me (I'm saying they are not involved) or you are contradicting yourself. If a user has not voted in the RfC their own personal opinion is irrelevant as long as they close it in accordance with the WP:CONSENSUS it reflects; saying "somebody else should have closed it because etc." is pointless bureaucracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @The Bushranger: What you say is good pilpul but bad logic. We are not talking about "three" (AFD, RFC, DRV) different subjects here, it is all one subject relating to the same article because the AFD, RFC, DRV all came as one chain reaction in close order about the same article with basically all the same users participating to one degree or another in the AFD, RFC, DRV, and what they had to say was noted as their own POV's. Had I closed one of them I would rightly have been rebuked, but I would never lift my finger to do such a careless thing. When it came time to close the AFD, RFC, DRV no users who had been involved in any one of them should have closed discussions let alone make controversial moves that should have been done by uninvolved neutral users or admins. Hope you begin to see this rather then get so hot under the collar. Take it easy, IZAK (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• A DRV merely establishes whether or not process was properly followed during the discussion on whether or not the content should remain. It does not close any discussions on titles, additional content, GA nominations, etc. I'm becoming increasingly concerned by IZAK's actions on en.Wiki, and I don't have the time right now to suggest what should be done about it the panda ₯’ 09:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @DangerousPanda: Kindly note that I am neither the creator nor originator of the History of the Jews in Nepal article. The disputed RFC (unlike the AFd and DRV) was kept open far too long (itself something that casts serious doubt upon it) and was based on a very limited amount of iVotes while there was already a greater majority consensus to Keep the article as is and not to change its name. I worked hard to improve it, and on that basis I have seen fit to work for its validity and survival as a decent article given its original title per WP:BOLD. Not sure what you are intimating at, most of my work in recent times has been dedicated to the unenviable and thankless jobs relating to Wikipedia:Cleanup & Wikipedia:Maintenance. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The amount of time the RfC was open is irrelevant. And you are not listening: there was NO consensus to "keep...and not to change its name. The AfD/DrV determined 'Keep' or 'Delete'. And only 'Keep' or 'Delete' - the fact some people opined as part of their !votes there that the name should (or should not) be changed is irrelevant here - if you read the closing statements, neither the AfD or the DrV included anything regarding a consensus to rename or a consensus not to rename. It appears you are attempting to construe that the fact that many (most) !voters at the AfD who !voted to keep the article !voted "Keep", instead of "Keep and rename/move/etc", as meaning that the "Keep"-only !voters were !voting that the article title should not be changed - this is most emphatically not the case. The consensus established by the RfC is entirely valid in all respects, and all your arguments that it somehow is not are rather clearly boiling down to the fact that you don't like it. I would strongly advise that you accept this and move on with editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @The Bushranger: Have no fear, I will wait for whatever the decision is at the end of the ANB discussion and will move on. IZAK (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• IZAK informed me of this discussion because I participated in the DRV. I think this article is ripe for a fresh AfD or RM. The previous AfD and DRV are in no way binding or prejudicial. An RfC may be the way to go, but I suggest that at least two or three agree on the question before listing it. I suggest that future AfDs RMs and RfC closes on this article should be reserved for an experienced admin. Editors bludgeoning any discussion should be warned that they are being disruptive by doing so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: You say: "I suggest that future AfDs RMs and RfC closes on this article should be reserved for an experienced admin" -- which should have been the case the first time around in the RFC, otherwise it looks like a WP:COI. I think we should all be wary of starting new discussions when the original AFD and DRV settled the matter, something that User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) stubbornly refuses to accept as he still lunges on with making constant attempts to downgrade and degrade the article (I had not edited it in ages til I noticed the weird move based on the even weirder RFC) to the point where it will just disappear when subjected to a new AFD. You are moving in a positive direction though. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RfCs frequently are undisciplined, and sometimes require considerable skill in closing. "when the original AFD and DRV settled the matter" is most certainly NOT true. I stand by my comments on the AfD in the DRV, and support the close of the DRV, all of which is inconsistent with the word "settled". Nothing about this article is settled. I am not sure that the article shouldn't be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Dunno where I'm supposed to comment here, but IZAK courteously dropped a note on my page so I will. If it's just a technical issue on procedures, I've nothing to say. Both Ubikwit and myself have more than a passing familiarity with oriental cultures, so IZAK's remarks, in failing to grasp that, are somewhat erratic. IZAK's vigorousstalwart defence of the article is entirely legitimate, but his enthusiasm often means he personalizes what are relatively fair differences of opinion.

This article started as a bloated POV mess, full of fiction and fantasy with the wrong title (there is no 'History'), and, under pressure, it got trimmed back to the stub-like gist you have now. Even trimmed back it still has the nonsensical or rather question-begging:

'although historically Judaism has not been one of the region's central religions and there has not been much of a Jewish presence in this region'

in the thumbnail lead, I guess because one-line leads look suspicious. 'Historically Judaism has not only not been one of Nepal's central religions', it has never been even a minor, marginal religion there. Judaism has zero-relations with Nepal historically, but the sentence is framed to suggest by implication that there has been historically a marginal Jewish religious life in Nepal, and an albeit marginal Jewish presence there, both of which are untrue.

I'm not a deleter, so if it makes someone happy to have an article on Jewish connections to Nepal, Israeli tourism and Chabad initiatives there, that's fine by me. I think IZAK has problems seeing the formal issues at stake here. This has nothing to do with people attitudes to Jews, Judaism etc. It's just a borderline-relevant article, and since its retention has been approved, fine, but the title is stupid by analogy (A History of Canadians in Nepal, A History of Australians in Fiji, a History of Americans in Yucatan, a History of Italians in the Maldive Archipelago. I keep looking at the 4,6 million articles, expanding expontentially, and wonder when some 'encyclopedic' commonsense will return, so that an article like this is subsummed into something generic like 'A History of Jews in the Indian Subcontinent'. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. What would be wrong with any of those articles if we had enough reliable sources to source them? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. People keep inventing pages, rather than improving those that exist. It looks great on one's (stub) article creation record. 99% of wiki articles are either unreliable, unreadable or stubby/mediocre. There are, by the way, no reliable sources (encyclopedic articles and books. see RS) on the topic of Jews in Nepal. Admittedly, I'm prejudiced. I dislike nationalism of any cast or kind.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "This is an encyclopedia." I agree that inventing of pages is a concern, but the project is a volunteer one: you aren't going to get people to go help improve other pages just by deleting the ones they do like. The issue of RS sources is a distinct issue, hence my comment asking what would be wrong. As for nationalism, I don't see it as nationalism per se. Humans form groups and those groups do things. It may be interesting to know what those groups are doing. That's a distinct question from nationalist tendencies, which generally involve a particular emotional attitude about specific groups. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand what this issue is and can't follow the discussion, perhaps you should read the related AFD, DRV discussions as well as the RfC and the rest of the talk page before commenting. It seems that you haven't even read the comments in this thread, and you have diverted the discussion with a forumlike commentary on "nationalism".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider making marginally more polite comments? The reason for not understanding how "This is an encyclopedia" is relevant should be clear: but let me be more explicit: Everyone agrees to some version of that statement. What that statement means is what matters. (And yes, I've read the AfD and the DRV thank you very much). And the issue of nationalism you may note was brought up by Nishidani. So maybe try to keep track of where things started? If you have a specific comment about policy or the like, please state it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I always enjoy your scholarly input! Glad you could make it to this discussion. IZAK (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IZAK. I've looked at the edit history and it appears that this request arose because, yesterday when you changed the title back to its old form, Ubikwit, perhaps having kept the page bookmarked, returned to make edits that he, and people like myself, made in the past, regarding stuff that simply shouldn't be there. You were right to remark that the title 'Judaism in Nepal' was a misnomer: the article is about Jews and Israelis visiting the place, for tourism and religious inspiration in recent decades. However, in reverting this to the old extremely dubious, highly contentious 'History of the Jews in Nepal' you just reopened a can of worms. As everybody knows, there is no such thing as a Jewish historical connection to Nepal, and the original attempt to grub up the impression there was one was successively demolished by Ubikwit, myself and others as a fantasy.

Whatever, Ubikwit's edit in the wake of your reformulation, took out a plain nonsensical question-begging statement based on a huge and irrelevant pseudo-source literature much of which, if inspected, misplaced, which is, in disregard for what we do here, trying to make an argument not made in sources. That spurred a minor flare-up, with one or two reverts and your own one refined the statement which, above, I showed to be tendentious nonsense.

At this point, you have come here to seek some justice by trying to gain an administrative warrant for doing what you did, in my view. I.e. to get the article as you want it locked in by administrative fiat, after the chaps up top have reviewed the AfDs, RfC and whatever. That's my impression. Perhaps that is itself a legitimate move, but the problems I and Ubikwit raised and still raise remain. I'm not editing the text because it's under review, but were I to touch it, quite a bit would be chopped out on policy grounds, not because of any hostility to the subject or, indeed yourself. Despite our at times severe disagreements, I find you a pleasant and hard-working wikipedian generally (just a little too passionate and defensive, as if other editors had it in for the topic and the people). This contretemps you experience is simply due to the extreme fragility of the article's purpose and content.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Hi again! You are wrong when you say that "At this point, you have come here to seek some justice by trying to gain an administrative warrant for doing what you did, in my view." -- just check above how this has gotten here, it was brought here by User Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) opened the discussion, and then I responded. I can't remember the last time I ever initiated anything at ANI or ANB, it is not my way of doing things. I respond best to direct discussions between editors whether we agree or disagree. By the way, aside from this minor article I also cannot recall when last we crossed paths. I know you espouse a very strong pro-PLO sort of position but I again I can't recall when I ever got into a discussion with you over that either. Besides that I always enjoy your highly intelligent well-reasoned responses. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I made an incorrect remark about your coming here, and for that I apologize. A correction of an error you made. I despise the PLO qua PNA, by the way. I have a lifetime interest in the anthropology and sociology of minorities, starting the classic case of the West's millenarian antisemitic psychopathology, which then extended to all victimized peoples or tribes, or little traditions overwritten about, or written out of their history, by strong-armed thuggish imperial powers. That is why I edit also in the Palestinian area (and the Tibetan area): everything that happens to them once happened to the Jews when they were an unarmed and undefended minority under some or other violent imperial racist land-grabbing and ethnocratic nation. It's a matter of consistency. Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have three things to say here. Firstly, I'd like to review the RfC close as Robert McClenon asks:- I agree that the close was in accordance with the rough consensus. IZAK makes the point that the close was procedurally flawed because Robert McClenon's remark here makes him WP:INVOLVED. Reasonable people might differ on that point, but there's a useful principle expressed in R v Sussex Justices: even though I see no evidence that the decision maker was biased or prejudiced, I would suggest that in this case the RfC should be re-closed by a previously uninvolved editor. I would expect the close to go the same way.

  Secondly, I'd like to offer some faint support to DangerousPanda's view expressed above. I think that IZAK means well and is in perfectly good faith. But I've only ever come across IZAK in discussions about Jews and Jewishness, and with every contribution I've seen from him, his wish is always to present the Jewish nation and the Jewish religion in a positive light. I've come to think of him as an advocate for Jewishness. This is not unreasonable ---- we have other editors who advocate various things but are still productive contributors ---- but it does colour how I view what IZAK says.

  However, although I don't object to his advocacy for the Jews, I've also observed that IZAK is willing to play the man and not the ball if that's what he thinks will get him to the result he wants. I'm starting to feel that we could usefully wave a yellow card at him about that.

  Thirdly, although this isn't the place to solve the content dispute, I'd just like to re-state my view that the Jews have no meaningful history whatsoever in Nepal and the consensus to keep this article under any name is purely a result of misguided, overenthusiastic advocacy from Wikipedia's pro-Jewish lobby. I'm sorry, IZAK, but I'm afraid I think the discussions should continue until the article is deleted.

  Finally, it's not necessary to ping me again when this provokes a reply; I'll be watching this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

S Marshall—a reference to a "pro-Jewish lobby" drags down the level of discourse. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Do you deny that there's such a lobby? Or do you merely object to me mentioning it?—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: There is no such "lobby"! In fact if anything if ever there were such editors they have basically all been banished from WP or have abandoned it on their own volition. WP has not become a better encyclopedia by enforcing political correctness on everyone and it is not becoming of free-thinkers to talk in such terms. You sound silly when you talk of any WP:CABAL and should avoid it altogether, just stick to discussing facts. As for my interests WP has become too vast to deal with everything, we all need to choose some things we know something about and contribute based on WP:EXPERTISE as I am sure you would agree. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're attacking things I didn't say. I didn't say there was a cabal. I said there was a lobby. A group of people who advocate for something. With all due respect, there's clearly a group of editors who advocate for Jews and Jewishness on Wikipedia: that's a staggeringly obvious and uninteresting thing to say. I did not say that the lobby is in bad faith, or that they associate with each other off-wiki. I did not even say that it's undesirable to have a lobby, and for the record I don't think it is. All I said is that a lobby exists. (Okay, I also said that I think this pro-Jewish lobby has erred about this particular article.) But you and Bus stop are reacting as if I've accused you of being the EEML.

  I've said that this is characteristic of you, by the way: playing the man and not the ball. The pattern is that you find something in the tone of the argument, or a specific phrase, that you can take umbrage at and produce long tracts about it, disregarding the substance of the case being made in the process. I think you're proving my point.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• S Marshall—I don't think there is a "Jewish lobby" at Wikipedia. The article under consideration certainly should exist and certainly should have the title "History of Jews in Nepal". The other title ("Judaism in Nepal") is incorrect. The article's material only occasionally touches upon religious subjects. I think the term "history" would be applicable to this article. Here is the BBC using the term "history" in terms of "recent history". Most of the Jews visiting Nepal are secular in nature. Many are tourists. They are not, but they need not be, permanent residents. The twenty-first century is not the nineteenth century or even the first half of the twentieth century. The article may be about Jews that arrived by jet plane. I think it is an interesting article on an interesting phenomena. There has been a sizable influx of Jews, mostly Israeli Jews, to Nepal in recent decades, and reliable sources have taken note of that. The reader may learn, if they did not know already, that many Jews are not particularly religious. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse RFC close The close was a good judge of the consensus, and the DRV was wholly irrelevant, as it was on a different issue (i.e. whether it should be deleted or not). IZAK should not have reverted the move, but instead should have brought the issue here for review. I also agree with several editors above who have noted that his behaviour related to this article is increasingly problematic, and perhaps needs to be reviewed. Number 57 11:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse RFC Close. I have not commented on the RFC, the AFD, or the DRV, nor have I ever edited the article in question or any related article, to the best of my knowledge. So if you're looking for an uninvolved admin, I'm your guy. And as I look at the RFC, I see a consensus to move the article. The points in favor of a move are stronger, and the points raised against such a move were based in part on a flawed understanding of process (i.e. the DRV trumping the RFC). The weight of discussion sits in favor of the new title. I'll do you one better - if the RFC were still open and I happened across it, I'd probably close it on the merits as endorsing the move. Someone suggested that the RFC be reopened, so that an experienced admin could close it for reals this time - so I guess if you want to copy this over there, I wouldn't object. But I don't think it's necessary. The close as it stands is fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with DangerousPanda in regards to IZAK's activity on en-wp. Wikipedia has a process and that process was followed. IZAK appears to be a partisan unwilling to accept anything but exactly what they demand. I'd like to see the results of the RfC followed, the article moved to its appropriate location, and IZAK blocked if needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: How can you endorse a total mistake? The article is NOT about "Judaism" in Nepal by any long shot. Almost NO article in Category:Jewish history by country is about "Judaism" alone. It includes much information about things and people that have nothing to do with Judaism. Such as Israelis, terrorists plotting acts of terror, Nepalese relations with Israel, Jews who go to Nepal for Buddhism, none of these have anything to do with Judaism. That was made clear in the AFD and the DRV and in the lengthy discussions. The RFC was nice but its closing could have just as easily resulted in "no consensus" with so few people participating and which would have let the matter stand. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Even if it were a mistake, it's a consensus mistake. The proscribed process was followed and while I can understand your disagreement, you don't have remedy. Acting unilaterally is neither allowed nor appreciated. Wait a year and try a new RfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse RFC Close. I have participated in all levels of this discussion and all formal processes to date, including this one. The RFC close was valid. The decision to rename article was likewise correct in process and also valid. If another level of process occurs, I will continue to !vote to have this article deleted. (In full disclosure, I have no personal interest in the subject and was led to the original article and deletion request from a user talk page I watch). Fylbecatulous talk 18:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• IZAK, thank you for the notification, but I see no reason to thank you for comments like "Seems that some people just don't like the notion of Jews in far-off exotic Nepal!" It smacks of an accusation of antisemitism, and is thus even more of a vilification than the all-too usual "you just don't like it". Drmies (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: It's a very minor article about an extremely obscure subject. The question is why do some users want to get rid of it so strongly no matter how much the topic is incrementally improved? IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer IZAK's question: Because it's a minor article about an obscure subject, and because they are deletionists. I disagree with any implication that anti-Jewish bigotry is involved. (I even more disagree with any implication that anti-Semitism is involved, since many of the most anti-Jewish people in recent decades are Semites, by using a Semitic language and by the descent of the children of Abraham.) Because some editors want minor articles deleted rather than incrementally improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Original Poster

It is clear that IZAK is angry. It isn't entirely clear what he is angry about, at least in September 2014. It does appear that he is angry that a request was made to delete the article. The AFD was closed as Keep. The DRV was closed as endorsing the Keep. The article is still there. I don't understand the anger. Is he saying that there was something procedurally wrong with the AFD, or that there was something procedurally wrong with the DRV, or that there was something wrong with the reasons why the AFD and the DRV were opened? He then maintains that there were "fraud and trickery" and "smoke and mirrors" involved in the move of the article. Since he doesn't say who engaged in the fraud and trickery, I suppose that is an "impersonal attack". If he were to accuse a specific editor of fraud and trickery, he could be blocked for the personal attack. What is the nature of the fraud and trickery? Also, he says that the RFC was kept open too long. My understanding is that an RFC is normally open for 30 days. Because the RFC wasn't closed after the 30 days, it was then listed in the Requests for Closure that is transcluded at the top of this noticeboard, which is how it came to my attention. Is IZAK saying that it should have been closed a week earlier than it was? If so, isn't a late close better than no close? Is he saying that, once an RFC close is very late, it should be abandoned? Or is he arguing that the RFC should have been killed when the DRV was opened, or when the DRV was closed? It is clear that IZAK is angry. It isn't entirely clear what he is angry about. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Funny! Thank you for the free psychoanalysis or "tarot card" reading! And here I thought it was Ubikwit who was the angry one the way he never gives up returning to fight at the nebbish of an article about Nepal to make sure it says...nothing...and then the next step will be that he will re-nominate it for deletion. That you do not seem to see. But, to be clear: 1 I do wish to point out that many times DRVs are definitely not viewed and regarded in the narrow limited "legalistic" sense of just a "simple" discussion about whether a deletion or keep vote was good or bad. 2 DRVs open up the whole can of worms again about an article and lengthy often deeper debates ensue about everything in the article and about its validity in all ways, as happened in this DRV that was in its broad all-inclusive sense a referendum to keep the article as is. It's obvious if you read through the lengthy debates and discussions. 3 Editors simply do not have the energy and time to go back and forth between DRVs and RFCs and whatnot. They assume they have been heard if they have made their voices clear especially in such three closely spaced AFD & RFC & DRV all about the same article within days of each other. 4 And in two out of the three there was a consensus to keep the article in its original format including its full title. 5 Maybe if before closing the RFC, someone would have made the effort to re-contact all those who had participated in the original AFD and DRV and requested their input it would hold water. But not the way it was done in a lackadaisical way that comes across, in effect, as dishonest and tricky and not observing true due process, if anything the longer time it took to close the RFC with so few users caring to get re-involved in it is a strike against the RFC and does not legitimate it. Take care, IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

More comments

• I have no opinion one way or the other, but thanks for the notice. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict between processes

• As I said at the Deletion Review, I don't think it makes any difference whether it is called Jews in Nepal or History of Jews in Nepal. The consensus at the AfD and the Deletion Review was History of the Jews in Nepal, a with extensive participation, and I do not think the RfC closing to change the title has sufficient participation to reverse it. The possibility of Judaism in Nepal was I think adequately refuted by IZAK: Jew is the broader title, and more appropriate for the current broad article. Calling it Chabad in Nepal ... is absurd atthis point -- it would only be appropriate if the re was so much material The point of a RfC is to get wider participation, and this did not accomplish it. It should have been closed as inconclusive, or no consensus. I am however really puzzled about the opposition to History iof, which seems to be based upon the fact that there is only a short history. I don't see how the length of the history is relevant. The arguments against it on the basis of there being no works about the history would be valid against an article on Historiography of ....; historiography is the discussion of writings about the history of something . In short I consider the RfC as it was held an attempt to revisit a settled question on what is essentially title style, and I think style questions are exactly those that need simple and firm decisions. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am however really puzzled about the opposition to History iof, which seems to be based upon the fact that there is only a short history.

:Well, as someone who (a) reconsiders obligatory if you disagree with me (b) thought that 'History of' title ridiculous, I'll rehearse the reason.

I must have read dozens of 'Histories of the Jews in . .'. They all have historical depth, and elaborate on a genuine lien of communities settling elsewhere. (These articles are mostly in a state, by the way, of woeful neglect, and rarely mirror the fascinating scholarship on these communities. I dunno why people invent new pages, while neglected pages that, per content, better warrant their constructive interests in these themes).

I think analogically in these cases. Use Aurel Stein or Mikhail Tubyansky to the same end as Sylvain Lévi, and I suppose you could write a 'History of the Jews in Central Asia' or Mongola, or given the considerable role of Hungarians in Central Asia studies, 'A History of the Hungarians in Central Asia', using again Aurel Stein, and others like Lajos Ligeti and Denis Sinor. But they weren't there as 'Hungarians'. I imagined a 'History of the Italians in Tibet' based on Marco Polo, Ippolito Desideri, Giuseppe Tucci, Fosco Maraini, and the fact that many Italians travel there these days etc.etc.) No. The scholars who travelled there are no proof of any such thing. Desideri was there as a Jesuit, Tucci as a scholar, Maraini as an ethnographer, not qua Italian. It looks to me simply specious, and smacks of an insecure identity trying to prove itself by seeing connections everywhere, on no other grounds than some ethnic construction of 'community'. Countries, or subjects, become interesting if there's one of us connected to them. That's nonsense, as Sylvain Lévi or any of the above named scholars would have been the first to confirm.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

some histories do. Some are shorter: Thomas L Friedman's The world is flat : a brief history of the twenty-first century ISBN 9780374292881; Levitas et al's, A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath ISBN 9780935112764; David Christ's The twilight war : the secret history of America's thirty-year conflict with Iran ISBN 9781594203411, to name a few recent popular titles. And histories of some short period, like the American Confederacy,any particular war, so-and so's cabinet, and so on, for hundreds of titles down to single years, e.g. Year zero : a history of 1945' and and there's a rather famous history of the Russian Revolution titled "Ten days that shook the world". Or try search in worldcat for "history of the last". We are not dealing with a lecturer trying to demonstrate a perhaps untenable hypothesis that there were Jews in Nepal, but the fact that there have been Jews in Nepal. You are not using the word in the ordinary sense: history does not imply an imperial theme. The history of the Jews in whatever does not imply that the Jews have necessarily been of critical importance there, just that the story is worth discussing. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD and the Deletion Review was History of the Jews in Nepal, a with extensive participation, and I do not think the RfC closing to change the title has sufficient participation to reverse it. - the AfD and DRV did not have any result w.r.t. the actual title of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I second Nishidani--again.

There is no continuum with respect to which anything called "history" could be explicated in the case of the so-called article at issue. But that has already been stated in more than one way by more than one participant, in ters of anecdotal material, there being nothing of historical note, etc. The book you mention in support of your WP:OR of "short history" all occur within a historical continuum, which enables their significance to be examined in relation to the big picture of that continuum.

Secondly, you are wrong about the RfC, as it was started by a vociferous proponent for keeping the article, who'd acknowledged that there was no "history at issue--before I knew that I could request a DRV. After I filed the review--which I expected had a fair chance of resulting in the article being deleted--the RfC seemed a moot point for the time being--i.e., pending the outcome of the DRV--as you can't move a deleted article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: 1 Honestly it is incredible how obsessed you are with smashing down this poor little article. To me it's a big puzzle. None of your reasons ever make sense except that unlike me, I see you as obsessively angry at it all the time. Why? Talk of drilling in one ditch until you strike the "delete" you want! 2 However I do wish to point out that many times DRVs are definitely not viewed and regarded in the narrow limited "legalistic" sense of just a "simple" discussion about whether a deletion or keep vote was good or bad. 3 DRVs open up the whole can of worms again about an article and lengthy often deeper debates ensue about everything in the article and about its validity in all ways, as happened in this DRV that was in its broad all-inclusive sense a referendum to keep the article as is. It's obvious if you read through the lengthy debates and discussions. 4 Editors simply do not have the energy and time to go back and forth between DRVs and RFCs and whatnot. They assume they have been heard if they have made their voices clear especially in such three closely spaced AFD & RFC & DRV all about the same article within days of each other. 5 And in two out of the three there was a consensus to keep the article in its original format including its full title. 6 Maybe if before closing the RFC, someone would have made the effort to re-contact all those who had participated in the original AFD and DRV and requested their input it would hold water. But not the way it was done in a lackadaisical way that comes across, in effect, as dishonest and tricky and not observing true due process, if anything the longer time it took to close the RFC with so few users caring to get re-involved in it is a strike against the RFC and does not legitimate it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Point 2/3: No, they don't; that's explicitly not what DRV is for. And you have been told, multiple times, that neither the AfD or the DRV had any consensus on the name either way - except, it appears, in your personal intrepretation of people who !voted "Keep" without specifying that the name should be changed meaning they were voting that it shouldn't be. In addition, you have been told, again multiple times, that the fact the RfC remained open beyond 30 days is irrelvant. You refuse to listen when you are told these things, and eventually such refusal to listen becomes disruptive - and your comments here (both the "tarot card" comment and the "obsessed" comment) are decidedly uncivil and bordering on, if not actually, personal attacks. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon doesn't seem to have expressed a fixed opinion about renaming the article before

I'm mentioning this here rather than in direct reply to IZAK because the length of this discussion tells me it would be more confusing if I were to reply above.

Above @IZAK: says "this same involved user who wishes to impose a decision he made acting as both a voter in the AFD as well as the closer of the RFC" in reference Robert McClenon. However the evidence provided by IZAK doesn't seem to support the claim. IZAK themselves quoted Robert McClenon as saying "Keep or Move/Rename".

I've added the emphasis because the key point which IZAK seems to be missing is that Robert McClenon never expressed an opinion in the AFD on whether the article should be renamed/moved, at least not in the diff provided and definitely not in the quoted text. (I don't know if the statement "no native Jews in Nepal" is disputed but even if it is, it doesn't in itself prejudge the article name.) That's an "or" not an "and", so they simply expressed an opinion that a rename was a possibility and would be preferable to deletion.

I'm specifically not commenting on whether it would have been better for Robert McClenon to let someone else closed the RFC. Also not commenting on whether the RFC closure was correct. Simply pointing out there doesn't seem to be any evidence Robert McClenon had already expressed an opinion on the subject of the RFC which appears to have basically been an RM i.e. whether to rename/move the article.

I would however note that anyone closing an RM should be open to the possibility of a rename/move. And also that an RM after an AFD isn't rare because it's an issue that sometimes comes up in an AFD, but an AFD isn't the place to deal with it.

AFAIK, it's not generally considered essential to notify all AFD participants if an RM comes after an AFD, although it may be a good idea. If that notification wasn't done, and there was evidence plenty of AFD partipants who didn't comment had clearly expressed opinions against the RM, I would have some concerns about the the claim of consensus. (It gets more complicated it there were notifications.) This wouldn't apply if the AFD participants simply !voted keep but didn't express a clear opinion on a move. Ultimately, since anyone is welcome to carry out neutral non canvassing notifications (perhaps discussing first in the RM if there are concerns), any RM participant who feels AFD partipants should be notified should probably do it themselves rather than contesting later due to the lack of notifications.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne is correct that I didn't have an opinion about the name of the article. I do have an opinion now, which is that the RFC established rough consensus, and rough consensus is sufficient, for the rename, unless the community decides here, or in another RFC or RM, that consensus has changed and the article should have its current name. I had not been aware that there had been a DRV. (There doesn't appear to have been much participation in the DRV.) If I had been aware of the DRV, I wouldn't have closed any differently, although I might have avoided closing the RFC and leaving it to an administrator. I am still puzzled by IZAK's claim that "fraud and trickery" and "smoke and mirrors" were involved in the move. If the community agrees that User:IZAK was out of process in reverting the rename, then an administrator can restore the rename. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Per the clear consensus here that the RfC resulting in the original move to "Judaism in Nepal" was proper, and that this RfC result is not in contradition to the outcome of the AfD/DRV, I have reinstated that move. I do hope it can be left to stand like this without move protection for now (otherwise, I am quite willing to block if somebody keeps move-warring against this clear-cut consensus outcome.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Timothy Loh Solicitors

I have previously reveiwed and tagged the page Timothy Loh Solicitors with Conflict of interest and written like an advert tags, impartially I hope. The tags have twice been deleted without reason or any improvement to the article by different users. I am concerned that this will escalate. Please can an administrator help me keep an eye on this. Many thanks in advance Pahazzard (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine Issue, Again

Trollers gonna troll. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Still. We're still killing Palestinian children every day we dither around this. Apartheid in South Africa was only ended by a long and comprehensive Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that - if Apartheid still existed in 2014 - would likely include an auto block of South African IP addresses. Please, please! In the name of God, in the name of Allah, in the name of humanity, block Israeli users and IP addresses for just one year. One year! Not five! Not ten! But I can't keep negotiating length any longer. This is the absolute lowest that I will offer. Please, enact this auto block. It may be the only chance Palestine has. Sincerely, The British person who is growing increasingly exasperated at Wikipedia's inaction on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.148.158 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Can someone remove this nonsense?Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected Weight loss

As it receives an never ending stream of spam. As I have edited the page a bit in the paste am posting here. Anyone is free to unprotected if they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping for protected weight loss that would shield me from the obvious effects of this Chunky Monkey for breakfast. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR

user:Trodbowl is making a mess in the article. He does not participate in discussions and is constantly reverting. Also, I noticed that his account is made solely for one article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

His edit summaries are good, and he seems to understand the purpose behind our principles. However, he seems to be lacking an understanding of how to implement them — there's no NPOV-related reason for removing the bit about his lifestyle, for example. I would suggest that someone sit down and discuss with him what he's misunderstanding; I suppose I could be that person if nobody else wants to. No 3RR violation; he's basically just adding things, and other people revert him. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden and Sons of Guns topic ban proposal for User:9711CA

Propose an indefinite topic ban for 9711CA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from the Will Hayden and Sons of Guns pages and related topics, broadly construed. He is currently blocked for edit warring on Will Hayden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but similar material is at Sons of Guns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The material he is trying to add has been discussed at the BLP noticeboard [108]. He has been pinged to participate there [109]. Instead, he went on his current edit war.

1. 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */Censoring public information found in multiple reliable/credible sources is not WP policy, nor should it be attacked as a violation of WP or BLP.)
2. 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */There is plenty of consensus on this, it's called the mainstream media, which is public knowledge. Please refrain from reverting, or you will be blocked. I implore you to contact WP admin to further assist."
3. 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625255413 by NatGertler (talk)"
4. 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */ These changes are fully supported by multiple sources in the press/media. Please refrain from further reverts until a WP admin reviews."
5. 15:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */ reverted back to reliable/credible resources. please refrain from editing until a third-party unbiased WP has reviewed. otherwise these revisions will contiue"

He has been asked multiple times to engage in consensus building on talk and on the BLP noticeboard. The 3RR noticeboard is here:[110].

Note that the crimes and charges and number of victims is all in the article as appropriate. There is no censorship. The AP sources cited, which has an excellent style guide on how to report news of sex crimes against children, does not identify the victims in any way. That appears to be the consensus approach of the other editors. The crimes and charges are notable and reported. User:9711CA does not appear able to work constructively in this space and insists on adding his version of salacious and prurient information that others believe is a violation of BLP WP:AVOIDVICTIM and is unnecessary for Hayden's bio. He also refuses to discuss it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Note from involved non-administrator - it seems premature to me to be placing an indefinite topic ban; he just got his first block on this topic, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that we see the effect that has. However, in his unblock requests (or other postings using the unblock template to post them on this Talk page), there is absolutely no sign of concerns about Consensus or any other Wikipedia policy that might interfere with him posting whatever he wants to post. There are statements that malign the various editors who have reverted or edited his work (and I would be in that group.) If that ban that is proposed here does not take place at this time, I suggest that administrators seriously consider it should he return to his old ways after the current block passes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment I noticed this disruption today and I think 9711CA does not have an adequate grasp of WP:3RR despite having also been blocked in 2013 for violating the 3RR rule. S/he has also been edit-waring longterm at the Hayden article, which is another big concern. I think he has also edit-warred longterm on the associated Sons of Guns article as well. Perhaps an outright topic ban may be a bit premature, but I would support an 1RR/week restriction on both articles enforced by escalating blocks if necessary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I proposed it only in the sense that the topic is likely winding down to a point where very little editing or maintenance is required except potentially consensus building and changes from talk. Since the show is cancelled and the public figure is not likely to return to public life, the only concern for WP now is maintaining BLP policy (particularly around WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NPF as they relate to the victims who do not have WP articles or qualify for them) and possible status changes regarding confinement, trial etc and keeping up is becoming tedious with no real changes in information. A restriction to talk page editing only would likely accomplish the same thing as a topic ban and allow him to express himself more fully. I can understand what he is requesting but he seems to not comprehend the process or policy about what WP would include in a BLP. This was his first block but he's been adding material for well over 2 weeks without talk page discussion/BLP discussion and some have been revdel'd. --DHeyward (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from involved non-admin I think it's a bit too soon for something like this, but I think it will end up here or as a block fairly soon. The editor has not shown any willingness to discuss but repeats the same points over and over. The only thing new are the accusations of white-washing or being pro-Hayden they've used today towards anyone opposed to their edits. I think some type of revert limit may work, but the real problem is they have shown in their history no effort to discuss changes. Unless that changes, a future discussion will not be merely about a topic ban. While I understand their position, the details they want to add are frankly beyond what's needed and shouldn't be in the article. I don't mind linking to a source that mentions details we won't include so long as it's a good source otherwise. There have been discussions about this on the SoG talk page and on BLPN. 97111CA did not materially participate in any of them, just putting their preferred edit into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 19:56, September 12, 2014‎
• Support topic ban...per diffs and argument provided by DHeyward. 9711CA does not seem to understand BLP or 3RR...least not so in these particular articles.--MONGO 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)