Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273

Strange behaviour from several new accounts

There have been several throwaway accounts recently—Yumakotori9, Samuelliam, Rozsateka, Vincemio9 and Antontimo2—that all follow the same editing pattern. Their edits almost exclusively consist of overlinking, adding redundant sentences and incorrectly italicising titles. Is this disruptive enough to warrant blocking? I've been reverting them but the frequency of these edits seem to be increasing. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Found some more: Reidan29, Emmaava17, Usagi40, Zoeemily, Ethanliam69, Yumiko69, Masonadam25, Aliceella25, Misako94. Obviously a sockpuppet of some sort, but I can't work out what the intent is. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Similarly unsure about their actual edits, but an SPI might be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They might be a class of students learning how to edit Wikipedia and told to start off with this kind of stuff. Or, they are all making a load of minor edits to get auto-confirmed and then go after their real goals which may or may not be legitimate ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not looked in a huge amount of detail but it seems like the edits are sequential, as if one person is moving from account to account. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I raised something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article. Number 57 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your examples, Number 57, but I left messages on the talk pages of all the ones named in this section asking them if this was a class assignment. This response indicates that maybe it is. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is possibly a continuation of the disruption first reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Suspicious activity at Kammavari Palem. One of the accounts was proven to be a sockpuppet of User:036386536a; a couple others made unprompted denials of being sockpuppets even though no one had accused them in the first place. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a/Archive#6 June 2015 and the following two sections.) All the accounts implausibly claimed that Wikipedia itself told them to edit certain articles after signing up for an account. My best theory so far is that User:036386536a is either running or taking an online course on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:, @Lukeno94:, @WikiDan61:.

I'm not so sure it's implausible.

Presuming they claimed they were suggested to different articles, pretty sure it's entirely plausible. AFAIK Wikipedia:GettingStarted has been shown to all newly registered accounts after they complete registration for quite a while now. (Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout suggests since 2014-02-11.) Definitely it was shown when I created a temp account just now to confirm it's still working.

As that page says you can add ?gettingStartedReturn=true to any page to see what's shown to new users. If they came from an editable article (and the software knows it), they'll be invited to edit the article they came from, but if they came from anywhere else (an uneditable article or something that isn't an article or the software doesn't know where they came from) except special pages, they'll be direct to something else to edit.

Now, if many accounts claim they were all suggested to the same article (which wasn't were they started from) in in a brief timespan, that seems implausible unless there's a bug or weirdness in the design of getting started, those details I'm lazy to check.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone creates a new account from the main page, it's plausible that they'd be redirected to edit a random page. Maybe that's a problem with the philosophy behind the GettingStarted extension, essentially making them edit an article where they're practically guaranteed to have nothing to contribute. If new editors make noise edits and get reverted and accused of disruption or puppetry, that certainly seems contrary to the intended purpose of the extension. The charts on Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout are bizarre. At first glance, they seem to indicate that revert rates of new editors are declining, but if you actually look at them, they're just plotting data that has been pre-sorted into descending order. In any case, questioning the value of the extension seems more like a basis for an administrative request to get it uninstalled or at least maybe reviewed by someone without an interest in getting/keeping it installed. --Unready (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the main page of course, but any full protected or semi protected page (it seems the software actually detects whether you can edit so if you try it as an account, it will allow you to edit, but I don't think this isn't what new accounts experience, try doing it from an IP), non articles (I just checked and this includes talk pages of unprotected articles) and any case where their starting point was lost for some reason. And of course even if editing the current article is a suggestion, they can still click to edit a random article. Without commenting on the wider issues surrounding GettingStarted, I think the main point with regards to this discussion is if a new account says they were randomly directed at an article to edit it, this is entirely believable. If 5 new accounts in quick succession say they were "randomly" directed to edit the same article, either there's something weird about GettingStarted that probably should be changed, or these accounts aren't telling the truth. I'm not completely sure what the claim was here but it's possible the story told by the accounts is believable. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Portal:Current events/Turkey and Portal:Current events/Science and technology into Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events/Turkey and Portal:Current events/Science and technology should be merged into Portal:Current events in order to reduce the categories Category:2007 by day and Category:2009 by day, respectively, to 365 pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:LOGGERHEAD

For some reason this user's talk page is protected against creation. The user is due a whole bunch of cautions for poor edits but, since none of us lesser folk can create the page, he's not getting them... just like he's not getting notification about this ANI post. Bazj (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagging DanielRigal and I dream of horses who may have an interest in the resolution of this issue. Bazj (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe LOGGERHEAD needs to be notified, too. --I dream of horses (T) @ 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem though. We can't. :-( Here is the error message, if that is any help:

The title "User talk:LOGGERHEAD" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*GGER.* <casesensitive>

I was wondering whether it is a filter intended to prevent use of the N word? If so, it seems to be over-broad. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've created the page. The issue with the filter is that his name is all caps. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left them a message. Are you sure it is due to it being all caps? From that regular expression it looks more like it specifically doesn't allow the substring "GGER". Will they be able to make a user page, or will the same problem apply there? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd assume the "GGER" substring is blocked because of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

...and sandbox, and common.js, and... They may be better off with a change of name? Bazj (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little unjust – there's nothing "untoward" about the name "Loggerhead" (yeah, lowercase would be better...), and it seems unfair to force a username change because of what one our LTA cases did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. There's nothing wrong with this username, it is just a coincidence that it has a string in it that is similar to one used by one of the worst long-term-abusers of Wikipedia. I haven't kept op to date on their recent activities, but perhaps loosening the filters designed to stop them would be a better solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The committee has resolved most of the concerns raised, and after discussing the remaining issue directly with Scott, his replies have satisfied us. The Arbitration Committee thus rescinds its temporary injunction dated 1 July 2015 at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: Doug Weller, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, NativeForeigner, Yunshui, Euryalus, LFaraone, AGK

Opposing: Thryduulf, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad

Abstaining: Roger Davies

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Posted by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale at 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Arbitration Committee

List of girl groups

Hey folks, question about restoring a deleted page when a new page has been created at the same page title. For background, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#List of girl groups and my question about it here on Ponyo's talk page. A couple of us have proposed recreating a list of girl groups out of content removed from List of all-female bands because the two are defined slightly differently. I think that there's enough info which was just removed to create a new list, but since there's an old list as well and they're not the same, I think it makes sense to merge them. But, if I were to create a new draft out of the old page which Ponyo emailed me, I think I would be violating attribution. So my questions are:

1. Is there a way to restore the old list to a new location (i.e. Draft:List of girl groups or User:Ivanvector/List of girl groups), perhaps by splitting the history?
2. If I go ahead and paste the old page in as a draft anyway, can the history be attached at a later time?
3. Am I overthinking this and/or should just get on with it?

Just curious at this point if it is possible; at any rate I would wait for a consensus at the Rfd but I'd like to be able to say for sure whether or not it's even a thing we can do. Thanks as always for your help. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've just restored the article at the previous title (List of girl groups). I'd say go ahead and merge what was previously removed from List of all-female bands. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Emyth

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.

---

Will someone see about unblocking Emyth (talk · contribs)? Like I stated on his talk page, he is not User:RJR3333/User:FDR. If we need more than two WP:CheckUsers on this, then please do that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• The place to start is with Tiptoety, who made the block. This was a CU block, no admin can unblock him, only Tip or another CU, so WP:AN may not be the best place to ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: The talk page shows that we already tried to start with Tiptoety, and I made it perfectly clear there that more than one WP:CheckUser should look into this. Right now, we have an innocent editor blocked as another editor, and no one is doing anything about it. And, yes, I know better than anyone who is or isn't RJR3333/FDR (well, except for RJR3333/FDR himself). Flyer22 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. This definitely looks like a false positive; it's quite easy to see that the accounts had radically different topics of interest from their earliest edits, and why would you create a sockpuppet ten years ago to edit when you've already been editing for two years so sporadically that you're not likely to get into conflicts? Meanwhile, Emyth gives a reasonable explanation of being a university professor: when you're on a university's public network, it's easy to share an IP by accident with unrelated-in-real-life disruptive people. I experienced it a few years ago: if you'd run a CU on me, you'd have thought that I was doing this because we'd used the same network. And Dennis, since this is a place for community input, it's definitely an appropriate place to come; community consensus runs things here, and if the checkuser policy conflicts with it, the checkuser policy must give way. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock, since in this case the block is apparently collateral damage. Miniapolis 01:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, at least until another checkuser can get a look at it (and I will ping the functionaries list in a moment), and as per the policy. The story seems plausible enough, but the checkusers may be privy to more information than us and nobody should undo the block until we're given the all clear for that reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
• We need to wait for Tiptoety to respond. To the extent it's relevant, Emyth doesn't seem to be in any hurry (long spaces betweeen a question to them on their Talk page about this issue and their response, and very sporadic edits before the block). One of the problems with this is the complexities of technical data. What Tiptoety could see in April when they blocked Emyth is far more than I can see in July. Emyth has only two non-stale edits to look at now. There are a couple of other confirmed socks who have non-stale data (there may be more, but I'd have to go through each one). One was easier (PaulBustion88) because that account was blocked by Tiptoety at the same time as Eymth and had recent edits (the other two in the quartet in the archives were blocked much earlier and didn't). But, for example, I wouldn't have thought that FDR had non-stale edits because the account was blocked so long ago, but they did, quite a few, actually. In any event, from what I can see, Tiptoety's technical findings, not surprisingly, were reasonable. I have no comment on behavior as I'm not conversant with this master.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to the behavioral data, and how I know who is RJR3333/FDR, the following might help some of you: User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#User:RJR3333 likely editing as User:ECayce187, User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#Another RJR3333 sock, User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#Another stalker WP:SOCK --- User:Shuriken892 and User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#RJR3333 or Cali11298. Once I have thoroughly analyzed the way that an editor edits, it is highly unlikely that I am wrong when naming that editor's account as a WP:SOCK of another. Just ask RJR3333 (or Cali11298, for that matter). In that "Another RJR3333 sock" thread, you can see that I told Tiptoety, "Given the articles that Emyth has focused on, and the way he signs his username, here, here, and here, maybe Emyth is not RJR3333. Emyth doesn't use the two dashes. And in my experience, it has proven difficult for RJR3333 not to use two dashes when he signs his username. That second diff-link I provided in this post shows Emyth signing his username with the statement 'All the best,' right before the signature, which is uncharacteristic of RJR3333. I've also known RJR3333 to be honest about his additional WP:Sockpuppets and to not deny one once it has been confirmed by a WP:CheckUser as being tied to him." Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: It's vaguely  Possible, bordering on  Unlikely that they are the same person from a purely technical standpoint. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Corrected, see below. I shouldn't checkuser right after waking up. >_< Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Based purely on technical evidence, they are largely  Technically indistinguishable, along with several other unrelated users. When you factor in account age and editing interests, I find it very  Unlikely that they are the same. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am on holiday with limited access to the internet. You can consider this my approval to do whatever is appropriate. If I clearly made a mistake, hastily reverse the block. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 19:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Help with global vandalism

A user I blocked has gone postal and created socks named User:Bishonen2 and User:Bishonen3 to attack me, using the choicest phrases from the person's original reaction to my block, which is here. And used IPs and a few accounts with other names, too; my recent talkpage history is illustrative (mostly for admins, as most of the stuff has been revdel'd).

Now I'm getting a storm of e-mails informing me that I have received messages from "Bishonen4" at Wikiquote, Mediawiki, Meta, Commons… maybe more places by now. And also that the choice phrases, when reverted, have been restored using IPs. Help, please? I'd like to emphasize that I'm not upset or anything, it's not worth a massive effort, but perhaps a filter? P.S., I just see now that Bishonen4 has been globally locked. But I bet there'll be more. Anyway. Maybe protection or semi of my global userpages? Bishonen | talk 21:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

I would definitely suggest an Admin tagging those User pages with... something that makes it clear that they were blocked, and why they were blocked, so no one confuses them with "alt" accounts of yours! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no Bishonen5 listed at Meta. "Bishonen4" is globally locked which means they will not be able to log in on any wiki, which means they will not be able to send any further email. I have re-blocked 2 and 3 on this wiki to disable email. A steward should globally lock these as well. You can file a request for this at meta:Steward requests/Global#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oops, re-reading your post I see the user did not actually email you; the email was received from the system as a notification.. Regardless, these two accts should be globally locked. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, good thing somebody knows their way around the crazy wiki world. Nyttend has already filed the request, thanks Nyttend. I've added a few words. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I've added a {{Blockedimpersonator}} tag to the Bishonen2 user page (I left Bishonen3 alone, as there's no user page created there). I hope that's OK. If it's not, either you (or any Admin here) can please feel free to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure specifically about Commons? I am an admin there, but neither Bishonen2 nor Bishonen3 seem to be registered account on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the Commons portion was specifically in reference to "Bishonen4". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks possible. They are globally locked now anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman, History of deleting, altering and removing text of posts on talk pages

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.

---

North Shoreman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm filing this request correctly. User Tom Northshoreman, has been doing a lot of disruptive editing on talk pages. I noticed he has been modifying, deleting or altering posts of other people on the talk pages, but not in a helpful way, but to basically erase what people are saying. He has done so to me on the Leo Frank talk page. He has done so to other people on the Leo Frank talk page when I looked at the archives. I'm sure if one looks closely at his history, he has done this disruptive behavior on other talk pages. This is creating a very ugly environment on Wikipedia and I'm asking that his behavior be enforceablely stopped. Can several editors who are not partisans of Tom Northshoreman's political views on Wikipedia please do an audit of his behavior. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's typical for reports like yours to provide "diffs" or examples of edits that support your charges. As you can understand, editors want to see evidence that indicates what you say is true and not just take your word on it. See HELP:DIFF for help on how to create a diff of an edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Liz, before they posted here, I had already advised the user to provide diffs (and incidentally to go to ANI, not AN), as I removed the inappropriate placement of the above attack on his own talkpage.[5] GingerBreadHarlot, if you have trouble producing diffs, I really can't recommend HELP:DIFF. Try this guide instead. (Relatively new, btw? You've been here over a year. Everything's relative, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, I'll use that link in the future. I didn't know there was an alternative to the Help page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot is confused. These diffs [6] and [7] are apparently what GBH is talking about. Two problems. First of all, they were done by somebody else. Second, since GBH was violating BLP, the changes were perfectly justified and the reasons were provided in the edit summaries.

Much of GBH's participation on the Leo Frank case consists of personal attacks on other editors (mostly me) and personal attacks on living historians that he disagrees with. The two diffs provided clearly demonstrate how far overboard GBH has gone in his attacks on these historians. These violations of BLP have continued. Recently GBH wrote, "Thus the arguments for Frank's innocence are legally insufficient and fallacious, many of which are based on academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, academic fraud and plagiarism (I will present proof if needed)." [8] and "we can now see Dinnerstein's racist antigentile hatecrime hoax meme everywhere on the Internet"[9]. As this edit [10] on another article shows, GBH is fully aware of what BLP means (although his interpretations are suspect).

Perhaps an exploration of GBH's talk page behavior might be in order. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, if only those who don't agree with Tom's views can comment on his behavior, as I don't agree with GingerBreadHarlot's views on anti-Semitism I presume they won't mind my commenting on their behavior. On GBH's talk page, besides being told to grow a spine, I'm told that "Labeling people or articles/books people wrote with infantilized emotionally charged words ... to suppress individuals or groups doesn't work anymore to chill dissent in the real world and all it does is instigate a loaded name calling contest that leads no where." and then at the end of the section is the battle call (or perhaps an order to me):"Stop the anti-Gentile behavior. Stop the Anti-Gentilism". I note that at WP:RSN#American Mercury et al GBH refers to the "Antigentile activists groups ADL / SPLC". As for the specific complaint about altering other editors' comments, I see that GBH hasn't complained about their IP supporter there (68.10.143.69 (talk · contribs), also an opponent of the ADL and SPLC) who has been modifying, deleting or altering other editors' posts.[11][12][13]. Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm a well-read person but I never heard the term "Anti-Gentilism" before and don't see how it could be an accurate description of any behavior on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You probably don't want to know, but see [14] and [15]. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK, that's enough. We have too much patience with agenda-pushers. I've blocked GingerBreadHarlot indefinitely for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

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

User:HAMMERSCHLAG

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 content of this userpage is a copy of the external page http://www.neue-bands.de/newcomer/hammerschlag - so it's a copyright-violation. Regards --Färber (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Next time please simply tag the article with {{db-g12}} (or {{db-g11}} wich applied in this case). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Administrators

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#July_1.2C_2015

For how many days I will wait?--Fgdt5r78698778 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just have patience. There are people working in that area, so it shouldn't be too long assuming there aren't certain problems (e.g. the name you are trying to usurp has too many edits). If there are problems, it will be pointed out. Dustin (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. He has zero edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Treasure_Hunter

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Treasure_Hunter

--Fgdt5r78698778 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• You would have to ask there, it isn't a matter for administrators, but for global renamers/Crats. Keep in mind that this the Independence Day Weekend for those of us in the US, so some Crats may be busy enjoying the 3 day weekend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

note: At WP:USURP, requests that were initiated July 1st are marked that they "should be addressed on or before July 9, 2015." Give it time, it will probably be addressed sometime next week. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Fgdt5r78698778: No, it is true. "e.g." means "for example". I wasn't saying that User:Treasure Hunter has too many edits. I was saying that having too many edits would be an example of a problem which could block usurpation, not that it necessarily applies to this instance. Dustin (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:INACTIVITY RfC

I've started an RfC regarding the inactivity requirement for administrators here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I've started an RfC concerning activity requirements for bureaucrats here: Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Increasing the activity requirement for retaining bureaucrat rights. –xeno^talk 21:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

toyota.com

Has anyone else noticed the artspam masquerading as economy driving tips etc, and recently even hair and skin care tips, that finishes with a link to toyota.com? I'm blocking the authors as SOA, but can anything be done to put a stop to it? If Toyota management know about it and are behind it, they need to be told officially where to get off, but if they don't, it's not doing their image much good and perhaps they should be told so they can deal with their PR dept... Two examples from one account (User:Ferazunnahar parul) are Motorcycle tyre devices and Vaseline scine care. Peridon (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Toyota has nothing to do with Vaseline and skin care. Probably just someone including a spurious link to make it look more "official". ansh666 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But the point of artspam is to sell something - or get people to your site. These are throwaway accounts, and it's been going on for quite some time. A lot of the artspam I see is for bodybuilding stuff, leading to small sites, or to blogspot type sites. Toyota is the only big name I see in this sort of spamming. The titles and text are getting further away from motors. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Toyota is behind this. It's likely a spambot performing a test with a "real" link before it swaps in their spam links later, once the bot has been modified to avoid suspicion. Nakon 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible. I'm fairly sure it's a bot anyway. In one way, it's useful, I suppose. I just block any account that does it... I'd say it's been going for over a year now. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion needed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4

I closed this and then noticed that it referred to over 200 articles (all listed at Category:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences), which would take far more time than I have right now. Though not all were listed at the AFD, they all appear to have (somehow, by template) been tagged with a notice (as at Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D841). Additionally, the sole creator/editor of these lists agreed with deletion.[16] Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like MusikAnimal's done it. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, @Postdlf: instantly and effortlessly done using Twinkle's batch deletion tool :) I also closed a relevant TfD discussion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured there was a way, but I've never used the d-batch option and didn't know why I couldn't find how to access it. And I now see from your solution: it won't show up on a redlinked category page, so you created a dummy category page just to enable the tool. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions enforcement: requesting review of editor behaviour

In this comment, Bbb23 suggested bringing this matter here. In considering enforcement of the WP:GS/UKU sanctions, please review the edits of Speccy4Eyes. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's disingenuous of him to claim he's only adding references to these articles. He could add the refs without constantly changing the units of measurement. If, after this discussion, there's a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd consider GS. KrakatoaKatie 03:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record KrakatoaKatie, I have not changed any units of measurement, I have only added references - in fact, I have carefully avoided changing units, despite the fact that the added reference may use different units, by harnessing the power of the 'order=flip' option in the {{convert}} template (as suggested in WP:UNITS: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary"). Speccy4Eyes (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the question, Speccy4Eyes: Does your edit change the units of measurement shown first to the reader? Yes? Then it's covered by this sanction. It doesn't matter how you did it, whether it was by using the template function or manually. We've been through this with dates and British/American English and everything else under the sun, and you're not fooling anyone. KrakatoaKatie 13:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the answer to the question is "no". They are actually edit warring over whether the article should say "185 cm (6 ft 1 in)" or "185 cm (6 ft 1 in)". Kahastok talk 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, no, the answer to your question is "no" - that is the point of following the suggestion in WP:UNITS as I mentioned above - to not change the units of measurement shown first to the reader. Here is the before and after of one of my edits:

• Before my edit and unreferenced: wiki markup was {{convert|196|cm|ftin|abbr=on}}, shown to the reader as "196 cm (6 ft 5 in)".
• After I added a reference in which the height was given in feet and inches: wiki markup was {{convert|6|ft|5|in|cm|order=flip|abbr=on}}, shown to the reader as "196 cm (6 ft 5 in)".

Here are some other of my edits: [17], [18], [19]. Note too the edit summaries which make it clear that the shown primary units are unchanged. Do you follow that now - it follows exactly the WP:UNITS advice for how to display the results when the reference uses different units to those required in the article. And there is no way that can possibly be interpreted as contravening WP:GS/UKU. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two editors involved here, and their references dispute is not the start of it. I do not think we should consider one of them without considering the other as well, since they're both basically doing the same thing.

The general sanctions require "clear consensus" before an editor "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another". Two editors - User:Speccy4Eyes and User:Michael Glass - have thus developed a tactic of proposing identical changes to significant numbers of relatively low-profile articles at the same time, on the assumption that there will be no objection. Speccy proposes a change to imperial, Michael to metric (through the proxy of source-based units, a system rejected by MOSNUM). They wait a bit, and when there is no objection in a couple of days, they then claim consensus and start flipping units on all the articles. To my mind it is an attempt to Wikilawyer the sanctions - a better approach would be to achieve a genuine consensus at the relevant WikiProject.

• Recent examples from Speccy4Eyes: [20] [21] [22] [23]
• Recent examples from Michael Glass: [24] [25] [26] [27]

In practice, both seem to be watching each other's contributions and systematically objecting to each other's proposals, rendering the whole exercise a waste of their time and any watcher's time. Kahastok talk 06:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is classic WP:GAMING and both should be immediately prohibited from making any further such proposals. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't propose to make any further proposals to change UK rugby and footballers' heights from imperial first to metric first (the majority are metric first at the moment). In fact, I gave up making these proposals when Speccy4eyes objected to every one of them. (Speccy4eyes also gave up on making these proposals, when I objected.) Therefore already, the problem proved to be self-limiting, and as it got other people's backs up, that's more than enough hint for me to stop. Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• In as much as this behaviour has been revealed here, I imagine that both editors should be topic-banned under WP:GS/UKU. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, that would presumably require evidence of a contravention being uncovered first? To date all we have seen here, as well as ignorance of how the "order=flip" option should be used in the {{convert}} templae, are examples of talk page exchanges which completely comply with the requirements of WP:GS/UKU. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It is disruptive editing (and forumshopping), which are both covered by the sanctions. The evidence is clear. Gaming the system is not going to solve any problems. RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's deal with the forum shopping first. I came here after I was formally notified by Kahastok. How could this be classed as forum shopping?

Now on the question of disruptive editing. I don't think there has been any instance of breaking the three revert rule. I don't think there have been protracted disputes on any talk pages. Objections have been made to requesting a change of units on more than one page. There is nothing in the rules to say that this is wrong. However, I have stated above that I will not do it any more. If there are any other conditions that need to be filled, please state them. I can't comply with rules that are applied ex post facto. That would be an abuse of process. Michael Glass (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is another point. I updated UK football player profiles this year without too much angst. Now I feel I have been dragged into this because of the actions of Speccy4Eyes (and because of the notification I received). If these were baits that I have risen to, then I am sorry. We live and learn. Michael Glass (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You should be following the spirit of the rule, not the letter of the rule. The spirit of the rule is that there should be clear consensus before mass-changes of units, and you were trying to get around this by reducing a mass change of units to lots of individual changes of units and claiming consensus when nobody responded. This was gaming the system. That you might not have been called on it in February does not mean it was OK in February, or that it was OK in June.

No-one is ever going to give you a comprehensive list of what will be deemed within the rules and what will be deemed against the rules. The rule is as it is described. You need to follow the spirit of the rule and this tactic was clearly not in the spirit of the rule. Kahastok talk 08:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that there is still disruptive editing going on between entrenched camps, with bemused editors appalled at the triviality of it stuck in the middle. See WP:LAME#Falkland Islands, at one time a group of enthusiastic editors got together with the aim of improving wikipedia's coverage of the Falkland Islands. They set up WP:FALKLAND and began on a systematic programme of creating articles. Along came two editors, Martinvl (currently blocked for disruptive editing and Michael Glass with a suggestion, hey lets make all Falkland Islands articles completely metric. Editors said no, they wanted to follow WP:MOSNUM. And they kept coming back again and again and again with the same suggestion to the point the group was unable to function. It was impossible to discuss article improvement, every attempt to do so became a discussion on unit order dominated by those two editors. And like we see here, there was gaming of the system, with both editing against consensus to "test the strength of the established consensus.

And now we're seeing the same thing again on a different set of articles. This isn't about improving articles, its agenda dictated editing by both camps, who either see you as for 'em or against 'em, both failing to recognise that to edit requires you are prepared to compromise and create articles intended for readers. I would suggest an editing restriction that both editors should not make any edits related to unit systems or to change unit order in article. WCM_email 11:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This reference of WCM was to a dispute of half a decade ago. Since that time the matter has been resolved, even though Kahastok and WCM fought against the final resolution. About the most recent dispute, I did not make changes to articles when other editors objected. I believe that this is complying with both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Michael Glass (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Yes, I can now see that proposing compliance with MOSNUM, on numerous talk pages at once, is perceived as shit-stirring - I am sorry that I did it, and won't do it again. When I did it though, I thought it was the correct way to get the articles properly and compliantly, formatted. You have to remember that I have only been an editor here since November 2014, and that I had got caught up in what I thought were unit changes against policy by Michael Glass.

I came across him on Talk:Richard Wright (footballer) when he was proposing to replace the ft-in height with a cm height, but with a different value from that that his club, Manchester City, gave. He wanted all the Man City players formatted the same, so I went through about half of them making then consistent. After that, another editor stepped in and changed them all back again, claiming England should use meters (which was clearly wrong). Michael Glass then chipped in and said I was breaking the WP:GS/UKU rules, which I had never heard of at that time. Shortly after I had the WP:GS/UKU warning stuck on my talk page by RGloucester (at the instigation of Michael Glass I have just discovered!). That stopped me in my tracks, I apologised to them, and I started reading up more on the rules. It was that, combined with watching what Michael Glass was doing in his attempts to change all the articles to metric, despite what MOSNUM said, that convinced me that the correct thing to do was to make the articles comply with MOSNUM, but to put a courtesy discussion item on each talk page first (as Michael Glass did). Naive you might say, but commendable I thought, to adhere to all the rules.

I even tried again recently, after more Michael Glass encounters, to find a solution by trying to stimulate the invention of imaginative new ways to ensure MOSNUM is complied with, rather than circumvented, by starting a new topic on its talkpage. Though there were some constructive comments there, the initiative to attempt to find a better way, has basically been shot out of the water.

If you think I have committed heinous crimes by my (good faith) actions, then punish me as you see fit, of course. Otherwise, I would appreciate being given a second chance, and hopefully learn, and emerge the better, from this experience. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

By community consensus and enforcement of the WP:GS/UKU sanctions, editors Speccy4Eyes and Michael Glass are indefinitely prohibited from making any edits on unit systems and to change the unit order in articles they edit, broadly construed. Failure to abide by this editing restriction will result in an escalating series of blocks. WCM_email 11:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of gaming that WCM rightly raises, and the failure by both (but particularly by Speccy4Eyes) to see what was wrong here, I support. Kahastok talk 13:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As I understand it, both of us have already agreed not to make changes to order of units. It should be remembered that both WCM and Kahastok have a long history of acrimonious disputes, most notably on the Falkland Islands and especially Gibraltar, where both were sanctioned. They do not come with clean hands and are clearly motivated by a long-standing animosity towards me.

As I see it, both Speccy4Eyes and I have agreed not to make changes in the order of units in UK based articles. It should be clear from the interactions between the two of us that both of us, despite our obvious disagreements, are trying to get on. However, when Kahastok and then WCM came in it is clear that they have another agenda, and want to continue old fights and settle old scores. Their contributions should therefore be treated with great caution. Michael Glass (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposal, because the best way to curtail this disruption, and any such future incidents, is to remove the main participants from the dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose—A hammer-strike is proposed where warnings and a temporary narrow-scope ban would be more appropriate. BTW, RGloucester is hardly someone whose hands are clean in terms of gaming the system. It's amusing to see him weighing in here. Tony (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal, since it seems overly strict – a very coarse solution to a very specific problem. Contra RGloucester's comment immediately above, this proposal is the easiest solution but not the best. To make a reductio of it, Wikipedia would have zero disruptions in the limit where it had zero editorial activity.

These General Sanctions were intended to stop disruptive behaviour relating very specifically to unit formatting in UK-related articles; it seems far beyond their scope, therefore, to ban these two editors indefinitely "from making any edits on unit systems and to change the unit order in articles they edit, broadly construed". There is no reason why, for example, they should be forbidden from changing an article about Germany which gave distances in the format "miles (kilometres)" to "kilometres (miles)", since such an edit is favoured by the MOS and not disruptive. If sanctions are to punish disruptive behaviour, then they need to focus on disruptive behaviour. I think we should honour the statements by these editors for now, that they will not continue to make and debate masses of these unit-changing proposals simultaneously. Clarify that such proposals are irritating to other users and against the spirit of the GS. Discuss again only when there is something to discuss. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment An indefinite ban is out of line with the sanctions outlined in WP:GS/UKU

• The sanctions don't even mention proposing to make changes in the order of units. Despite this, both of us have agreed not to make any more proposals. This is a demonstration of good faith on both our parts.
• The proposer has taken no account of the fact that Spcccy4Eyes presents as a new editor. Despite this, an indefinite ban is proposed on him. I don't think this is fair, unless Speccy4Eyes is shown to be a sockpuppet.
• The proposer has taken no account of the fact that Speccy4Eyes was the one who made multiple requests for a change of units. Yes, I made several requests, and these were opposed by Speccy4#yes, but neither of us edit warred about our disagreements.
• The proposer is clearly hostile. Take his contributions to a discussion that had no bearing on units of measure See [[28]] " am, however, firmly opposed to the WP:WEASEL words suggested by Michael." " I'm inclined to reject native-born for the simple reason this is all so silly" However, the final comment in the talk was ""Native-born" is quite reasonable and not at all silly if it resolves the concerns expressed above." (The final wording: "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders." [[29]]. Therefore, as I stated before, WCM's proposals should be treated with caution.
• Both Speccy4Eyes and I have agreed not to make proposals to change the order of units. Despite this clear undertaking from both of us, the proposer has asked for an indefinite ban on asking for a change in units.
• I really do think that this proposal raises questions about a possible abuse of process. Michael Glass (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sportsgamaniacre requests an unblock

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.

---

Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user requested an unblock under WP:OFFER. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Really not impressed with their request, which is just parrotting the phrasing of the standard offer without offering any indication that they actually understand why they were blocked. This seems to be a consistent pattern of theirs, just trying to find the right words withoiut trying to understand why. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Beeblebrox. I will also point out that the most recent change to their block was for this: [30]. This was just in January, the unblock request seems to skirt around that fact by saying "I had six months of not doing anything on Wikipedia". They have blocks for several types of behaviour but do not address any specifically in the unblock request. I oppose unblocking for these reasons. Chillum 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Can't say the clue-bus has arrived for this user. Regurgitating policy pages doesn't breed a lot of confidence. Blackmane (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've read all the unblock requests on their page, there are quite a few. The overwhelming impression is that they need to be kept blocked, if only because competence is required. Bishonen | talk 07:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
• As Bishonen says, there are a number of unblock requests on the page. They tend to be both repetitive and short, and show at absolute best only a gradual and partial dawning of understanding of the problem. He does not appear to understand the details of WP:OFFER; this was first put to him in February, and even with understanding and appropriate behavior would prohibit editing until August. Competence is also an issue. I would not at this time recommend unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Ugh, whatever you don't like about their request, please don't blame them on the date of request, it's my screwup: I miscalculated the month based on the right assumption (last sock on Jan 29) when replying to them via OTRS. Let's just consider the request as is, forgeting fr a second about the month not served, can we? Max Semenik (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I was initially in favour of a WP:ROPE unblock, since despite the comments above it seemed possible (even if unlikely) that the editor might actually have learnt better. However, I have now looked a bit more thoroughly at the editor's extensive block history, and I realise that he or she has already been given several very long coils of rope, and it is probably time to say enough is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with everyone else so far. He says he knows socking will get him in a lot of trouble but doesn't specifically agree to stop it. Not good enough. KrakatoaKatie 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock

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

---

As per WP:RANGE, asking for range block from someone with knowledge of how these things work. I've separately asked for check user at User talk:HJ Mitchell as User:Sweet Xeper appears to be evading block through use of a dynamic IP. Examples of IP addresses include: 151.44.129.5, 151.46.141.240, 151.35.10.111. However WP:QUACK. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: We need all the IP addresses you think the guy uses so we can narrow the range as tightly as possible. The three you've given are a /12 range, and that will cause way too much collateral damage. KrakatoaKatie 16:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • • Okay, will make a list. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
      • So far I've found:

151.18.153.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.18.203.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.18.214.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.34.11.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.34.120.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.34.168.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.34.248.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.35.10.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.44.66.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.44.129.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.44.155.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.44.157.135 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.52.211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.53.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.63.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.128.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.141.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.46.212.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.68.52.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
151.82.189.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• • • • Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the above to show links.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What she said. Looking at them as three /16 ranges, you can see how many other IP editors this may affect.
  • 151.44.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 151.46.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 151.35.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

• • Also, HJ MItchell is not a checkuser but it doesn't matter because a checkuser wouldn't be able to help here. They won't comment on IPs. If these were in a smaller range, a checkuser would be useful for determining how much collateral there would be for logged-in accounts if hardblocking was being considered but that isn't the case here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, misread Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblock User:Arctic Kangaroo (alt)?

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.

---

Should this account be unblocked? Graphium's unblocked conditions does not include one-account limitation, and this account is publicly disclosed, So I don't think using this account will violate Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--GZWDer (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My immediate reflex is to say 'no'. I seem to recall having been involved as a blocking admin or at least in a very lengthy block discussion about Arctic Kangaroo. But where is that account now? And how and why was he allowed back as Graphium? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

After half-an-hour digging I rember now. He was indeffed here for CIR and there had also been a huge kerfuffle at AfC. Can't understand why he was allowed back but that appears to have been a BASC decision that I was not privy to. My answer is still 'No. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Arctic Kangaroo was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee a couple of days ago, as shown on User talk:Graphium, to which Arctic Kangaroo's page redirects. So he has changed his name; that's fine. The unblock conditions are shown here: The community-imposed ban from uploading media files in force remains in force, and the three month community-imposed ban from reviewing AFC submissions remains in force and is extended indefinitely. It seems to me that the committee doesn't have to specify as an unblock condition that a (previously) problematic user, still subject to restrictions, has to confine themselves to one account, so as not to avoid scrutiny. Graphium, do you have any good reason for using more than one account? Let's wait a little for a response, but as the default here, I think we keep the other account blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
  • When I created that account back then, there was no particular purpose for it. I think it was created because I saw some other editors had alternate accounts and that was probably about it. It was just something that I did last time without thinking through what and why I wanted to do. If you ask me now, I don't have any need for an alternate account at the moment. Also, in the email prior to unblock I was told to explicitly say which account I wanted to use as the other would remain indefinitely blocked. --Graphium 15:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Graphium, happy editing. I think this can be closed now. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC).

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

Helpsome

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 haven received any more responses to this matter and I am wondering what to do next. Can I add information to three articles? Thank you.

Editor: "Helpsome"

I am new to Wikipedia and was treated very rudely by "Helpsome" last month. S/he called me a liar and was generally abusive.

I suggest the following: 1) S/he be reprimanded and given some general guidelines on civility. 2) S/he be given retraining on actually reading what s/he was deleting before s/he deletes it. (The entry on one of the articles I added material to is now messed up due to his/her editing without looking -- it has entries in the Reference section with nothing being referred to). 3) I request to be allowed to enter material as long as I do not "self-promote" without being abused.

Thank you.

W. Paul Marshall

("wpaul1972") I've moved the required user notification to Helpsome's talk page from the title of this section. Sam Walton (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Here Wpaul1972 (talk · contribs) is the link to make it easier to read this editors relevant pages. It looks like the article in question is Nagarjuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the ensuing discussion at User talk:Helpsome/Archive 3#Nagarjuna MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Looks like this may be helpful: Shankara1000 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) as effectively Helpsome seems to be suggesting that Wpaul1972 is a sock of Shankara1000. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Helpsome did not edit since 19 June 2015, he may not be able to comment on this complaint. JimRenge (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC) These are the edits that appear to be in question: [82][83](and by Shakira1000). However, I must note to Wpaul1972 that this revert did not remove the improvements you made here, merely, he removed the information for Jones Richard. That seems odd. I would like @Helpsome: to explain this focus, however noting the above. -- Orduin Discuss 21:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Again, I am not Richard Jones or any of the other scholars I try to add. I do not know him. I did once speak to Lex Hixon after one of his talks, but he is dead. I don't understand the reference to Shankara 1000 -- if Helpsome is suggesting I also use that name I never have. Paul (wpaul 1972) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpaul1972 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC) @Wpaul1972: Please sign your comments using 4 tildes (i.e. Wpaul1972 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)). The system with automatically sign and date your comment. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Marshall

Wpaul1972 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)wpaul 1972

@Wpaul1972: Mentioning your real name is not required here.Aero Slicers 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This looks like a rehash of a thread from ANI: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Editor: "Helpsome". —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing

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 propose that NinaGreen be unblocked and invited back to editing. NinaGreen has been a productive editor with a record of over 24,000 edits and numerous new articles. She is the subject of topic restrictions imposed by the ArbCom. More particularly, she may not make edits about the subjects of William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Since receiving the restrictions, she appears to me not to have concentrated her edits on those subjects, though I could not say whether or not there was an instance when she subsequently edited in violation of those topic restrictions.

On 12 February 2014, she was indefinitely blocked, in response to her making large posts (about 5kB each) to 14 user talk pages, mostly of ArbCom members at that time. The indefinite character of the block has bothered me since I first saw it. She since had her talk page access revoked. Before trying to have this reviewed, I decided to wait and see if NinaGreen would have this resolved on her own. She has still not been unblocked.

I do not aim to assail the judgement of any administrator who has blocked NinaGreen. I am only advancing the idea that the block does not serve Wikipedia's interests at this time, and that it can be given fresh thought. Italick (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Has NinaGreen made any request to be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of such action or inaction. Her talk page access is disabled right now. Italick (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To update, I recognize that she came back to edit after a ban lasting one year. I meant to say that I don't know whether she violated her topic restrictions after coming back from that ban. She engaged in significant editing activity since the ban, on other notable historic British persons. Italick (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The ArbCom case name is "Shakespeare authorship question" [31]. I'm not expert at following ArbCom cases, but the year-long ban may have been one of the first remedies used against her. I think her ban was extended for her use of sockpuppets but I do not recall seeing that she was breaching the topic sanctions. Italick (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

One alleged sockpuppet is TurquoiseMountain. I am not about to look over the entire edit history of TurquoiseMountain, but the edits do not appear on their face to be concentrated on Shakespeare or Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford). Italick (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is not a sockpuppet since because from what I see that user was not simply suspected buy was confirmed to be one by a Checkuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.254.210 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a serious doubt about whether the account is a sockpuppet of Ninagreen. Italick (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think without an unblock request all we can do is return access to their user page and inform them of the standard offer. One of the reasons to get an unblock request prior to unblocking someone is to make sure they will not repeat the same behaviour. Chillum 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the same latitude to return that was given to Barney_the_barney_barney on 10 December 2014 be given to NinaGreen? Italick (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not in my opinion, Italick. The arbcom case is here. The arbitration committee sitebanned her for one year, and indefinitely topic banned her "from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."[32] She violated her one-year ban in 2011, using the socks TurquoiseMountain (talk · contribs) and NotRecommended (talk · contribs).[33]. I'm pretty sure she later used at least one sock to violate her indefinite topic ban, but I don't know where to look for them. It's my opinion that Nina Green was extremely disruptive, and that even after after her one-year siteban had expired she squandered a lot of second chances and assumptions of good faith. I'm not sure there should be any more, as I have little faith in a change of attitude, but I won't rule out that it's possible for anybody to change. I agree that she should apply for unblock herself, though. She doesn't need talkpage access for that: she can e-mail UTRS, WP:BASC, or Jimbo. There were good reasons for revoking her tpa. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

If her talk page access were restored, a new block would be cheap. Really cheap. It is only unblocks that are expensive. Then the appeals process would be transparent to the Wikipedia community, which no doubt engenders more faith in it. Italick (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not interested in her having WP:ROPE limited to her talk page, so that she could go on diatribes again and be reblocked. That outcome could make her less likely to be able to edit again. Italick (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Do not invite her back, ferchrissake. I'd be unlikely to support accepting a request, either, but certainly don't invite her! She continued violating her topic ban after it was imposed, and refused to acknowledge that her behavior was improper. After she was blocked, she continued this refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, instead posting walls of text that painted herself as a victim of a corrupt system and claimed that admins didn't have the authority to impose sanctions on her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Bishonen. NinaGreen is perfectly aware of how she can appeal (and how she should not, for that matter). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you say that she should not appeal? Do you think that she is talking in this discussion, or even knows about the discussion? Italick (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (I think Kudpung might have accidentally deleted part of his post.) Italick, I have a feeling you might think differently if you had a read of Nina Green's input on the RfAR evidence page and especially the Workshop. Worth trying, anyway. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

I had made one small typo. But FWIW I meant she is more than perfectly aware how she can appeal if ever she wants to. And with that, I think we should let sleeping dogs lie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was the drafting arbitrator in the Shakespeare case and suffice it to say that the sanctions the Committee imposed against NinaGreen were well-warranted. In my view, her deep commitment to the "Oxfordian hypothesis" makes it impossible for her to edit neutrally in this area, and she showed little interest in any other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not aiming to assail the judgment of administrators who blocked her or imposed sanctions. And arguing the ArbCom case here would not occur at my own bidding, as I only propose that she be unblocked. She has shown interest in creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis. That she is not interested in another Shakespeare authorship hypothesis is tangential to what I asked, and she may not edit on any of those hypotheses now. She should not continue to be blocked merely for her ideas. Italick (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there even any precedent for a request like this? It seems to me that there are very good reasons for requiring a person in such a position to request the restoration of his or her privileges rather than have it done by a third person, no offense to Italick intended. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted precedents that are here [34] and here [35] on 1 September 2014, using her talk page: Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was blocked for her actions not her ideas. Could you provide a link or three showing where in interest has been expressed an "creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis" as you put it. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, she was blocked for her actions and not for her ideas. Would we entertain an argument against unblocking her because of her ideas? To find out her editing interests, look at the edit log of NinaGreen and TurquoiseMountain. Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OH yes, TurqoiseMountain, I forgot about that one. A cunning choice of name. How did anyone see through that? Paul B (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

She violated her topic ban on Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, but that just led to a block. She had violated it before, but most editors turned a blind eye because the violations were really just technicalities. She only "sockpuppeted" in the sense then she edited as an IP. But the main problem was her attempt to change policy and her bombarding of admins with emails. In the words of Shakespeare, I would hope the answer is "never, never, never, never, never". She is a highly disruptive editor. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like a user who has a gripe with ArbCom and isn't interested in working constructively with the community to resolve their issues, but instead wants to soapbox through their block on their talk page and directly to the WMF after being repeatedly asked to stop in multiple venues. They don't listen when the community tries to explain things to them, and that's why they were most recently blocked. It would demonstrate that they're willing to understand our policies and procedures and willing to take responsibility to follow them if they take responsibility for this one and follow the community's process to be unblocked, by appealing to WP:BASC as they were instructed to do. Otherwise, no, we should not "invite them back": we have no evidence that the situation which led to the block has been resolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly are you proposing? Email the editor and invite them to come back, no one is stopping you from doing that. The editor can request unblock by email to Arbcom or the blocking admin if they want. At the very least, the editor can request restoration of talk page privileges. We aren't going to unblock someone without some input by the editor and especially not overturn an Arbcom-related block without some serious evidence about it. This is pointless navel-gazing until then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to attempt informing NinaGreen of this conversation, via email. Italick (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• That would have been a logical first step. Chillum 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Italick (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well thank's a lot for that. That's really helped matters. Why stir the pot? Paul B (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Per Bishonen and Brad and others, I see no particular benefit to the project in "inviting" this person to return, and would also be opposed to unblocking her if she requested it. BMK (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• My interaction with NinaGreen started after her Shakespeare topic ban and her displacement into other areas. She seemed to be more interested in the genealogy of the subjects of biography articles, than their notability. This led to the addition of family sections at the start of biographies describing none notable individuals or tenuous links to distant but notable relations. It also led to large information boxes containing list of relations, etc, most of which was non-notable. Independent of this, but another area that caused problems was an indiscriminate use of a preferred citation style totally ignoring WP:CITEVAR and using parameters in the templates that was creative (for example adding additional authors to the "first=" parameter so that they did not have to be used in {{harvnb}} templates. Given these problems I am not sure that "NinaGreen has been a productive editor with a record of over 24,000 edits and numerous new articles" is necessarily the full picture. -- PBS (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As a general inclusionist, I think that biographies of any people living in the 1400s through 1600s (and perhaps even later) are notable if they have reliable sources. Those do not necessarily form genealogies of small families. A significant swath of the British population today could be descended from one single person who lived in the 1500s, and that is enough to make the biography notable to many people. Italick (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a preposterous argument that has no basis in any policy or guideline. Being someone's ancestor does not make one notable Wikipedia:Notability (people). Paul B (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not devoted to genealogies. Still, there are many people who want to know about their ancestors, and their ancestors become notable to those people when there is enough information remaining since the 1500s for even start-class biographies to be written about the ancestors. Millions of people can be descended from a person from the 1500s who has a biogrpahy. Italick (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit filter request

Is there not an edit filter flagging variants of profanities somewhere? [36] seems like it would be an obvious candidate for ... something. Obviously, there are legitimate profanities in articles, but puerile vandalism like this seems like it would be relatively easy for a bot to auto-revert or an edit filter to flag. --B (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• It would seem basic enough to have a filter disallowing edits where any regex variant of "bitches" and "money" are in the same edit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedigree Alsatian bitches can sell for a lot of money. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• That might be too specific to be very useful often ... and it's possible that there would be a legitimate edit (say, quoting lyrics from a piece of rap). But a profanity filter that simply flags the edit for review where someone going down the list could check would be very useful ... and I'm assuming that there's a small enough amount of legitimate profanity in articles that the filter wouldn't take an excessively long amount of time to review. --B (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's Special:AbuseFilter/285 which flags some common swear words added by non-autoconfirmed editors. There's also Special:AbuseFilter/380 and Special:AbuseFilter/384 doing similar. Sam Walton (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected it. There are too many possible variant, such that you would get false positives at times. SP seems the better choice since this has actually been going on a while there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• People often add asterisked "fuck", "cunt", etc. as vandalism, and it seems that they always asterisk out the vowel; it's never "fu*k" or "cun*", for example. Is it practical to add those to the filter? I don't know if it's possible, since of course we would want the software to interpret the asterisk as an asterisk instead of as a wildcard. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be possible to do a RegEx filter for stuff, but impractical I think. Honestly I don't think we need such a filter beyond what we already have. Just template the trolls and report anything egregious to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

VEWS: A Wikipedia Vandal Early Warning System

A recent paper here has studied and developed a method of detecting vandals that is superior to Cluebot NG and STiki. I think admins who are involved in vandalism detection and removal should definitely give it a read as it identifies the different patterns of vandals vs regular editors. Hopefully an arrangement can be made to implement this on enwiki. Thoughts? Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Um. Well, first of all, this doesn't really belong at AN; it's a matter for bot operators (or possibly Labs people), not admins, since anything that could come of this would have to be implemented as either a bot or a Labs tool. Second, I have to question the value of some of the paper's assertions. (Disclaimer: I am not terribly familiar with the internals of how Cluebot works.) For example, in their comparison of the performance of their tool, they talk about how their system identifies users as vandals more quickly than Cluebot does. This is a meaningless conclusion, because that's not what Cluebot does; they made up a completely arbitrary way to judge Cluebot's performance and then compared their own algorithm favorably. Cluebot detects vandal *edits*, not vandals themselves; any identification of editors as vandals is secondary to its function. Nor is that taking into consideration deliberate features of Cluebot (the angryrevert protection, for example) or even just the general flow of vandal-fighting on Wikipedia (the four-strikes-you're-out policy, the fact that all of these systems, as well as human patrollers, are working simultaneously, so just because Cluebot didn't revert doesn't mean that it wouldn't have given the chance). And really, I kind of wonder about their understanding of how Wikipedia works in general. I mean, we don't really care that much about pages outside of mainspace (Cluebot doesn't even look at them); why are edits to meta-pages a major part of this paper's algorithm? Like, one of their major conclusions is that f the very first page edited by user u is a normal (non-meta) page, then u is much more likely to be a vandal (64.77%) than a benign user (10.34%): well, yes, but how is that interesting or useful? Of course vandals don't edit meta pages, and even if they did, they wouldn't be identified as such by Cluebot because Cluebot doesn't look at meta pages to begin with. So, yeah, I'm not saying there isn't any useful stuff in that paper, but it doesn't look nearly as useful as it might at first glance, at least in my kind-of-but-not-overly-educated opinion. I certainly wouldn't say it's definitely superior to Cluebot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not 100% sold on their dataset, either. They're assuming that a user is a vandal iff they were (are?) blocked, but I'm not sure that that's a safe assumption; a drive-by vandal who makes one edit that's reverted by Cluebot and then stops would, according to them, be a benign user, since they would never have been blocked. They divide Wikipedia pages into either article pages or talk pages, but they don't say anything about namespaces outside of main: and talk:; how did they categorize those (if they were included at all)? How did they distinguish editors who were blocked for vandalism from editors who were blocked for other reasons, especially given that the block summaries for vandalism can vary? What about IP users; we don't indef IP users, so does a single IP address count as multiple users in their dataset if they were blocked multiple times within the dataset's time span? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And one last point: I'd question whether this heuristic is worthwhile as an early warning system at all. After all, it will take two or more edits from a user for this system to identify them as a possible vandal--I don't know how that could be considered early warning. Cluebot doesn't have to wait that long to identify vandalistic edits; it can identify them in a user's very first edit. (That arbitrary method of judging th performance of Cluebot that I mentioned is *really* skewing their perspective here.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many vandals are hit-and-run, so a system based on pre-vandalism behaviors would not be of much use. ClueBot's job is to identify vandalism, not to mark users as vandals. This system has no real use: once it marks an editor as a vandal, that editor would probably be at {{Uw-vandalism2}}, courtesy of... ClueBot. Esquivalience ^t 01:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Arr4 - username changes and COI

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.

---

Arr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had a different username before requesting a rename back in May. Before the account was renamed, it was revealed that they had been editing for pay through Elance or some such service. There were discussions with the user at WP:COIN and their own talk page, notably with Jytdog and some of the other regulars on the board:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Premia_Spine_Limited_and_many_others
• User_talk:Arr4/Archive_4#COI_warning

Arr4 as far as I know never fully documented their COI by creating a visible list (or a link to it) of articles they have a conflict with. It's difficult to follow the different trails and determine what articles require review, or even nomination for deletion, as I did for one of them that thoroughly failed the inclusion guidelines (but then that's a perennial problem with for-pay editing). I attempted to discuss this with them, but my request was removed and no more communication has been forthcoming. I do not want to make life difficult for this editor, but there is a bigger question here. Assuming for a second that all articles were reviewed to the satisfaction of at least one unconnected editor, can a username change be used to "escape" the conflict of interest? What if they begin editing for pay again? Do we require that the user continue to visibly disclose the articles (live and deleted) that they created for pay? I admit I'm not clear on what needs to be done here, if anything, so I'm looking for input from other editors and particularly admins about this. I'll also be posting a notice on COIN about this discussion, given the subject matter. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:, I have already made a list of articles here that I were paid, and all of my paid article have been cleaned up/Afded/csded by various user (Smartse, Brianhe, Jytdog, FreeRangeFrog, Ironholds). I have not created any paid article since then. Which I have discussed with user:Jytdog via mail. - Arr4 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And also affirmed that I will disclose whenever I do any paid job in wiki. - Arr4 (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you declared your status, as is required by our Terms of Use?

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

*a statement on your user page,
*a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
*a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

BMK (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I have disclosed in each of the articles talk page per ToU. You can check. - Arr4 (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No need, I'll take your word for it. Thanks for the response. BMK (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the rename was due to outing concerns but the cynical viewpoint would be that it helps avoid scrutiny. Personally I don't believe arr4's claim that they no longer edit for pay as they created Bosch Sensortec which is a rehashed press release and also turned up at the afd for KartRocket along with anotyer suspicious account. Herein lies the problem with our tou as an editor can deny they are not paid and carry on as before. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• We uncovered Arr4's paid editing back in March and Arr4 was cooperative, and promised he would disclose paid editing going forward as part of the COIN case linked above. I believe that his past paid editing had been disclosed on his old user page but that is all deleted. I updated the COIN archive with the username change in this dif so it is searchable/findable on that case.
  • I would see Arr4 as more in compliance with the spirit of the ToU if he disclosed his past paid editing on his Userpage. Arr4 would you please include your record of paid editing on your current Userpage?
• I've walked through his contribs since March. In my view he is doing some great editing in general (even removing COI/promo editing by others) but there are a few points of concern...
  • This article seems paid-editing-y (copyvio-ish from press releases, mostly sourced from press releases), and questions along those lines were raised by Smartse (admin who works on paid editing issues) in this dif, although, Arr4 said they had nothing to disclose on that article in reply here.... but yet it looks like paid editing. I would like Arr4 to clarify if this article was created for pay - would you please? Please take note that even if you didn't create this pay, please hear that this was really bad editing and please avoid editing like this in the future.
  • In May 2015 Arr4 went back to Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd (which in March 2015 when we were uncovering his paid editing, he disclosed was created for pay) and added more info that was reverted by Brianhe per WP:NOTCATALOG. It is not clear if these specific edits were made for pay or not. That needs to be disclosed. Would you please clarify, Arr4?
  • Also in May, Arr4 moved Odesk to Upwork. Arr4 never disclosed, as far as I remember, if he was getting jobs through Elance or not, but this ~seems~ conflicted. Arr4, would you please clarify if you have worked through Elance/Odesk/Upwork? Thanks.
• that's all I found.... Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Bosch GmbH is a very big company. I think they will never pay anyone for their wiki articles. Check the Template:Bosch there are so many articles about their company. I created their article after I found their name as my mobile phone sensor manufacturer. Their is no COI. Sorry for the close paraphrasing in the article.

I replaced the links of press releases in Wako with news sources after Brianhe prodded it saying it contains only press releases.

I never worked or hired in odeks or upwork but in elance. I moved the oDesk page to upwork after reading the news of their renaming in a news site. I wrote per but forgot to paste the link of the news after it while moving. - Arr4 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arr4: How about you just create that list on a subpage maybe, link to it from your userpage and disclose any current COI (if applicable) so we can just go on? Or is there a problem with you doing that? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to do that and it is not a requirement of ToU. I have already choose one of the three options for disclosure. Thanks to all. - Arr4 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arr4: The problem (and the gist of this thread) is that all your disclosures point to your previous username, and the entire "paper trail" of your COI editing is under that username, which no longer exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Use of statistics on responding editors to try and sway a RFC

I am unable top find a policy or guideline that specifically addresses the behaviour in this section of a contentious RFC [37]. The closest thing I can find is here [38] and it does not appear to be consistent with this intent. Another editor has tried to hat the section[39] only to have it removed.[40]. I am not 100% sure this is the best place to bring this, so if another board is more appropriate please direct me to it. Thanks AlbinoFerret 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting uninvolved opinions (as well as involved ones) is one of the points of a RFC, and helping identify who might count as "involved" in a discussion is common, though less commonly with this rigor. It's odd, but why is it wrong? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be skewed in a number of ways, statistics can be formed to say whatever the person creating the way data is presented wants it to. It only counts edits to talk pages. The terms searched for are chosen by one person. Those terms were pages outside of the one the RFC is addressing. The comparison is to total talk page posts, so someone who posts a lot can have a large involvement but be counted as uninvolved. This is also not geared towards consensus building as the RFC page recommends, but to exclusion. That it is being done by someone very involved in the RFC is another problem. Lastly, it may sway late comers to the RFC to jump to whatever side they think is "winning" by these statistics. I think the whole uninvolved section should be hatted as inappropriate for an RFC, and it has been, but the person who created the skewed information reverted it. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's wrong because the one doing the calculation is an involved editor and it is a non-neutral approach with skewed results. I'm sure the opposition could have managed something equally as skewed but that wouldn't be the right thing to do. The stats should have been hatted and stayed that way. Bias, inadvertent or not, is still bias and it effects neutrality. Atsme^📞📧 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As another involved editor: correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion you seem to be inviting people to draw is that Kingofaces manipulated the statistics deliberately (and unethically) to give their "desired" result. Is that the intention? Sunrise (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not hard to draw that conclusion because of the choice of how the data was designed and is presented, but it is possible it may not have been a conscious act. Editors with more than 50 posts on the subject that oppose are more likely to be "involved" whereas its the opposite for uninvolved. Favoring the presenters desired outcome. In fact one editor with 220 posts on the subject is in the uninvolved sections. This is not a complaint on my personal designation, its uninvolved. But the skewed presentation, because the presenter chose not to look at posts but percent of posts, from a editor that is involved in the RFC is inappropriate in any case. As the person bringing this here, all I am looking for is this be hatted with a "inappropriate" label and a warning not to remove the hat. AlbinoFerret 12:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you're suggesting that good faith is unlikely on their part. In that case, I suggest making it explicit and providing evidence.

Also, are you aware that reordering the table based on number of posts leads to the same conclusion? You can easily verify this for yourself in a couple of minutes - the greatest amount of support came from the editors who were least involved. I would certainly object if it was solely a votecount, but it's more than that (and even votecounts don't typically get hatted in any case). Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This would probably have been better brought up at ANI or WT:RFC because the discussion doesn't affect administrators. Since we're here... I'm not seeing a problem with the table. The table doesn't violate policy and the closer doesn't have to use it. It may be useful to know who hasn't commented much on the issue in that and related articles when determining what the broader community thinks. If so, the table provides a single clearly-defined method for determining who is in that broader community. That there are other ways of determining the data doesn't make the table wrong or biased. What matters is that the method for creating it is clearly-defined: that way, all entries can be compared to each other, and the closer can decide whether the table is of use to them based on the criteria for inclusion in the table. The existence of the table is also unlikely to sway RfC respondents any more than the survey and discussion will; the possibility of people being swayed is always present when votes (or !votes) are public. Full disclosure: I !voted in the RfC. Ca2james (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see various editors are attempting to kick up drama here now that have been involved in the RfC. I explained rather transparently how I gathered those numbers, and anyone can use the edit contribution tools to verify that [41]. Instead we have various editors slinging around accusations. The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves. The methodology itself is neutral and picks up on involvement in the general related topics regardless of support/oppose votes at the RfC. If someone is trying to say I skewed those results somehow, we'd see a much less even number of heavily involved editors on either side that show up in that first summary table (which I'm included in even). I went out of my way to make sure the process was extremely even handed to all editors involved. Obviously some people are not happy with the results, but that's what they show. The rest of the conversation that has occurred there should dismiss that various aspersions editors above are making about me on what I actually did: [42].

I'm seeing no policy violations in my post as there is no uncivility in simply listing the numbers, and everything was done in good faith. As RfCs are intended to mainly bring in uninvolved editors in addition to those already involved, it's very difficult to figure out who's who in larger RfCs like this. That's especially the case when involved editors tend to dominate the conversation. This was a good-faith attempt to follow the spirit of WP:RFC. Looking at the various comments in the subsection at the RfC, I'm getting the feeling a few editors are looking for insults or something nefarious rather seeing what is was intended as. I'd be fine with someone uninvolved simply closing the section rather than hatting if it continues to be a such distraction and source of wild speculation for other editors (oddly those who would appear to be heavily involved from the support side don't have issues with their involvement shown). In the end, it was only meant to be a tidbit for the closer in addition to everything else that is considered in an RfC. Either way, I for one intend to enjoy my 4th of July weekend largely away from the computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the analysis is not incivility. The primary issues are (1)the focus on edit counts/contributors rather than content, (2) the sidetracking of an already lengthy discussion into meta-discussion without clear justification. Such a section is inherently a distraction and hatting it was appropriate. There may be issues with the methodology; even if the methodology is totally transparent, the primary problems with such a table stand.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^I agree 100%. Will comment further. David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again Tsavage said it well:

By the fact of it being posted, it is intended to influence the RfC outcome. And as I pointed out, it is not raw data, it is your novel construction, beginning with your selection of which articles to categorize as GMO-related (what was the set of keywords you used to identify GM articles?) to arrive at your GMO-related percentage. Meanwhile, "uninvolved editors" simply means fresh eyes to the discussion, it doesn't invalidate or devalue any other editors' comments: in principle, at least, it's all about the substance of the discussion.

And regarding the discussion, it focuses on a pro-GMO interpretation (SYNTH/OR) of the science on GM food safety and a supposed scientific consensus. What is disturbing is that after much examination, the sources that have been used to support this statement across many GM-related articles on WP for a number of years, turn out not support the claim at all. After throwing out advocacy sources, not only did no RS claim a SC exists, but the RS cited (like the WHO) was misrepresented. It is disturbing that any editor(s) would be more interested in constructing or defending this chart than in addressing this serious problem and signs of advocacy editing in biotech-related articles as evidenced by the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^also Agree, and especially with the quote from Tsavage David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Above Kingofaces43 says:

The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves.

But if you look at the introduction it is clear he has indeed interpreted the results in such a way to try to bolster his position (support):

At this time of posting, we have 20 supports and 14 opposes overall, but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least), we end up with 65% supporting and 35% opposing as far as definite responses go.

The creation and use of the table is not neutral as he is claiming. There can be no question he is attempting to skew the iVote interpretation of the RfC, to show a 2:1 super-majority (65%) support of iVotes (by arbitrarily excluding "involved" editors), rather the slight majority 59% considering all iVotes. What's worse, many of the people identified as involved are not involved as I proved at the section here. To suggest editors such as GrayDuck156 here, 66.169.76.198 here, Tsavage here, TypingAway here are more "involved" in GMO articles than Jytdog here is ludicrous (which can be easily verified by clicking the links I provided here). What is strange is that he says that "but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least)". That is hard to believe, since the editors I have named as less involved than Jytdog have not participated in any way in the GMO articles until only very recently at about the time this RfC was created. The table is bogus and misrepresents the concept of "involvement" and I think the section should be hatted. David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (minor revisions David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

and... i am not complaining. This thread is dramah. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We are all grownups here and we all know that statistics or their interpretation can be manipulated/stated in very subtle ways to bias thoughts and therefore !voting. ("Lies, damn lies and statistics") This table and it's discussion should be hatted to avoid such a possibility. I did this, and the hat was reverted by the creator for the second time, without justification (is unhatting by an involved editor allowed?) I am sure we can trust that the closer will also be a grown up and will deal with the matter according to the strength of arguments, rather than a table of statistics (even though this may or may not be considered). However, in the mean-time, it should be hatted to avoid biasing non-involved editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

David, you're now fabricating ideas about what I intended (i.e., creating strawmen to misrepresent someone). I already stated that an editor like TypingAway would not fall into the same grouping as someone like me or you in terms of involvement. That's only how the numbers turn out. There's more to consider than just looking at the table blindly. Again, please don't misrepresent me when I've already addressed a certain point. Doing so only creates drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't be bothered to read this, does anyone have aTL;DR version? From the names I assume an RFC went against the narrative of GMOs as the Antichrist, and the usual suspects don't like it? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems rather unusual (irresponsible perhaps?) behaviour of a user to admit they have not read a thread, but then to post their opinion of it. How would this posting be included in the disputed table of statistics I wonder?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines. I didn't venture an opinion, I stated my assumption. If it's more than that then I hope another admin will post a short, neutral summary (the original request is neither short nor neutral). Anti-GMO activists view Wikipedia as the front line in their battle to influence popular opinion against the current scientific consensus, and this sometimes requires admin action, whereas the usual kvetching by the usual suspects usually does not. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I repeat - @User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation or consider striking your personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:JzG Ok - I must assume you are unwilling to engage in this dispute. Your behaviour is very unbecoming of an admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

From Guy: "I stated my assumption....Anti-GMO activists view Wikipedia as the front line in their battle to influence popular opinion against the current scientific consensus..." This is an assumption of bad faith. Please refrain from personal attacks. David Tornheim (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just chime in Guy and say the RfC hasn't been closed yet. What you see here is just the result of my posting a table showing the how much each editor in the RfC has posted in the general topic to help the closer tease out who's generally uninvolved vs. someone who's pretty entrenched in the topic in some way since it's tough to determine who's an uninvolved editor in a large RfC. Many of the above editors ran with that table well beyond what I intended it for and are kicking up drama trying to claim many things I never intended. If I really was going to try to interpret who's involved if I was a closer, I do see some really interesting trends, but I'm not commenting on my thoughts at the RfC for obvious reasons. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious who's who, from the comments they make, but whatever. I do hope nobody relied on the infamous Séralini paper: [43] Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection: Irrelevant. What does Séralini have to do with our objections to the use of Kingofaces43's table? David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, here is a relatively neutral summary of what is being discussed: Kingofaces43 recently posted a set of tables which he created to Talk:Genetically modified food; the tables cover each editor voting in the current rfc on the 'consensus' statement used in the genetically modified food article. The goal of the posting was apparently to quantify 'editor involvement' in the area of gmo's.The discussion here should focus on Kingofaces43's conduct and whether such tables are appropriate for an article talk page/rfc discussion. This noticeboard posting is not about sourcing, Séralini, or a disputed rfc closure. The rfc is still open with a number of votes and policy-based arguments from both sides.Dialectric (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If I were closing that RfC (which I would not of course) I would simply ignore that table. I am old and wise enough to check contribution histories for myself, and also to read the arguments based on weight of policy-based support. I suspect that whoever does close it will be of much the same bent. It would be silly to act surprised when a discussion on GMOs becomes heated and is dominated by the usual suspects. Our articles on GMOs have been a battleground for a long time, largely because the anti-GMO brigade are by now fighting a losing battle in the real world, with GMOs being increasingly mainstream and the apocalyptic predictions of the early days failing to materialise. Science is moving away from their viewpoint, which is why crap studies like the Séralini become the focus of such bitter dispute. Like homeopathy, only worse because a few scientifically literate people still believe anti-GMO tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, when an editor breaks in the middle of an RFC to do an analysis of the other people participating, this is offtopic. Tagging SPA is one thing, but breaking down a chart with percentages of participation, etc. is a method of trying to convince the closer to discount or consider votes based on something besides the merits. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement covers this well as one of the lower forms of argument, as you are speaking about the editors, not the merits. Whether the charts was right or wrong, had I participated, I would have hatted it myself as it has no bearing on merits and is cluttering up an already long RFC. If I were closing, I would not have considered it and done my own homework. It isn't sanctionable, but it is improper, thus hatting is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown fwiw, the RfC has timed out, I've requested a close, and there has been lots of polishing/preparing for the close. So in terms of time, it was not added to the middle of an RfC. And the table was placed at the bottom of the RfC, under the discussion section. So not in the middle physically, either... Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when or where. It isn't the place of the participants to try to persuade the closer with anything except merits. Regardless of intent, it should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I hear you. I've recently become aware of Template:Spa - do you find use of that template to be legit? Seems like it is used in somewhat the same way. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

One actually could have gone and tagged some accounts as SPA's in that RfC, but I would have seen that as even more invasive and interjecting too much on editor behavior in the main part of the RfC. If inserting an SPA template is fine, there shouldn't be any issue with something even less pointed like this after the RfC has mostly wrapped up. The whole point of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. In long RfC's, it's difficult to tease out how involved someone has been in the topic, so that's all that table was there to address. The table shows general involvement of editors regardless of which side they are on, so it's very difficult to say it was intended convince the closer one way or another. It's only intent was to show involvement in the topic and nothing beyond that. One can argue that is within the scope of WP:RFC when done right, which is bit different than normal talk page discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The table should be ignored by the closer, as it doesn't identify the selection of GM-related articles, and the percentage seems unrelated to "involvement". I can think of a table which would be somewhat helpful to the closer, so I don't think Kingofaces43 should be censured for his actions, but the table could be hatted. (I know the result of the RfC which seems best, so I will not be that closer. I think something like WP:SPOV should be a guideline, but some believe WP:NPOV contradicts it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

From the discussion, it appears editors find WP:RS/AC to be the prevailing guideline in the case of an extraordinary claim. petrarchan47คุก 23:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We are getting close to a close since this has been listed on WP:ANRFC. I opened this section and I have not sought sanctions other than a warning not to remove the hat. Would an admin please hat this section of the RFC? AlbinoFerret 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did identify what keywords were used both in the initial posting and subsequent replies here and at the RfC. Aside from articles relating to crop patents (topic that comes up a lot relating to GMOs), pretty much everything else should have been intuitive for what I listed and repeatable. As for the RfC itself, I've said from the start that I'm fine with someone just simply closing the discussion rather than hatting, though that doesn't appear absolutely needed since there isn't really anything happening now with editor comments at that section (as it was mainly intended) as we wait for a close. I imagine the eventual closer is more than capable of deciding if they want to use the information or not on their own, so I see no reason for us to hat it. Ultimately, they'll decide whether to use it or not. Since there are a variety of opinions here, it seems like the best course of action is to just let it be as is until the close. If the closer thinks it's helpful information, then great. If they don't intend to use it even in part, that's plenty fine too as it's only meant to provide additional information rather than sway the closing decision any particular direction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

MRV

We could do with some more commentators over at WP:MRV (DRV's less attractive cousin, used for reviewing requested move closures). Although I'm posting this here on the admins' noticeboard, non-admins are also more than welcome. A lot of MRVs seem to languish for several months because of the simple reason that not enough people have commentated on them, especially people uninvolved with the original RM. MRV generally only gets a couple a couple of discussions per month, so even if you just drop in every few weeks you'd be a significant help in making the process run more smoothly. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• You'll notice all the closed since April were closed by myself (the "station" one I still have to explain to this day), and I've been mulling over the two open ones for some time. Other closers are always appreciated, but I'll try to find some time this weekend to review the two open ones if nobody else got around to them yet. But I do check in regularly (every other week or so). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: Yes, I should have noted that there are a few regulars (of which you are one). The problem is that the regulars are simply too few to have a proper discussion and, as you say, it makes closing very difficult. It's not closers I'm asking for here, I think there are actually enough of them – it's people willing to commentate that we need. I'm slightly disappointed that since posting this here neither of the two open MRVs have gotten a new comment. If this trend continues I think we would be better off marking MRV as historical and reviewing contentious RM closures here at AN again – at least they always got a decent amount of commentary. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I missed the discussion re: the MRV formation, but since you mentioned DRV above, was it ever considered to merge it into DRV in the first place? Rgrds. --64.85.217.230 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that would also be an acceptable solution to me. I think someone proposed that at the time, but was shut down because DRV only deals with XfDs. Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:LOGGERHEAD

The discussion, while agreeing that something should be done to fix the filters, got archived before anything was actually done. Bazj (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

From the previous discussion, linked above:

• The title "User talk:LOGGERHEAD" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*GGER.* <casesensitive>
  I was wondering whether it is a filter intended to prevent use of the N word? If so, it seems to be over-broad. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• ...and sandbox, and common.js, and... They may be better off with a change of name? Bazj (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• ... it seems unfair to force a username change because of what one our LTA cases did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis:

• ... he recruited people and coordinated at Encyclopedia Dramatica (where he kept a multipage list of his sockpuppets) and 4chan, among other sites .... He and his associates usually conduct page-move vandalism by moving pages to nonsensical titles, mostly variations of "HAGGER" ....

HTH --Unready (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Some ideas for the blacklist:

1. Change .*GGER.* <casesensitive> to .*GGER.* <casesensitive | moveonly>, to block only moves
2. Change .*GGER.* <casesensitive> to ^(?!User( talk)?).*GGER[^:]* <casesensitive>, to block only pages not in User: and User talk:

   These cases block:

   HAGGERX

   HAGGER

   blah:HAGGERX

   blah:HAGGER

   :HAGGERX

   :HAGGER

   HAGGER:HAGGER

   HAGGER:HAGGERX

   These cases permit:

   User:HAGGERX

   User:HAGGER

   User talk:HAGGERX

   User talk:HAGGER

   blah:blah

   :blah

   HAGGER:wut

3. The combination of the 1 & 2 above, to block only moves not in User: and User talk:
4. Delete the rule, because the original offender has probably gotten over it by now

Pick the one you like. --Unready (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be taking place somewhere else? Perhaps someplace not so public? BMK (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The config files are publicly readable. The error messages from blocked actions display the blocking regex to the user. If you have a secret discussion and vote, the result is still readable by everyone. I didn't get the impression that the failure to reach any consensus previously was a result of a desire for closed-door discussion. --Unready (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Plus I'm pretty sure WP:BEANS doesn't apply. LOGGERHEAD is a user who can't create any subpages in his own userspace because the blacklist is misconfigured. It's an admin matter because it's an admin config. --Unready (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed the NAC. I've also removed the blacklist entry in question. I'll add it to the edit filter if necessary. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Nakon 01:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest just adding LOGGERHEAD's user and usertalk spaces to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist. The filter would probably be the better way to go, since it can use more complex filters than the blacklist, like exempting users in their own userspace, or allowing the creation of a talk page for an existing user. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are more resilient protections against these pagemoves than the title (white|black)list. Without going into BEANS, I'm convinced that this removal will not have an adverse affect. Thanks, Nakon 02:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on LOGGERHEAD's talk page letting him know he's un-blacklisted, without using that word on the page itself. --Unready (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Spam Whitelist Backlog

There are requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist that are over a year old. Could an administer address the requests and either whitelist these links for the articles they are requested for or deny the request with an explanation and archive them all? This is not a frequently visited page and it could use some admin attention to address the backlog of requests. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the Whitelist archives, you can see that the page was last archived in February 2015 and before that, it was May 2014. Can no admin address these requests? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

These lists often require some understanding of regex, which many admins don't possess (myself included!). The addition/removal process also seems quite complex/arcane at first glance. I'll try to look at it all some time this week if I can. In the meantime, WT:EDR is home to many regex-skilled users who might be able to pitch in? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES

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

---

Can someone with more knowledge please clarify the restrictions at WP:TROUBLES; as I understand it affected articles are restricted to 1RR, but is that 24 hours or in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1 revert per day according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Guide to enforcement, but that probably shouldn't be taken as a right to revert every 24 hours. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

To put the query into context: its the height of the Northern Ireland marching season (see these two BBC news items 11th Night: Alliance calls for investigation into burning of flags and posters and The Twelfth: More than 3,000 police officers on duty). -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. GiantSnowman 11:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Obstinate reversions by User:JesseRafe at Jahlil Okafor

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

---

• Could someone cap this discussion--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe has been paring down the Jahlil Okafor, which may have been overly detailed. As the primary editor, I am aware that I may have written more details than might have been optimal so I have not argued much about his edits. However, at the conclusion of his edits, I felt his reduction of the images from his high school career from 15 to 6 was not necessarily optimal and have attempted to restore the article to a total of 8 such images. We have been warring about whether a 6-image version or 8-image version is correct. Since that there was only one other discussion this year on Talk:Jahlil Okafor by July 2, I posted a centralized discussion on the issue at WT:NBA at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, where I felt many interested parties would be watching. I also left notifications at a few other talk pages that a centralized discussion would be held at this location. Since then, several discussants have contributed thoughts on the images at issue. Epeefleche, Rikster2, DangerousJXD, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and BU Rob13 have all contributed to the discussion. JesseRafe has not participated in the centralized discussion, but seems to feel that a comment at Talk:Jahlil Okafor in the section where I pointed out the centralized discussion was an adequate response. Currently, two images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) remain at issue. I have summarized what I believe to be the opinion on these images in this edit. I have repeatedly notified User:JesseRafe via edit summaries that it seems that these two images are supported by something resembling a consensus. After weeks of debate, he has still not participated in the centralized discussion, but continues to revert my edits. Furthermore, it is my opinion that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is about the best picture we have of the subject and his insistence upon its removal is not helpful to the reader. I have warned him not to keep reverting to his version at User_talk:JesseRafe#Warring_warning. Having warned him not to keep reverting, I am now asking for assistance here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony's claims in the edit summaries that he has consensus to keep the images are also not fully accurate. That discussion does not have a very clear consensus, and probably needs closure from an uninvolved editor or admin. Either way, the warring behavior in that article is inappropriate. As a side note, this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. discussion moved to [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor ANI].--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Could someone cap this discussion--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Can someone blocked this user (charlesdrakew)

This user like to delete others contribution in the Wikipedia. Last few days i have made a contribution in SMRT Buses in Bus Deployment, the information is true and correct. I don't understand he just deleted all the details. From the history, you can see a lot of people Confront him for deleting their Articles.

Sincerely, Johnny Lim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:4000:4686:144:BA9C:7E1C:FFC4 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This was posted using an IP, its only edit. So which of the editors whose unsourced edits charlesdrakew removed are you? User:Johnlyh77, User: Enviro98, User:MuhsinMan, User:Anonymous0210 or User:Thefunnyboy? Perhaps, just to be safe, admins ought to block all of these accounts. BMK (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

MuhsinMan and Enviro98 are WP:DUCKs, Anonymous0210 is a safe bet, and all the accounts are WP:SPAs with comparable interest, yeah... Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I take it you're Johnlyh77? Charlesdrakew is not going to be blocked for removing unsourced information and asking you to properly cite a reliable source next time. sgwiki.com is not a reliable source.

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

You'd be better off asking Charlesdrakew for help instead of requesting a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like another sock to me.Charles (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they all seem like socks, and should all probably be blocked. BMK (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnlyh77, mostly for confirmation, and also to find sleepers. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Promotional talk page

User talk:Charles Eugene Hill (Restaurante) see history--Musamies (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in WWI-related articles

Yura2404, a user with a strong anti-Russian sentiment, was constantly making false claims and trying to exaggerate Russian casualties in WWI-related articles by cherry-picking sources and citing books and websites that didn’t support his words (for a discussion of his vandalism, see [44], [45], [46]). For example, in Baranovichi Offensive he put the number of casualties at “80,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” and “13,000 KIA, WIA, MIA”, respectively, and gave a reference to Залесский К. А. Кто был кто в Первой мировой войне. — М:Астрель. АСТ, 2003. — p. 699 (in Russian). However, there is not even a single mention of those “80,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” and “13,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” on p. 699 or elsewhere. In Lake Naroch Offensive he estimated Russian casualties at 150,000, pointing to another Russian source, namely Оськин М. В., Брусиловский прорыв, М., 2010, p. 7, despite the fact that it puts the casualties at 80,000 (p. 8), not 150,000. In First Battle of the Masurian Lakes he stated that “[the] Russians suffered a crushing defeat and retreated in disarray with massive losses” and cited the following book as his source: Spencer C. Tucker, The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, 2013, p. 232. On the contrary, Tucker says that “Rennenkampf finally disengaged under cover of a two-division counterattack, thereby preventing a second German double envelopment” instead of “retreated in disarray” (p. 232); etc. ad infinitum. The vandal has damaged multiple articles and it will take a lot of time for others to improve them. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My Russian opponent, read carefully. Your complaints are nonsense.Yura2404 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I’ve done and why I accuse you of vandalism. I.e., if a source doesn’t contain even a single mention of “115,000 total casualties (40,000 casualties were sustained in the first few days of the siege)” and “at least 86,000 dead, 28,000 to 110,000 wounded, the remaining surrendered”, there is no way it can be used as a proof of that number of casualties. Do not damage articles by making numerous absurd claims not supported by the sources cited. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Automated dead link spamming software

I was informed of this by User:WhistleBlower321 on WT:WPSPAM -- launch.wikilinkjacker.com/wikilinkjacker.html . Beware, and block and blacklist any spam replacement of a dead reference on sight. MER-C 12:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fantasy anime being targeted by socks

Can this page be protected? The page needs a rollback to the last good version. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Obvious sock blocked, reverted to last good version and page semiprotected. Higher level of protection might be necessary, but we'll see if this will do. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, there were similar lists effected as well but I was able to rollback those. Will keep them on my watch-list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Samrajya S.R.A

I am seeking community input on how to best proceed with this matter. For several weeks going on months now, Samrajya S.R.A (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding unsourced WP:BLP content to the Nithin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. On 12 June 2015 I made a boilerplate request to provide sources, which was ignored. Several more template warnings were administered, all of which were ignored. On 13 July 2015 I took the time to write out one last request to provide sources or request assistance if help was needed. All attempts to communicate have been ignored. As the editor will not engage to discuss the issue, but rather continues to add unsourced content, I request feedback as to best practice next steps. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Note This issue has similarly been raised at WP:BLPN just days ago, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nithin. The focus is now on the individual responsible for the continued addition of unsourced content. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I answered Yamaguchi先生's notice on WP:BLPN. I just want to also add that many of the edits of that user seem clearly promotional (see here and here) and he even signed the article as author with his username (see here and here).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked User:Samrajya S.R.A temporarily for disruptive editing.– Gilliam (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

NAC undone by AfD nominator, again

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 NAC-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night buses in London (2nd nomination), the closure was subsequently undone by the AfD's nominator. I left a message at User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2015/September#Your revert of closure but Charles has not edited in the meamwhile. So, I'm asking here for somebody to have a look at it, and either restore my closure or take any other appropriate action. In my opinion, the nominator and the two delete !voters use weak arguments, some listed at WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; while the six "keep" !voters use strong arguments, like WP:SIZE and show coverage in independent RS, flatly contradicting the WP:GNG concerns. Another keep !vote has been added in the meanwhile. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the close was correct and it was within the discretion of a non-admin closure. I probably would have closed it the same way, though with a bit more of an explanation. Specifically I would have mentioned the support for moving the article and the fact that there was more support for keeping the prose than the list itself. Chillum 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean a mentioned move to Night buses in London? The article was moved in 2009 from the latter to the present title. A move of the prose to Buses in London was questioned because of the WP:SIZE of the latter. The layout and size of the lists would be content decisions, to be discussed on the talk page. But, I think you're right in saying that some words of explanation added to the simple "keep" closing statement would have been helpful. I'll keep it in mind, for next time. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In assessing weight of various arguments and guidelines in the discussion Kraxler has strayed too far into admin territory. NAC should only be used in clear and obvious cases. I have therefore used WP:Commonsense to revert this unwise closure so that other editors can continue to comment until such time as it is properly closed by an admin.Charles (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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.

---

Just to advise that LPhnx (talk · contribs) has issued a legal threat on my talk page in the section Muslim tensions. Denisarona (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, it is a consideration of it upon discriminatory grounds. It's not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPhnx (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit [47]. MarnetteD|Talk 13:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Upon review of your editing of this section of this article, I shall consider legal challenge.". This was clearly meant to have a chilling effect in a content dispute. I have blocked the user for making legal threats. Anyone may consider an unblock if and when the user retracts it an gives a reasonable explanation that they understand that threats and intimidation are not tolerated here. Chillum 14:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat was clearly improper, and the block appropriate accordingly. I would however suggest that LPhnx may have a point about the article being questionably-worded - I don't think that Wikipedia should be asserting that "children of African polygamists" were responsible for rioting in France. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

137.150.100.205

This IP has been adding a large amount of possibly copyrighted text to Wikipedia:Sandbox and User:Jumpingbean1212/sandbox. Can this be addressed? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• User:Jumpingbean1234/sandbox and User:Jumpingbean1235/sandbox have similar content to the sandbox edits by Jumpingbean1212. I'm not sure about copyright - parts are quoted from sources, other text is not found elsewhere - but they appear to be essays and there have been no visible contributions to Wikipedia content from the three accounts. Peter James (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath of massive edit wars

I processed a request at WP:RFPP which resulted in three articles being fully protected and two editors blocked after I found them edit warring on the third article. After untangling the mess, I believe Brudder Andrusha tried to do a copy-paste move of FC Arsenal Kyiv to FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv [48] and ignored the copyright bot. [49] They then tried to redirect FC Arsenal-Kyiv, an article about the successor club to their new FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv. [50] 46.200.35.143 objected to all of this and a massive edit war was ensued (the histories of the articles will make your eyes bleed). I'm thinking two trouts should go to Brudder Andrusha - one for the copy-paste move and one for constantly telling the IP to "go register". Also, I think the new FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv should be deleted. When things calm down again, either FC Arsenal Kyiv will be moved to it (requiring it be deleted first) or it will be kept as a redirect to FC Arsenal-Kyiv (in which case we would be better off deleting the atrocious and unattributed history). Comments? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to just delete everything created by this mess and return to the status quo ante bellum? --Jayron32 05:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's what my proposal does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have a good reason in deleting FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv since that is the accepted and official name of the team by the Professional Football League of Ukraine. Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv page in PFL 198.24.6.155 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made my policy-based reasons clear up above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this Brudder Andrusha evading their block? Anyway, from what I can see the site of the Professional Football League of Ukraine does not seem to name the team as FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv at all. They use the same formula for all their teams. They list the name of the team between quotation marks, followed by the location of the team. Since the name of the location is included in this team's name, it's actually mentioned twice. A clear misunderstanding. Tvx1 01:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Both remaining articles have been move protected so any move will have to be preceded by a discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

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

1. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is site-banned. She may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted.
2. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.
3. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing from one account. She must obtain the Committee's prior approval if she wishes to edit from a different account. She is prohibited from making edits without logging in.
4. Subject to the usual exceptions, Lightbreather is prohibited from making any more than one revert to any page, except Lightbreather's own user space, in any 24-hour period.
5. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing articles, their talk pages, and Lightbreather's user and user talk pages. Further, she may not edit articles in topics from which she is banned. She may post elsewhere only to respond to unambiguous criticism of her in dispute resolution fora. The default interaction-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. Should Lightbreather wish to initiate action against any user for whatever reason she may do so only by email to the Arbitration Committee.
6. All interactions bans (i-bans) affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
   1. Mike Searson (one-way)
   2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
   3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
   4. Sitush (one-way)
   5. Scalhotrod (two-way)
7. The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.
8. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.[51], [52] and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Request for admin eyes on Jules Bianchi

Just so everyone knows, it might be a good idea to keep some extra attention on Jules Bianchi for the next few days; he died in the last few hours from injuries suffered in his crash at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some pop-up vandalism as a result. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we haven't seen any sort of vandalism, but instead an awful lot of edit warring over the date of his death. Zappa24Mati 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Nick (I initially posted this way too early)

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

---

• I have filed a numberof AE requests against Eric in the past. I would have to wikistalk myself to come up with at an exact number,but I'd guess two or three in total. Today I filedan AE/R against Eric for a clear violation of his civility probation. After I filed my initial report, Nick posted this post. In it he accused me of using WP:AE requests to conduct a campaign of harrassment against Eric, and stated that "I think, if I see Kevin lodge one more arbitration enforcement request against Eric, I'm going to indefinitely block Kevin and to hell with the consequences and resulting arbitration case - this is the most blatant and disgusting targeting of one individual by an administrator I've seen in 10 years here."

• I am not - currently - asking for any administrative behavior betaken againt Nick - simply to have it reinforced by other users and administrators that not only is lodging a valid AE request not a form of harrassment, but that threatening to indefinitely block me if I put forward one more AE request against (totally ignoring WP:INVOLVED etc,) a particular user is in fact itself conduct unbecoming of an an administrator. I'd rather avoid the messiness of another arb case, and just have a clear consensus that this form of intimidation is absolutely inappropriate. I have posted a notification including current and permanent diffs to Nick's page here.Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of abuse of other editors in the name of defending Eric, but this has to be the most shameless display I have ever seen from an admin. If Nick does not agree with arbcom's sanctions that is one thing, but it is not acceptable to threaten others for attempting to enforce them. This sort of intimidation is absolutely inappropriate and is tolerated far too much. "to hell with the consequences" tells me Nick knows bloody well it is wrong. Chillum 04:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"To hell with the consequences" suggests to me that Nick is courageous and honourable in the face of dark forces that are currently doing irremediable damage to the future of content building and to Wikipedia itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see in Kevin's user contribs and the AE logs, this was the only time Kevin has reported Eric Corbett. Kevin's name only occurs one other time at AE. As such, Nick's comments are beyond abusive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

At what point was Nick abusive EvergreenFir? I don't see any "abuse"; all I see is an admin with some balls and a bit of common sense which is a rarity nowadays let me tell you! Cassianto^Talk 08:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nick accused Kevin Gorman of engaging in a targeted campaign of harassment. I've asked him on his user talk page if he has any corroborating record of this. --TS 04:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another statement by Nick about Kevin was made here without evidence: [53]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have served trout on Nick's talk page, it seems wholly inadequate. Chillum 04:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also served trout on Chillum's talk page; it seems woefully inadequate. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That does not even make sense, I never used an admin tool or threatened to. I suppose you were just copy/pasting, but I really wish you would articulate your thoughts in a more clear manner. Chillum 04:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you get yourself into these embarrassing situations Chillum? Sometimes it's perhaps best to keep quite. Cassianto^Talk 08:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your theories about dark forces and the imminent ruin of Wikipedia, it's probably not the best idea to hand out barnstars to admins who threaten users without reason, Epipelagic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Upon going to Nick's talk page to see said trout, I noticed a section just above in which Nick engaged in a dispute with Curse of Fenric, a dispute that only concluded when the other editor — who's been active here, on and off, since 2006 — was blocked because he's clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. This was clearly not the case (consider the other guy's contribution history; regardless of the recent dispute, he's edited topics all over the encyclopedia, all the way from wrestling to autism), and ending a dispute by blocking the other guy is a rather blatant example of involved use of tools. While the "admin abuse" statement at User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is generally true, this is different: here we have an administrator using the block tool to win a dispute and threatening to use the block tool to obstruct arbitration regardless of the consequences, as detailed above. I believe that this situation requires an arbitration case regarding Nick's active willingness to ignore WP:INVOLVED in situations that are most definitely not the straightforward, vandalism-like situations where it can properly be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I've only dealt with Curse of Fenric in the role of an administrator, which ultimately led to the user being blocked. There was a ban discussion brought to WP:ANI concerning Curse of Fenric after I had placed the block, and there were no concerns raised about the indefinite block [54]. I also made a statement about the ban and the block there, which I trust explains the situation more fully. Nick (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also been threatened with being blocked for posting a notification to AE/R too. It is not the place to report violations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is an information page. It's not policy, it's not a guideline or even an essay! Far too many admins feel they can use "NOTHERE" to block editors (even linking the information page in the block log). Per policy: "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested." NOTHERE is not in the blocking policy unless you "stretch" it. Doc talk 06:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not one for blocks, and I don't agree with Nick's threat to block Kevin for filing an AE request. However, I do see Nick's point of view. To get it, Kevin, ask yourself one question - how did you find the edit in question? You've never edited the page. There was no mention of this edit anywhere else, as far as I can see. It looks to me that you were looking through Eric's contributions. Kevin, I can tell you now, if you want to see Eric Corbett gone from this encyclopedia, your behaviour is hampering those efforts as you are becoming a poster child for the "obsessive nitpick", effectively making you the boy who cried wolf. I would wholeheartedly recommend you walk away from anything to do with Eric Corbett - and look forward to the day you can say "I told you so". If it comes. Worm^TT(talk) 07:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The boy who cried wolf did so while there was no wolf- I'll note that this was a successful enforcement request. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless the story about the boy who cried wolf was a story about a boy who was really good at spotting wolves, thats a terrible reference. In almost all cases with Eric the villagers turn up and there is a wolf. The only disagreement is what to do about it. Some want to keep it as a pet, others want to shoot it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• WTT:To give a straight up answer - someone who was directly effected by the statement asking me ifI would be willing'Worm]]^TT(talk) 07:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC) to file an AE on their behalf, lest they become the target of mob wrath. From some of the responses here (like an involved admin threatening to indef me if I ever again filed a noticeboard report,) I'd say they had a point. I deliberately followed neither his contribs or talk pages. I think it says a lot about the state of the wiki when a user believes that (assuming Nick among others had trated them as he had treated me) they could not go to WP:AE without facing the same things (which should not by any means be a requirement for filing a vio. I'm also bluntly a bit fthat you'd characterize the things I linked as crying wolf - they're pretty significant violations of the terms as written. Sorry If tthere are errors inthis lastlittle piece or answers obvious elsewhere - Ijust got hit with Dilaudid and Versed, twilight sleep is coming for a minor procedure Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start by apologising, it wasn't a sensible threat to send to Kevin Gorman and I can confirm I have absolutely no intention of taking any administrative action against Kevin when it comes to Eric Corbett or his Arbitration Enforcement requests. I do have concerns that Kevin has been taking an unhealthy interest in Eric, but I'll refer this to the community to deal with as I'm obviously far too involved to be taking any action.
There was, as we may recall, an almighty storm about Kevin blocking Eric only a few weeks after Kevin passed his RfA back in January 2014, which resulted in an Arbitration Case (which was resolved by a motion and ultimately declined) with Kevin being admonished for his behaviour and blocking of Eric. There are comments at the recent Request for Arbitration which, in my view, should leave nobody in any doubt as to Kevin's interest in seeing Eric removed from the project, though that may only be my interpretation of them. The Arbitration Request and Motion can be found at [55] and there are a number of comments of relevance at [56] currently where Kevin shows support in seeing Eric blocked. Nick (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat just posted

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.

---

Resolved

 – For the moment anyway, IP blocked for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

| right here with a threat to trace IP addresses too. I think someone needs a talking to ! KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked; let an admin know if they jump to another IP, and the article can be semi-protected. As legal threats go, this is particularly lame; he's threatening to sue for defamation because we don't mention the person he's claiming to be in an article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, note the IP resolves to a government agency (for the state of Florida). Not sure if this means anything in terms of blocking, but just thought to bring it to your attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The tricky blocks are for entities like the US Senate/Congress, UK Parliament, national governments, etc. I don't think there's any special consideration given to someone sitting in a state government office in Florida. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Boris, but Florida is kind of a special place, and I doubt this would crack the Top 100 weird things to happen at the Florida Dept. of Health today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Privacy of trans people's original names

An editor has posted trans activist Jazz Jennings' real first name as revealed by her father on TLC's I Am Jazz. Her original name has not been reported anywhere (save for a few anti-trans sites) even since the disclosure so I don't think it belongs here at all. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected for another month. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection isn't necessarily a bad idea, however not what I'm looking for. I wanted to know if anyonne else agreed the name should be removed. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Deadnaming people is unacceptable and I've removed it and deleted it per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I correctly understand that this name was revealed on a TV program that millinons of people watch? If so, there is no privacy issue whatsoever. BMK (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. I don't know if that made it into the actual programming although it was in the promotional preview. No secondary sources actually picked up on it so it is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) Yeah, protecting the page and deleting the revisions was a little over-the-top in my opinion. The parents made her birth name public information on a nationally-broadcast TV series; and the material clearly was not added with the intention to harm the subject, and last I saw it it was not presented in a defamatory manner. I do agree with Mark Schierbecker, though, that if this was not reported on by secondary sources and it's not common knowledge, it doesn't warrant inclusion. But I think somebody overreacted just a little bit here. Chase (talk | contributions) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out that WP:BIRTHNAME was updated after a VPP discussion too. If the person was not notable prior to transition, no need to mention previous name in lead. I think this goes in general too per BLPPRIVACY (and the fact that she's minor...) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that it shouldn't have been included in the lead; I even removed that occurrence in a now-deleted revision. (The name was also briefly mentioned in the "Early life" section. I didn't feel the need to remove it at the time, but as I said, it doesn't need to be included since it hasn't been widely reported.) I just personally think oversight/revdel was a ridiculous overreaction. Deleting it on BLPPRIVACY grounds doesn't make much sense to me since Jennings is a public figure and the information was disclosed on a recent national telecast by her parents. It's not a big deal, but I just find it strange, that's all. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Her parents != Her. I'm sure there are many things many parents have said about their child that they don't agree or want to be associated with. Unless Jazz wish to make this public information herself by discussing it publicly, privacy should very much still apply. -- KTC (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with erring on the side of privacy either, given that it seems the information shouldn't be in the article anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of the details needed to be hidden anyway (Like her parents' fracking real names. Who thought that was a good idea to add??). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Gee, and here I thought we were an encyclopedia. My miatake. BMK (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IP block extemptions

What uses of Tor meet the prescribed "genuine and exceptional need" for an IP block exemption to edit, when would you as an admin grant it? Does it have to be because you're editing in a country that has blocked Wikipedia, or can it simply be because you want to exercise anonymity? If the second isn't exceptional enough, why is this? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are at Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrator.27s_guide. This may be a better question for Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption than here as any discussion here that actually goes somewhere will be re-hashed on the talk page anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically asking how administrators evaluate this, without any opinion on the policy itself. That being said, thanks for that link. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally I request that any applicants email me outlining why they need it. Generally privacy in itself isn't adequate for me, although in some cases a case can compellingly be made. Sometimes people have internet routed through collocators and such (and they have no control over it), and I grant it on a short term as needed basis. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and merge. I don't see how anyone could read any other consensus into it. Seemed simple enough even to my addled admin brain. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge—I know I'm a tad late to the party but since this hasn't been closed it seems that consensus is by far to merge. 68.65.169.12 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Website linked from wikipedia hijacked

The site www.nflhistory.net has been hijacked to redirect to a scareware (fake antivirus) site. This site, which is listed as a reference in many wikipedia articles about the history of the National Football League (example), needs to be unlinked from wikipedia to protect the security of our users. 184.56.81.238 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

There are currently 140 articles that link to this and it redirects to:

mediaupdate19.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

...which appears to be active as a trojan (malware) and NOT fake. The particular link is attempting to exploit Adobe's newer security holes and tries to get users to update their browsers with their link. Don't do it...Windows and Mac users shouldn't even visit this site. We need to blacklist both links and remove all instances of them in WP space.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: could you blacklist these? I'm going to start removing links from articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

VoidURL, Webinspector, ScanURL, and Sucuri don't give any hits for problems. Quttera shows one suspicious file. Wondering if it's an ad they have that's the issue. (Edit: zeroredirect2 dot com might be the problem...) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed most of the links except one which must be transcluded somewhere (I don't see it). As for the malware, I see loads of links about the problem on Google here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Sorry about the delay getting back to you. With all of the links removed, the local blacklist would not apply to other languages. Probably best to  Defer to Global blacklist to have it listed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gogo, I've listed it there with a link to this thread. The malware links in the template do not show a connection on either one but this is related to three zero day exploits found a week ago. This article and this one detail the basic issue.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Considered for unbanning

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 my talk page, I was referred to this Administrators' noticeboard as the correct place to ask to be considered for unbanning.

A ban was imposed on my Wikipedia account two years ago (in July 2013), which stipulated that I could no longer edit Wikipedia medical articles (but the ban does not apply to other areas of Wikipedia). It is now two years hence, and if possible, I would very much like to be considered for unbanning.

The ban originally resulted from an over-heated discussion on the Morgellons Disease talk page, where myself and others tried to get the pseudoscience extricated from that page, but the major editors there were intent on keeping the pseudoscience .

The reason I am requesting consideration for unbanning is because I would like to partake in this AfD discussion on a Wikipedia medical page that I originally created, namely the page List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens.

I am not sure whether I can partake in a AfD discussion under a ban, although one editor mentioned in the said AfD discussion they thought my medical ban would not apply to AfD discussions.

Thank you for considering this. Drgao (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you find a diff of the actual wording of the ban and the discussion that led up to it? Chillum 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This would appear to be it. Given that the wording is "indefinitely topic-banned from articles and talk pages within the realm of WP:MEDICINE" I would think that participating in an AfD is not a violation of the topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, AfD pages are considered "talk pages". Participating in a debate there would indeed violate the topic ban. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that in that ban discussion retrieved by Samwalton9 above (thanks), the individuals originally asking for the ban only requested the ban to be applied to the Morgellons page and related articles, not to the whole of Wiki medical (in the ban discussion, see the sentence: "I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles"). However, for some reason, the ban was applied to the whole of Wiki medical; I am not clear why the scope of this ban was widened. Drgao (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the community felt that a limited topic ban would be less helpful than a full ban from medical topics. Sometimes when someone comes to AN/ANI seeking a resolution, the outcome can be more than they asked for, or less. Just because a request is made seeking a specific action, does not bind the community into 'only that action or nothing' resolution. For what its worth, I support an exemption to contribute to the AFD of an article you substantially contributed to, as its generally considered unfair to (potentially) delete an article someone has created and is now topic banned from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death; it would be nice to have official clarification on this issue of whether I can contribute to a medical AfD. It would also be nice to have the ban removed, if this is possible. I felt that the ban was a little unfair anyway, given that myself and others were simply just striving to improve the Morgellons page. Drgao (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See also the subsequent talk page discussion, namely the indefblock and unblock under the terms of this ban (which appears to have been a legitimate problem with the original wording). The unblocking admin asked On what page/s in Wikipedia does your topic ban permit you to post on medical topics? and accepted the answer No pages at all.

That being said, as the AfD nominator I support a provisional modification of the topic ban specifically for the purposes of participating in the AfD. (FWIW, I was not active at the time of the original ban, but based on comments here and in the original discussion I would not support lifting the ban in its entirety at this time.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) The reason is clear: Whatever the OP wanted, it's what the voters wanted. At ANI where everyone and his monkey can have their say, that's what happens, although there were in fact several sysops supporting a total ban from Med, and there appears to be no denying the evidence. Kim Dent-Brown just read the consensus and appplied it. I think Drago should be permitted to participate on the AfD, but perhaps he should now also consider making a formal request for full unbanning by stating what he believes to have learned from his ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The edits at Morgellons clearly establish a systematically incorrect approach to the scientific basis of medicine. It is textbook civil POV-pushing (and tendentious and agenda-driven and a bunch of other things we don't need). The original discussion had only two dissenters: the banned editors themselves. They dissented on the basis that even at that point they still didn't get it, and I think that has not changed. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was recently informed that a topic ban refers to all pages with "en.wikipedia.org" as the URL, so this means it even applies to a users sandbox.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps mention some of the circumstances of my ban. Originally on the Morgellons talk page, the conversion became quite heated, because some experienced editors there were defending the existing Morgellons article, an article which is filled with what many consider to be pseudoscientific psychological theories describing of the origin of Morgellons disease, a disease with physical symptoms. These experienced editors pointed out that these psychological theories were referenced by secondary sources, and that was the basic reason they wanted to keep this psychobabble in the Morgellons article.

I appreciate that secondary sources do carry much more weight than primary sources; however, scientific standards for evidence in the world of psychiatry are often much lower than standards found in hard sciences, sciences such as say biochemistry or immunology. Psychiatric theories for physical diseases, and Morgellons is in part a physical disease, often have more of quasi-religious quality than a scientific one. Many psychiatric theories are not even science, in the sense that they cannot be readily empirically tested, and thus confirmed or refuted. Yet because these theories are published in secondary sources, they are given just as much weight on Wikipedia as hard biochemical sciences. I was trying to make the Morgellons article editors aware that psychiatric theories are often pseudoscientific or low quality science, and do not deserve this weight. However, I was told that Wikipedia editors are "not allowed to think for themselves," and must just mechanically go by the Wikipedia rules for reliable evidence, even if those rules result in a pseudoscientific article. I appreciate that following the rules is paramount; but when that leads to a pseudoscientific article, well, what do you do in this situation?

Really this issue is wider than just the Morgellons article: the issue is about whether psychiatric theories can be considered high quality science, worthy of equal status in Wikipedia to the hard sciences. I would propose that psychiatric theories are often not high quality science. Many psychiatric theories that held sway until recently (like the Freudian psychosexual theories) are now thank goodness finally seen as complete nonsense. Thus, as a wider issue than just the Morgellons article, I think the status of psychiatric published sources needs to placed under review on Wikipedia. It does not make sense that psychiatric sources are given the same weight as hard sciences. Obviously that is going to be very unpopular with psychiatrists. But psychiatrists have been getting away with low standards for scientific evidence for far too long.

My ban came about as a result of "tendentious editing". Early on in the heated discussion on the Morgellons talk page that led to the ban, I was accused by some editors of getting too personal; so I then complied with their request not to take a personal angle. But then they just got fed up with hearing my arguments, so said that my efforts to improve the article were tendentious, and I was apparently banned for tendentiousness. I do not agree with this, because my efforts were aimed at removing low quality science and pseudoscientific psychiatric theories from the article. Those editors who classed my actions as tendentious could equally have had this epithet applied to them, as they were in intransigent in upholding a psychiatric pseudoscience viewpoint. Drgao (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose lifting topic ban. From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• oppose lifting the indef As a WP:MED editor who deals with a lot of FRINGE-pushers, I do not support lifting the indef. Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds, per MEDRS sources (recent reviews in the biomedical literature and the major medical/scientific bodies that have commented on this (namely the CDC). As there is no statement of change in orientation toward the policy issues that led to the indef (WP:PSCI) there is no reason to lift it.Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban because I do not believe that it would have a net benefit to the project. However, if Drgao wanted to e-mail a single, short proposed comment or vote for the specific AFD in question to any willing admin (=not me, since I'm not an admin), then I'd have no objection to an admin posting such a vote on Drgao's behalf. I would even go so far as to making a one-time exception to the topic ban to permit Drgao to post a single vote at the AFD, if it were limited to, say, 300 words or less, and was a standalone vote (not replying to any individual or trying to start a discussion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

QUOTING AndyTheGrump: "From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified".

That is not the case at all. I think the MEDRS rules are an excellent system, I strive to comply with them, and I think they work very well.

The main issue here is not MEDRS, but the unfriendliness of the editors on the Morgellons page, and their unwillingness to listen to numerous other editors with different views. During some of the discussions on the Morgellons talk page, one editor even wrote to me personally said that this level of unfriendliness is not normal on Wikipedia, and that I should not be put off editing Wikipedia as a result of my bad experiences on the Morgellons page.

When editors are friendly and listening, there is often plenty of scope to modify and improve the article, and in an amicable way, while still fully complying with MEDRS. I was not in any way suggesting that MEDRS rules be contravened, and AndyTheGrump is not correct in surmising that I do not accept Wikipedia policies. I very much do accept these policies, and I understand why these policies are important.

Note that AndyTheGrump was one of the editors who wants to uphold the low quality psychiatric pseudoscience material on the Morgellons page.

QUOTING Jytdog: "Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds."

Actually I have very little interest in Morgellons, and if you would consider lifting my ban, but maintaining a ban against me editing the Morgellons article, I would be very happy with that, because I would not want to edit it anyway.

But incidentally, Jytdog, you are not correct about the medical consensus of Morgellons: there is no medical consensus regarding the etiology of Morgellons, because nobody really knows what causes this disease, and to pretend otherwise is wrong and incorrect. One of the main problems with the Morgellons article is that it vastly overstretches the science: the article takes what is essentially an opinion piece about the nature of Morgellons, proposed by psychiatrists who don't have much reputation for good, solid science, and presenting this opinion as if it were an established and empirical fact. That's wrong. It's being untruthful. In the article, you need to be honest and accurate about the state of knowledge. You should not be overstretching the science to try to create the illusion that Morgellons disease is all understood and all wrapped up scientifically. Hardly anything is known about this disease, so you need to say that in the article. But the article is pretending that Morgellons is well-understood. Overstretching the science is bad in any situation, but is particularly bad if the science is of low quality to start with, and the psychiatric theories of Morgellons etiology are certainly low quality science at best. You certainly do not want to be overstretching these.

As for the accusation by Guy above that I am pushing a point of view, well, if you care to glance at the Morgellons talk page, over the last two years that I was banned, every few months you have new editors appearing on that talk page, making exactly the same points that I was making. All of these new editors face the unmoving regular editors that just don't listen, so no improvements to the article are made. So this is not just my personal point of view that there are problems with the Morgellons article.

But as I mentioned, this is an issue that is wider that the Morgellons article. Indeed, one other reason I would like my ban lifted (apart from on the Morgellons page), is that I would like to start a process that instigates a review of MEDRS guidelines when it comes to psychiatric sources. Psychiatric theories are rarely backed up by empirical evidence, so should not be given the same weight as empirically supported theories from the hard sciences. Indeed, if MEDRS were updated so that it recognized that psychiatric theories often have no empirical basis, and are often more akin to religious beliefs, we would have never got into the argument on the Morgellons talk page in the first place.

Ultimately, this is an issue of revising MEDRS, so that MEDRS does not give high weight to dubious psychiatric theories that do not have a proven empirical basis. Does anyone know what the official route would be to raising a proposal to change MEDRS? I would like to have this matter of unproven psychiatric theories discussed.

This is what I should have done in the first place: I should have bowed out of the Morgellons discussion, and instead tackled the root cause of this issue, which is in MEDRS itself. Drgao (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you just asking to lifting to discuss the AFD? Now, you're suggesting that if lifted in full, you'll instead fight at WP:MEDRS, basically expanding the scope of articles where there were concerns? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That issue of MEDRS was something I had at the back of my mind for some time, but sort of forgot about it. It just occurred to me again now, so mentioned it in passing. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

oy, that WP:Wall of text is a perfect example of WP:CRUSH. I already !voted above but please do not lift the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban, and opining that it applies to AfD - The evidence supporting the need for this is right here in this discussion. BMK (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain what evidence is that exactly, BMK? I cannot read minds. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note to admins: Drgao went ahead and leapt into the AfD here, on the basis that "a few editors" said it was OK, and in that comment made ad hominem arguments; this is exactly the kind of behavior that was described in the ANI that led to their topic ban. I hatted it. My goodness. I just deleted a subsequent comment they made, but they just came right back. I will not attempt to stem them further. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I gave a 72-hour block back on the subsequent comment with an explanation on the editor's talk page. "A few editors" think it's not a violation is not sufficient and not accurate, especially when the editor does come here believing that it would be a violation. I'm not accusing the Drgao as such but it's akin to forum shopping to have a request in multiple places and wait for a few supporters before going forward. The block was not for the duration of the AFD and the editor can be unblocked if they wish to participate further here on removing the entire topic ban or somewhere else not in violation of the topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support unbanning - Bans are preventative, not punitive. They are aimed at preventing disruptive behavior, not controlling the content of articles. If Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban then what's the issue here? If he/she becomes problematic again then reinstitute the ban as necessary. Article creators should be allowed to participate in discussions related to the articles they created. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment on the larger ban but that sounds very WP:OWNership-y to say that those who create an article have some greater right to comment on discussions about it. Would an editor who was unblocked or banned overall have a right to return due to an AFD on an article they created? I've already felt no one owns an article means that all, contributors or non-contributors to the article, have an equal right (or lac thereof) to opine on things (which falls into WP:RANDY territory if you take it too far I admit). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not really an ownership thing. Even editors under quite harsh restrictions dur to an arbitration sanction are allowed exemptions for certain (usually limited in scope) discussions. Remember a lot of people come under sanctions not because of their knowledge (no comment on this specific case) but because of how they behaved. An AFD has limited scope for disruption and once its over its over. Allowing someone to make a single statement would not harm the project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Kindzmarauli, while it is true that "Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban", it seems that he also hasn't made any edits since his topic ban. We have no indication that he is capable of contributing productively, and his behavior during this discussion suggests that the problems which existed two years ago remain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. Having re-read the discussion from two years ago, I notice that I participated in it. (I'll be honest, I don't even remember the editor or the discussion.) At the time, the last sentence of my comment was: "It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem." Given Drgao's behavior during this discussion – and his insistence on immediately violating his topic ban to participate in the AfD (based on very selectively hearing only what he wanted from a few of the comments above) – it appears that the intractable IDHT problem persists. A block for violating his topic ban would not be out of order, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. It is clear from his contributions history that Drgao's only interest in Wikipedia is to push his personal view that Morgellons is caused purely by physical agents and has no psychiatric basis. This runs counter to the mainstream scientific view and has no place in an encyclopedia. It is obvious from Drgao's comments above that lifting the ban would only result in a repetition of the problems that caused the ban. We don't need to revise our entire system of reliance on the best secondary sources just to accommodate one editor who doesn't agree with them. --RexxS (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I want to avoid taking part in content disagreement as far as possible, but Drgao seems to be approaching this from the point of view that psychology-related science should be treated as less rigorous than physical medical science. And with that I agree, as psychology is indeed a lot less precise. However, in railing against psychological approaches to Morgellons, Drgao appears to be completely ignoring the apparent consensus from medical experts that Morgellons has no confirmed physical symptoms whatsoever, and that that's a consensus that stands utterly apart from psychology. Drgao's approach remains undimmed in this appeal against the ban, and what we're hearing here is simply a repetition that the ban was wrong and that the same approach would continue to be pursued should the ban be lifted. Mr Potto (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting ban and clarify that it also applies to AfD. I thought I would, at the very least, be arguing to exclude AfDs from the ban, but then I saw Drgao's comments at that AfD. No way. Reyk _YO! 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban from medicine There is no clear indication that User:Drgao realizes what the issue is or that they will use high quality sources in a neutral way going forwards. So yes this ban is preventative. The ban also applies to AfD IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I was the admin who originally judged the consensus of opinion that imposed the ban. Although I am not presently very active on WP I have revisited that decision and the discussions above. Had Drgao approached this from the perspective of "Hey folks, I was pretty stupid back then, I've learned a lot" I would have little or no problem. But their line seems to be "I was right then and the ban was a poor one", which suggests that nothing has changed. Until it does, I support the original consensus. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Community desysoping

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing evaluation

Dear Administrators,

I'm concerned that this ban is not based on a systematic, contextual and non-partisan evaluation of the grounds offered for it. Does anyone agree that this is missing and ought not to be?

Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: There was quite a detailed evaluation of your template editing (this ban was from January) which led the community to impose a ban on editing in the template space. As its been six months roughly, and that the general consensus there was that it was reluctantly imposed due to your inability/unwillingness to listen to guidance and advice, you could of course appeal the ban. However for a ban appeal to be successful the community almost always wants you to a)acknowledge you made mistakes, b)state how you are going to not make the same ones in the future. Absent either of those, any appeal is doomed to failure. Your post above does not indicate you understand why you were banned, or that you agree with it, so you fall at the first hurdle I am afraid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree - a set of conditions were given to Sardanaphalus , these conditions were given 13:10, 29 January 2015 by MSGJ. That same admin closed up and banned Sardanaphalus on 15:36, 30 January 2015. Considering the small amount of time given for a response, and the fact that he was given a change to avoid a ban if he agreed to those terms, and given the lack of discussion, I'd say the ban needs to overturned - AND Sardanaphalus needs to respond to whether or not those conditions are acceptable to him. Obviously, a repeat of any of the behaviors that lead to this premature ban would and should reinstate that ban, but for now, overturn it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The ban discussion ran from 22 January 2015 to February 1, when the ban was enacted by User:MSGJ. This looks to be a thorough discussion. Sardanaphalus was given a chance to respond, but his response was judged to be inadequate. Later, in February 2015 Sardanaphalus got blocked one week for socking around the ban. From a quick look, it's hard to see any obvious flaw in the original ban discussion, but if Sardanaphalus wants to appeal, he should do so. He's more likely to get relief if he will make concessions about his future editing behavior, like the concessions proposed in the ban discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus is free to appeal. The main conclusion was that he failed to acknowledge the issues pointed out to him, and rationalizing his errors. If he continues to do so, I see no benefit or incentive to lift the ban. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston Per | this diff Sardanaphalus was offered a set of conditions on Jan 29, the discussion was closed on Jan 30 with a ban ordered. No way was that enough time for a response. Sorry, but this ban needs to be overturned. (Obviously, if Sardanaphalus dosen't agree with the terms or continues his same mistake, then yeah, the ban can stay ) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Conditions were irrelevant. Thats a process-wonkery argument. There was clear consensus to topic ban him. If anything offering him conditions to agree to was out of process given the comments there. It can be argued that making an offer and not giving someone enough time to think about it is not fair, however the consensus was to ban him, so that he ended up topic banned is in line with the discussion. Saying that however - it has been six months, so should he agree *now* to take up that offer, I dont see a problem with lifting the ban on those criteria. Otherwise the usual process applies for having his ban overturned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with Edokter, the ban should be appealed if necessary, otherwise should stand. Nothing out of process happened at the original discussion, they have had six months to respond to MSGJ's and Technical 13's suggestions and failed to do so, and still fail to do so. Also Sardanaphalus's casting of vague aspersions against Mr. Stradivarius and MSGJ hardly inspires confidence. Any appeal should be tempered with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Uphold ban. Discussion ran for 10 days and Sardanaphalus fought community feedback during the whole of that. The ban was proposed on the first day. Any appeal should be viewed in light of the socking and this thread as well, which is about process rather than the substance of the concerns. It would take an acknowledgement of the community concerns with their behavior and a promise to change their behavior, to lift the ban. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But... this isn't an appeal or request for a ban's review. A systematic, contextual and non-partisan assessment of the grounds offered for it could've reduced the groupthink, taking-as-read, social-proofing and conclusion-jumping that ensued -- and which are happening here, compounded by a halo effect. I wonder how many and how far other decisions have been compromised similarly. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm game; what action are you actually requesting here? I'm less than impressed by the attempted deception of the community via sockpuppeting, but from that discussion it seems acknowledged that you are capable of doing useful work. What path would you propose towards getting the ban lifted, while making sure that the concerns of those originally seeking the ban are addressed? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Block messages

Admins (and other editors) may be interested in this: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Block messages for anon editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate and 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.

---

Given the intractability of issues surrounding the Gamergate controversy, which I first looked at yesterday, I'm wondering ... have we ever imposed "good faith" topic bans in an attempt to resolve a messy article? There are regulars editing at that article who do little else but contribute there and perhaps to related matters, and the merry-go-round keeps spinning because they're the ones who effectively created the huge archive of talk pages etc in the first place and return repeatedly to the same points with the same outcomes.

I know that topic bans are generally seen as a preventative measure but could they not also be viewed as a proactive measure, imposed for a limited period with the intent that they might encourage wider, less involved contributions, a breath of fresh air in situations where more or less everyone agrees the article is a mess and that no significant improvements are occurring because the issues have become so entrenched within a coterie of contributors? - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this would be beneficial. The coherency of the article has been improving a lot in the past few days. A large number of the issues you raised with the article have already been dealt with. When compared to the past few months, quite a lot of progress is being made here. Also, if all the regulars are topic banned, we'll end up with the article mostly being edited by people with little knowledge of Gamergate. This raises the risk of factual errors and BLP violations. It's ultimately better to have a Wikipedia article that's factually accurate but reads like garbage, than an article which has beautiful prose but is misleading and defamatory. Brustopher (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not improving but, worse, if the best we can do is factually accurate garbage then WP:TNT is the way to go. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that (a) we're not a news website; (b) we're not obliged to have an article for everything; and (c) the GG stuff mostly comprises news and non-independent sources. At this rate, we'll end up with articles for every twitterstorm when what we should be doing is waiting for independent, peer-reviewed academic studies. Think of all the BLP issues that would go away if only we adopted some common sense.

I am aware of the earlier AfD, by the way. That merely demonstrates the news-y nature of the article. We've got to get a grip on this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an RfC on de-newsifying articles a month ago, but it was strongly rejected. However, there has been a slow trickle of academic studies on Gamergate coming in, some already used in the article, so there is something to work with. But I don't see what any of this has to do with topic banning everyone. Also from what I can see most of the issues you've raised on the talk page have been dealt with. How come you don't view this as an improvement? Brustopher (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It was strongly rejected partly because the proposal failed to understand the definition of "primary source"; of course news articles aren't primary for retrospective subjects, e.g. "Today's events are comparable to those of the Gamergate controversy ten years ago, when such-and-such happened" is secondary-source coverage for Gamergate while being primary-source coverage of whatever today's events are. The article itself is a primary source, a document created at the time of the event! Sitush is completely right. Stuff written from secondary sources by people less familiar with the topic will probably be reasonable, unless the academic studies are also guilty of making factual errors and BLP violations. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you believe the hundreds of editors who have contributed to editing the article and talk page, including reverting vandalism and BLP violations, should be topic banned from the article? I don't think anyone is 100% satisfied with the article as it is but it used to be littered bias, POV editing and BLP violations. It's come a long way since November or December. There are plenty of mainstream news sources that are incorporated in the article and the passage of time will only lead to a stronger article as better sources become available and the subject become less divisive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, I didn't say topic ban everyone. I'm thinking more of those who are basically SPAs, such as MarkBernstein and ForbiddenRocky. That it took disinterested people like me and DeCausa to highlight long-standing nonsense is an indicator that people are not seeing the wood for the trees. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... Do I need to be here for this? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. I was bound to notify you, per the instructions for this page. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do people need to be removed for this solution, if they're not actually doing anything bad? Surely the more the merrier? Brustopher (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have explained why, although you are again rather exaggerating what I queried. As it happens, it now seems that the ArbCom decision expressed a hope that new eyes would come forward. I, for one, am already discouraged and that's just after 24 hours or so. More eyes are always useful but sometimes it also might help (not just with this article, in particular) if jaundiced eyes took a break, voluntarily or otherwise. If you can't see how poor the article is, you may well be part of the problem. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't deny the article is no literary masterpiece, but this not-a-proposal doesn't make sense as a "good faith" topic ban. What you are suggesting is that the people editing the article are behaving in an unconstructive and offputting way, and therefore should be temporarily topic banned. If it's to do with behaviour and isn't a blanket topic ban, how does this "good faith" topic ban not-a-proposal, differ from your run of the mill topic ban not-a-proposal? Brustopher (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't even suggested anything. I queried whether anything like this has been tried before. If you can't even paraphrase me correctly, I perhaps should also question whether you are accurately paraphrasing the sources. I'm going to be blunt here: you are demonstrating a high degree of cluelessness right on this board, including in your selective interpretations. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, you said, and I quote: "could they [topic bans] not also be viewed as a proactive measure, imposed for a limited period with the intent that they might encourage wider, less involved contributions, a breath of fresh air in situations where more or less everyone agrees the article is a mess and that no significant improvements are occurring because the issues have become so entrenched within a coterie of contributors?" Is this not a suggestion? If not, what is it? Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A question! That's why it ends with a "?". Sheesh. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So then you did not mean to propose that topic bans be viewed as a proactive measure, imposed for a limited period with the intent that they might encourage wider, less involved contributions, a breath of fresh air in situations where more or less everyone agrees the article is a mess and that no significant improvements are occurring because the issues have become so entrenched within a coterie of contributors? If you did not intend to propose that idea, then I think we should close this section and move on, no? Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone read English here? I didn't propose anything above. I know that I voluntarily walk away from many articles where it is recognised that things are going round in circles. I was asking whether we've ever tried to enforce that on a limited basis where the same old faces keep reappearing with the same old arguments and where they show no sign of voluntarily walking away. I'm still waiting for an answer, and meanwhile people have gone off on their own battleground tangents yet again and they've taken it off-wiki in the process. Given those developments, I'm sort-of inclined actually to propose preventative topic bans (which we definitely do) rather than query proactive ones (which we may or may not have tried in the past). - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question regarding English is a good one. Perhaps we should back up. I define a 'suggestion' as "a thought or plan that is offered or proposed." How do you define it? Dumuzid (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need dictionary definitions when basic grammar will suffice. I define "question" in the conventional manner, ie: something ending with a "?" And this is my last response to you in this aside: you're taking it way off-course. - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well, have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have great sympathy with what Sitush is saying here. The article is in very poor shape and the article talk page goes in circle. On the one hand, there are the SPAs such as the ones Sitush mentions that are just there to push their POV and frankly, for the most part, just get in the way. On the other hand, there are also some experienced good faith editors - but, to be honest, they seem "tired", possibly jaded from all the conflict, and in a rut. There's some coments here that there have been improvements in the last few days as a result of Sitush opening up some points. Well, yes. But the points raised by Sitush weren't rocket science - the "regulars" should have been on them already. But the initial reaction was "look in the archive/nothing can be done". Ideally, the SPAs should be kept out and the others voluntarily step back for a while. I wouldn't be optimistic that that solution would emerge here, however. I suspect the best that can be hoped for is seeking an influx of experienced editors who have no particular views on Gamergate to broaden the input. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the thing, though: anyone who steps up and changes the language to be clearer or whatever runs the risk of being hounded in multiple ways, both on and off-wiki. It's not pleasant; it's horrible. So it's very draining, very exhausting, and very easy to just say "fuck it."--Jorm (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. It didn't take long for Sitush to identify problems in the article or the obstacles to fixing them. --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And the off-wiki griping started soon after, with someone claiming to be MarkBernstein at the fore. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2007. I was instrumental in securing stability on Dave Winer, a fairly high-profile biography that was conspicuously awful for several years because the subject’s enemies led a prolonged and bitter campaign. I took the lead in deleting Jews and Communism, an anti-semitic rant that was vigorously defended for months if not years by a well-organized tag team and that had survived previous AfDs and provoked no end of trouble. I helped prevent a host of abuses at Aaron Swartz’s biography, starting on the terrible night he died, a night on which we had an edit war as his poor uncle tried to do as Swartz would have wished and what he would have certainly done himself if he could: update his Wikipedia page. I've quietly addressed technical and other issues in the biographies of scientists and computer scientists ranging from Kent Beck to Frank Westheimer. I am far, far from a single-purpose account. (How many SPAs have been a keynote speaker at WikiSym, the leading academic conference on Wikis and Wikipedia? How many of been program chair? For crying out loud.)

Attempting to keep half an eye on a few pages of younger colleagues pulled me into Gamergate. There, I have made temperate and I hope intelligent efforts to protect biographies of living persons from being used by Gamergate fans, socks, and even Wikipedia admins to discuss the sex lives of female software developers in Wikipedia, a perfervid effort to punish women for pursuing their chosen vocation, an effort that continues to this day and which is avidly planned and plotted on off-wiki fora.

I do believe Wikipedia's complicity in this effort to harass and shame women in the software industry is a scandal. As you know, a good deal of the world’s press has agreed. For daring to oppose Gamergate’s Wikipedia operations, I have been harassed on-wiki and off. Off-wiki, attack sites daily plot to secure precisely what is proposed here: get rid of MarkBernstein, they think, and Wikipedia will be ours! (They said this before of the editors they termed the Five Horsemen of WikiBias. They were mistaken then, they are wrong now.) The professional and personal cost of participating in Wikipedia is unsupportable. The time alone required by this clockwork filing of baseless complaints and accusations at an alphabet soup of quasi-judicial boards is chilling; that is precisely its purpose.

Like many who have already fallen on this field -- Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC, CaroleMooreDC, Lightbreather -- I have been hounded on wiki and off, subjected to merciless and unfounded accusations, insinuations, disgusting cartoons, and unceasing, groundless attacks on my personal and professional reputation. Let us recall the words of NorthBySouthBaranof once again: “A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive."

It seems to me that tolerating all this is a lot to ask of any volunteer. And where are the thanks? True, I seldom meet a research colleague these days who hasn’t seen an article about “the Wikipedia mess” and they thank me, but gratitude here is hard to see. The sneers and insults are not.

At long last, folks: have any of you any shame? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you ever write concisely, Mark? TL;DR but I think what you are trying to say is "I am a martyr for the cause of Wikipedia"? - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can. A better summary: this is despicable. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well you can go blog about it and spam the links if it upsets you that much... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that he (or someone claiming to be him) has done that, sort of. A twitter comment linking to another comment by a MarkBernstein on what appears to be some sort of mild version of Wikipediocracy. This is the sort of behaviour that makes me doubtful of reasons for being here. If you hold that much angst that you feel it necessary to tweet about it within hours, even while the issue is unresolved, then it opens a big can of worms. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If everyone would stop being so prickly for a minute you would all realize that everyone is (or should be) on the same side here. When an article is under constant attack and harassment for so long, naturally the regulars are going to be suspicious and standoffish when new editors suggest sweeping changes, and new editors need to take that into account in their interactions with other editors. The regulars also need to remember that the only way that we're going to have a chance at finding a long-term solution for this article is for, as DeCausa notes, an "influx of experienced editors" to arrive, and you shouldn't be inadvertently driving them away. I've skimmed Sitush's contributions on the talk page and there are a lot of valuable suggestions that other editors should pay attention to. But the way to get editors to accept those suggestions is not to propose they be banned en masse; that's only going to exacerbate existing tensions. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been finding that there still remains battleground lines which this comments reflects on - when new, but established editors, speak up, they are told by some of the regulars to read the archives or go away. Arbcom's decision basically asked for more eyes to review the article, and the way that some of those on the page are behaving are completely counter to that. We need more eyes on the page, people who have zero interest in the topic to review the topic relative to the sources and how we are covering it, and not having the established editors try to block valuable suggestions. I fully admit I'm involved, obviously, but I have been exasperated by some of the editors that refuse to accept new input and assuming bad faith of newcomers (but not WP newbies) to the article discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense, Masem, but you've made hundreds of edits to the article and talk page. You're more of a Gamergate "regular" than any other editor I can think of and have been for a long time. I'm glad though that you recognize yourself as involved (as am I to a lesser degree).

If editors who keep a watch on this article are too vigilant, it's because it's an article that was continuously under attack until the 30 days/500 edits editing restriction was enacted. That has calmed things down considerably and I think progress is being made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that restriction has created a space where new editors and established editors can collaborate effectively, if they are both willing to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that restriction has created a space where new editors and established editors can collaborate effectively, if they are both willing to do so. This has got to be one of the most obtuse statements I have read on Wikipedia, and that's a high bar. Please do explain how a rule banning new editors from both the article and its talk page has created a space where new and established editors can collaborate on the article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Of course I'm a regular. I don't deny that. However, I have never tried to dismiss or chase out any new voice to the discussion, and have been staying within policy and the ArbCom decision in my participation (to the best of my knowledge). I may be accused of being tenacious, but that's the problem when you run up against battleground behavior that refuse to accept new input towards consensus. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Masem, but I am unclear on your stance. You would support topic banning so-called "good faith" editors then? Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I would not block them only on the basis of good faith, though I do note that during the ArbCom GG case, there was consideration of despite any good faith nature of Ryulong's activities, their presence on the article itself was a possible issue of off-site disruption. That best I know is not happening here (since 30/500 was in place). However, I would argue that there is behavior on an edge that ArbCom has specifically said is not in good faith towards editing for consensus - such as dismissing experienced but previously uninvolved editors when Arbcom specifically asked for the community to help review the article. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem's has certainly been very welcoming to certain new editors! MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And that's yet another personal attack (MArk has constantly claimed I'm enabled proGG to edit the article despite my insistence that I'm not). --MASEM (t) 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack: greeting new editors is worthy of praise, and I praised you. One might have wished for broader distribution of your favor but -- as you have reminded me on many occasions at very considerable length -- you're a volunteer and can greet whom you please. That’s wonderful! Thanks for greeting! And protecting! And for all the advice! And the grammar!! But you said (months ago, over and over) that you are severely neutral! I read that! So fine! You're severely neutral Masem! All hail Masem and Banquo! Greeter extraordinaire! (Seriously, is everyone going to shout "personal attack!" whenever anyone thinks, incorrectly, that I might be looking at someone funny? And that is this entire thread, pray tell?) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, Mark, the way you're behaving in this thread, I'm starting to wonder if you're making Sitush's question about "good faith" topic bans a moot point, as least as applies to yourself. As a semi-retired editor, sometimes I check out these noticeboards to see how things are going around here. The fact that people can still get away with conduct like this reminds me why I stopped editing regularly. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush has been seriously incivil on the page in question: here, here, here, and here. He explicitly says he won't help fix all the problems he sees with the article but demands other editors fix them according to his wishes. This would seem to be begging for a topic ban himself. Aspirae (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

None of those seems particularly problematic. Not nearly as incivil as Mark's comment above. But whatever, I'm not here to advocate for Sitush. I'm just pointing out that it's a tragedy you can still say stuff like Mark's saying on Wikipedia and face no repercussions. Meanwhile... I always hate how quick some people are to shout "sock!" at new accounts, but, come on man... Is anyone supposed to believe this is your first edit? You know alternate accounts aren't allowed to edit project-space, right? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you don't think Sitush (and his friend Decausa) insulting multiple editors on that page is "problematic" but Mark Bernstein saying -- albeit snarkily -- whatever everyone who watches the GG pages already knows about Masem is somehow just so terrible you had to come out of semi-retirement to flagellate him over it. The only tragedy here is what GG and their affiliated trolls have been doing to this site for 11 months now. You may or may not be aware, but the GG mess on Wikipedia is being watched by quite a few outsiders, myself included -- Hell, GG has multiple subreddits dedicated to trolling over here! Is it only the dozens of GG recruits who are entitled to the Assumption of Good Faith, then? But if you're so convinced this is someone's alternate, take it to a formal sock investigation and have fun searching for my "real" account, which doesn't exist. Go ahead and waste even MORE of everyone's time with GG-related stupidity. I'm sure that will be of enormous benefit to the encyclopedia. Aspirae (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly not a good faith suggestion, nor is the opinion that the article is of poor quality supportable. We probably should not encourage blatant trolling on this page. --TS 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• "nor is the opinion that the article is of poor quality supportable". It's a major problem that we have editors involved in the article (with 485 edits to talk page and 45 edits to the article) thinking this. DeCausa (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Several months ago I suggested a change very similar to Sitush's query, and was roundly dismissed. So I will make the suggestion here: the Gamergate article is such a mess, let's keep the 30/500 restriction, with the temporary addition (say 30 days) of limiting accessibility to those who have not yet edited the GG entry. This would allow a completely fresh set of experienced eyes on the page. Just in case anyone was wondering, I have no dog in this fight, as my suggestion would preclude me from editing the article in question. Cavalierman (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting that so many disinterested-new-to-the-topic people are going straight to suggesting bans? Because that makes sense somehow? Disinterested-new-to-the-topic people wouldn't be interested in figuring out what's been going on to make informed suggestions? Nothing odd or peculiar about this? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I am interested in the topic, mainly because it is a high profile entry that is poorly written, both in terms of grammar and content. Unlike some editors, I have zero interest in editing the article, let alone making hundreds of POV edits while simultaneously chasing away any new visitors to the page. Unlike some other editors, I think it is well past time for some completely new perspectives that don't have an axe to grind. With few exceptions, the current group of editors who have the highest edit count on the article have done a poor job of representing what is written in RS. It is time to give someone else a chance. Cavalierman (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing at all odd or peculiar about what I've been doing, which falls short of actually suggesting bans; I can't see anything untoward about what DeCausa has said either. Who else here falls in the category you mention, ForbiddenRocky? Fancy taking these vague aspersions to WP:AE? I'd duck if I were you.

Meanwhile, I've still not got an answer but I guess the silence might be an implicit "no". - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, above you said to Brustopher that "I didn't say topic ban everyone. I'm thinking more of those who are basically SPAs, such as MarkBernstein and ForbiddenRocky." The first sentence, by implication, means that you thought that someone should be topic banned. This is a suggestion. Moreover, you go on to specifically mention two editors you believe should be banned. This is another suggestion. Both involve 'suggesting bans.' I think in general you've been a force for good on the Gamergate controversy page, but I cannot see a way to interpret your excursus here as anything other than bad faith. Dumuzid (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to pick holes in what I said. If you think it is bad faith stuff then take me to WP:AE. That is, either put up or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not all bad faith rises to a level sanctionable at AE. I am not surprised that this is a foreign concept to you. I will stop bothering you again now, but every time you make the claim that you have not 'suggested bans' here, I will restate my position: you are either lying or unaware of the plain meaning of your own words. You can make me go away by simply not making that assertion. Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't you dare suggest that I am a liar. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Cavalierman, every single one of your articlespace edits is related to one of two gender-related controversies - Gamergate controversy and A Rape on Campus. That you have an axe to grind on this issue is evident from your work on the project thus far. Please don't pretend it's not obvious. 166.170.42.168 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Very observant, IP. If you were even more observant you would notice that I have made less than 250 edits total. Further, you would see from my talk page that as someone who's brother and father attended UVa, I did indeed take an interest in the Rape On Campus article. It was from that particular article that I learned of the GGC entry.

You will also notice that every one of my edits (all 10 or so of them) to the GGC article was immediately reverted. And they were reverted by the same SPA editors every time. Not bold edits, mind you, but simple edits regarding the reviews of a video game, or minor changes in sentence syntax.

Around this time, the 30/500 rule was enacted. The very same week I found myself profiled/mentioned on an off-wiki site called the "Sea Lions of Wikipedia", a site managed by Anti-GG SPAs. The purpose of this site? To ridicule Wikipedians who "Sea Lion", the definition of "Sea Lion" being (get this Sitush!) someone who courteously asks for evidence or proofs of an assertion or stereotype. Yes, you read that correctly. Jimbo Wales himself was completely offended by the racist undertones of the term and has commented on how he is amazed someone would actually use it as a perjorative.

Lest you think this is an isolated thing, PeterTheFourth, a self-described SPA, is actually suggesting that the 30/500 restriction be applied to any discussion of the GGC, due to "Sea Lioning", as if asking for proof of a completely unfounded rumour is disruptive.

In summary, the changes I proposed would disalllow me from ever editing the article so no, I don't have an axe to grind, at least not in this situation.Cavalierman (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I specifically said that I didn't want it to apply to all discussion of the Gamergate controversy- just mainspace edits (aka not ANI or talk page stuff.) Here's the diff of what I said if you're interested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand how a sea lion is racist. It references a cartoon with a sealion in it. I'm sure it could have been any animal. An obnoxious penguin would have been equally funny but a sea lion is larger and can throw it's weight aound. 130.156.3.254 (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate has been dreaming for months of the opportunity to take over the Gamergate page, as well as the pages of their many victims, after driving out or overwhelming all who might stand in their way. That was the point of the zombie flood, the point of the Arbcom case, the point of insinuating that every opponent of Gamergate is a pedophile. Overnight, one of the main Gamergate boards started a thread about this very page, with 80 comments so far discussing strategy, the very great importance of securing Sitush as an ally, the likelihood of success, the fallback positions for new smear campaigns in case of failure. A different Gamergate board is exploring the best strategy to secure my topic ban by whatever means necessary. Isn't this fun? Isn't this edifying? A great way to treat your volunteers. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:SOAPBOX? —Xezbeth (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Bernstein, then? I'm no ally of GG. Will some admin please sort this guy out. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Stricken: he is being clever but hasn't overstepped the line. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruption on Senvion

Hey admins, I need a bit of help. This article is periodically abused as a company brochure, most recently by 135.245.168.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's been the target of Karthick1980 (talk · contribs), an editor from India blocked for eternally disrupting Hogenakkal Falls (just ask SpacemanSpiff); this latest IP geolocates to India though I haven't found any overlap. However, the geolocate tool signals "possible proxy", and I don't really know what that means here, but it sounds ominous. I suppose I could just semi-protect the article, but since I've made what some might consider content edits (really, removal of POV/promotional/directory information) I'd like for another admin to have a look, at the article and at the IP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a corporate proxy, their traffic from the India office is routed through HQ, don't think it's a webproxy. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films

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.

---

We can't edit this page anymore. Ignorant people insist on calling baahubali tamil which is wrong because it bilingual only for tax reasons and it's the Telugu one that's really beautful and acclaimed not the others so please do the needful and fix it. They have some talk but no one will listen and they just keep fighting and getting and more Tamil there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.145 (talk • contribs)

fix it fix it fix it now. fix it now. People worldwide are watching this and they are being lied to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.178 (talk • contribs)

Pretty representative of what the editors at List of highest-grossing Indian films have had to deal with and why the article is fully protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• You appear to be in a content dispute. You can post at the dispute resolution noticeboard for further attention. Keegan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Or just semi-protect the talk page ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not fix the problems first? The baahubali page is also wrong. we fixed the expensive movies one but people are coming there now to disrupt — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎166.171.123.226 (talk • contribs)

Someone just gave a source to update the Baahubali to 450 crores. That will be changed soon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page semied. Enough with ethnic bashing and blatant canvassing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still tamil

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

Block a bunch of sleepers, please, and is there a CU in the house?

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents § Admin_help_needed_blocking_a_sock_farm

All the accounts welcomed here by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. are socks of the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal, all created on 21 June 2015 (I assume; I only checked the creation log date for a few, but of course they were) and ready to be autoconfirmed by ten back-and-forth edits the moment the vandal wants to edit a semiprotected page, such as this and this today. Does somebody have access to a script or tool that would simplify blocking all these sleepers, please? Also, presumably there may be more, from another date and welcomed by "somebody else". Might a CU look for them, please? Bishonen | talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, I have to go to bed, and I don't know how to take this further. I just called for a CU on IRC, to no avail. But note also that there's no CU needed to identify that long list as socks of a single individual: — follow my links and you'll see what I mean. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I'm hoping any script-savvy person (where are you, Writ Keeper?) can do the blocking. There are so many socks that I at least, am not up for blocking them by hand. Maybe a few admins want to pitch in as a collaborative effort? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Blocked the first twenty-one ("Like fresh" through "Simba s simba"), but don't have time for the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend. Going by a sampling I just did, all the others are now blocked, too, including by Doug Weller, a CU. Doug, did you find any more sleepers? (But feel free to ignore the question per WP:DENY. We don't really need to know.) Bishonen | talk 13:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

I've just done some checking, and there's a lot still not blocked. Mr Potto (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of the ones in the list for which the welcome message is still the most recent talk page edit (ie the ones that show the Twinkle revert links) are still unblocked. Mr Potto (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Love the unblock request by one of them, "Please unblock me, because otherwise I will be forced to go through all the rigmarole of auto-confirming other sleeper accounts - some of which could have been admins one day - so that I can post spurious unblock requests" Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot more to be done, and Mr Potto is right, if the most recent talk page edit is the puppetmaster's they need to be blocked. BUT DON'T BLOCK User talk:Jo-Jo Eumeru as there is no reason to think that editor is a sock, they've been around a long time. Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there's any objection, I think the two threads -- here and at ANI -- ought to be merged.—SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, people, how do we actually know these are all sleepers? Comparing this list with the user creation log from that day [57], it seems the sockmaster was just going through the recent creations log mechanically and welcoming all new users (probably to trick us into doing exactly this, block a lot of innocent new accounts together with his real sleepers). The creations log entries for all these accounts are unlikely to have been done all by a single master (some are automatic creations for accounts previously created on other wikis, etc.; a few seem to have made regular, innocent-looking edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's quite possible, although at least one, User:BigMac87, showed up suspiciously at a talk page being used by an unrelated sock. Note that the puppetmaster pinged User:Dennis Brown, the blocking Admin, saying "let what drama begin? You are quite right. Very good decision in blocking me. And I love the blocking reason. I look forward to doing business with you again. Hope my welcome notes were of assistance. Need help with anything just give me a call. I am currently writing a few articles for you lot. Love User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you.|A helpful vandal]]". At User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper we see him/her's unblock request saying "The stated reason for my block is "block sleeper troll before they can get autoconfirmed". As it happens, I was already autoconfirmed. Furthermore, my sole intention in using this account is to carry on some useful dialog on Acroterion's talk page - were it otherwise, I would have done it, or would use one of my many many other sleepers. Therefore this block is not achieving its stated goals and is consequently unjust meaning that I have no alternative but to cordially request it be given some additional scrutiny." After that, the puppetmaster, not the sock, posts another unblock request reading "Please unblock me, because otherwise I will be forced to go through all the rigmarole of auto-confirming other sleeper accounts - some of which could have been admins one day - so that I can post spurious unblock requests.". Doug Weller (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no doubt at all there were some socks in that bunch, but what about the rest? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe an attempt at confusion/manipulation? Welcoming one's own socks as well as other accounts created coincidentally at the same time to get these other accounts blocked, or creating doubt about whether these accounts are sleepers. May be a case for CU. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the accounts looking for those who have edited. Out of more than 180 accounts, only maybe 10 or slightly more have edited since being created almost 5 weeks ago. How likely is it that they are genuine new accounts and not sleepers? Doug Weller (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just look at any other random time window of the account creation log and see how many of those have edited [58]. It seems to be entirely normal for the majority of new accounts to remain inactive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FPaS that this sockmaster is probably trying to talk us into blocking the innocent. I also get the impression that they're familiar with CU practice. As for their interest in "a useful dialog" on my talkpage, sorry, I have a lot to do in Real Life this week and the next, and a nice chinwag with a malicious editor isn't on the agenda. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of these accounts are listed consecutively in Special:Listusers - it looks like the welcoming user used that or the user creation log and welcomed almost every user listed there at the time. I've compared the time taken for the first group of blocked accounts (7 minutes) with other periods before this and most were around 7-8 minutes, so there may have been some sockpuppets but most of these accounts are likely to be unrelated and should be unblocked unless they are confirmed as related to blocked users or are editing disruptively). Peter James (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We should stop worrying about this. Just block them all and leave a note on their user and talk page explaining the circumstance and telling them to contact an admin if they are legitimate and want to edit. BMK (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's likely that most of the accounts are legitimate, as likely as any other new accounts created. If the welcomes were given in an attempt to get the users blocked, any administrator issuing a block would be effectively acting as meatpuppet of a vandal; if they were just given to increase the edit count (which I think is more likely) blocking is likely to have the same effect as randomly blocking a percentage of new accounts, and would be a misuse of administrative tools. If there are sockpuppets identified, these can be blocked separately. The reverted IP edit looks like it's by the editor referred to above as the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal; and is probably the truth; another administrator seems to have noticed this. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what's really needed is a CU to go through that list and see which ones are connected to "User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you.". Whether it will get done remains to be seen. Otherwise, if legitimate users are blocked they can appeal. But looking through that list of a possible 180 sock accounts it seems the vast number haven't really done much editing whatsoever, suggesting them to be likely socks, or forgotten about accounts. Really someone needs to open an SPI on all this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Most people haven't done much editing - actually most haven't edited at all - but are not sockpuppets. Checkuser on IP addresses used by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. and User:The Caledonian Sleeper (and it looks like a coincidence that an obvious group of sockpuppets was in there) may find more but used on the new accounts generally wouldn't be appropriate. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What this looks like is administrators have overreacted and blocked a number of new users with a potentially defamatory message as explanation. Peter James (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A CU has been requested at SPI. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Mike V has the CU in progress over at WP:ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyright backlog

Anybody got a little time for some copyright cleanup?

There are backlogs in all areas of text-based copyright work - WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI. Because WP:CP transcludes the WP:SCV listings (to ensure nothing is overlooked), resolving the backlog at SCV could knock out a lot of the problem at CP as well. Currently, CP is so backlogged that it's broken, in part because some of the completed days cannot be removed until SCV is completed.

SCV is generally the low-hanging fruit of the text-based copyright world. It is, of course, the page where bots list new articles that flag for potential copyright problems. Content there is either:

Extended content

A false positive (rare) Copies of non-creative content, like discographies A mirror of another page or a copy of an external mirror of another page (is it attributed? No issue. If not, it needs to be and the contributor told how to do this.) Cleaned (Make sure what remains is not still too closely paraphrased) Cleanable (remove the copied content if what remains will survive; you can also rewrite from scratch if you want) Eligible for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G12 (complete copies; no assertion of permission), or Blanked with {{copyvio}} for deeper review at WP:CP (assertion of permission; copied but otherwise not eligible for CSD#G12)

There are notation templates at SCV (you see them whenever you edit an individual page), but they're just for convenience. If you don't want to use them, don't worry about it - just doing the work and saying what you've done is the important thing. :) Even if you just grab a few listings and go for the low-hanging fruit, you can help clear the backlog.

Of course, if you'd prefer to work at WP:CP or WP:CCI, that's heartily needed as well. :) And if you want to dedicate your wikilife to it, that's good, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I can check in. I must ask, is there a reason why deleted pages are kept there, especially G11 and G12 cases which usually aren't restored? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pages are occasionally recreated -- sometimes with copyvio, sometimes with an inadequate rewrite, sometimes clean. Therefore they need to be checked again. MER-C 13:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help clear some of the backlog later today. - MrX 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CCI is permanently backlogged with cases dating back more than five years. There's really no hope of clearing the backlog. Wikipedia will have rampant copyright violations unless things change around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request Revdel

[59] Could someone revdel one of my edits, material I removed and for which there is still a diff is a BLP violation. WCM_email 18:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Content of the revision has been hidden. Peter James (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Please don't make these requests in a public location. Please see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion on the correct way to handle these. For 12 minutes, this revision was both visible to the public and linked to from a location which wqas screaming "see this before it disappears". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kid and his friends with zero knowledge of a topic keep harassing me a 72 yr old

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.

---

Kid and his friends with zero knowledge of a topic keep harassing me a 72 yr old with 50 years in the music and entertainment business.

``Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at South Pacific (musical), you may be blocked from editing. Copperopolis guy previously blocked for adding original research, when he was using the Copperopolis IP Special:Contributions/66.102.146.179. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Over 3/4 of the pages in the entertainment business category have some sort of tag on them complaining about the content - some five and six years old already - and all these kids with no knowledge of the topic go mind their own business as they should.

When I was back in the Bay Area, I'd get the occasional idiot bothering me, until I told them I had been in this business over 50 years - and then they'd shut up. If they kept on and started saying they could block me, I'd just tell them I was affilliated with a major Bay Area university with thousands of IP addresses, so unless they wanted to block the entire Bay Area or all of AT&T or Verizon or whoever - then they needed to go bother somebody else - and that would usually get rid of the rest.

Now I retire and move out to the boonies to get some peace and quiet and these kids start in attacking me again thinking they can block the whole town just because they got an itch to scratch. These kids need some administrators' orders to go bother somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet notified here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog -- For this reason, WP:Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of the site, and so we only stick to summarizing published sources. We don't care who anyone says they are. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This gent was previously blocked for one week starting June 1 because he continued to add original research after multiple warnings. There was an ANI discussion about it, one that pointed out his Copperopolis location. I'm sympathetic to his wish to share knowledge, especially audio engineering knowledge as that's my own career field, but this guy really needs to write a book or some magazine articles if he wants to publish new accounts of past developments. Wikipedia cannot be used as one's first publishing platform.

Otherwise, our Copperopolis friend must learn to use his topic expertise to sift through already-published accounts which can then be summarized to expand articles. If he continues to write from personal experience then he will not find Wikipedia very receptive. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I might have tagged a couple of these edits with citation-request tags rather than reverted them outright, as the inserted information seems likely to be correct, but that's a matter of discretion. The fact is that while we don't classify editors as "kids" or seniors or in-between, in this instance the reversions have been performed by such experienced, well-regarded editors as User:Ssilvers and User:MarnetteD. A quick scan of their userpages will reveal to the IP that these editors have excellent credentials of their own; Ssilvers in particular is probably our leading subject-matter expert on musical theater, and if he believes that an insertion of audio-recording-technical detail is too much for an article on a show, he is probably right. I suggest that the IP both take to heart the advise he has been given about sourcing, and also consider the level of technical detail that is best suited to different sorts of articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) The preceding editor User:Newyorkbrad may or may not be a "kid", a "senior" or "in-between" and has made few or no contributions outside those conditions.

I think Brad hit it on the head: I think my only contact with this IP was with respect to South Pacific (musical). This article is an FA, and when we brought it to FA, we included a Recordings section describing the major recordings of this popular show. The IP's edits appear to me to add a tiresome level of detail to what was already there, decreasing the readability and interest of the section to a general reader, so I reverted. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, relatively minor details about a recording should not take up so much space in an article about the musical. Plus, this FA article is long enough already! There are, of course, some WP articles specifically about show albums, and more (well-cited) detail would probably be welcome in those. But most cast recordings are probably not worth their own WP article – only the most famous ones; for example ones that were top-selling albums in their own right, or that won a Grammy Award for best show album, or that were otherwise unusually important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Newyorkbrad and Binksternet I just received this User talk:MarnetteD#FYI 2 message which indicates that this person intends to continue to edit the way they have up until now. It is a drag to have my AGF thrown back in my face and, to me, this indicates a WP:NOTHERE situation. I seem to remember that SPI's that involve only IPs are problematic but if that is incorrect then one might need to be started. Otherwise I guess that your continued vigilance is going to be the only way to deal with this. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This article KIOI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) shows that they have followed through on their threat to edit war. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update. After filing this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#MarnetteD repeated edit warring .28Result: IP blocked.29 the IP was blocked for 24 hours. It remains to be seen whether they will return to the same editing pattern after the block. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlogged

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.

---

Any chance one of you fine ladies or gentlemen could take a look at Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs? It's pretty backed up. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of unsourced. Done. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Global renaming issues

Moved (and expanded) from WT:CHU to get a few more eyes on this.

I'm raising this for discussion here because I'm not sure whether there's a policy change needed (either here or at Meta). I recently encountered Peppermintatagility, who was blocked under their initial username User:Agility Affluential, per en-wiki's username policy. They requested a rename via Meta, and their account was renamed to User:Internatagility by User:Céréales Killer. Céréales Killer was either unaware of the en-wiki username policy or missed the breakdown of this new username, since Internatagility ("Intern at Agility") is a violation of WP:ISU. Had an {{unblock-un}} template been used on the editors's userpage, the new username would have been refused. Subsequently, User:Максим Підліснюк renamed the account to its current username, which is acceptable - but again, this request was processed entirely through Meta, with no unblock request attached on en-wiki. It's therefore evidently now possible for global renamers to change inappropriate usernames without the user making the request via {{unblock-un}}, as has been the standard practice in the past. I find this concerning, as it implies that users could be renamed appropriately yet still left blocked (because they have requested a rename but not an unblock), or, as in this case, left confused because global renamers are unable to implement en-wiki's particularly restrictive naming policy.

I also noticed this unblock request yesterday, posted by Максим Підліснюк after processing a rename request. As a rule of thumb, I believe we generally disregard unblock appeals which are not made by the blocked user, but if this becomes common practice we may need to take this sort of proxy appeal into account.

Note that I'm emphatically not implying wrongdoing by or requesting censure of the two renamers involved; I'm just interested in getting people's views on how we should interpret/adjust our approach to username blocks in the light of this new process. And of course, if I've missed the discussion where this was all ratified and decided upon, just give me the link and slap me with a trout. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Preferably we would just stop blocking these folks altogether and just ask them to change their name. There really is very little promotional value in adopting a CORPNAME and it gives a useful indication of COI. I believe someone recently changed the username block coi template to point directly to the interface; it should still explain unblock request procedure though. –xeno^talk 10:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT the template still points to WP:CHU - the difference is that WP:CHU now contains a direct link to Special:GlobalRenameRequest, which allows any user with an email (blocked or not) to request a change of username. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the change to which I was referring: special:diff/671112653. –xeno^talk 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see - I was looking at different templates. Thanks! Yunshui ^雲_水 10:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

Appreciate if this could be looked at. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help some. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else willing to help? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Let it SNOW

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 kind admin please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies and perhaps SNOW close it? Many thanks.- MrX 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Good heavens that was really bad. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The primary author of the article appears to have an axe to grind about Hillary.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter.- MrX 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal for Rrjedha

• Rrjedha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm proposing a site-wide ban for User:Rrjedha. The reason is very simple: a lack of competence. He is making a lot of disruption, and other editors need a lot of work to clean everything behind him, but he usually reverts it again. His edits are good faith edits, that is certain, but they are so disruptive that he makes much more harm to the project than he benefits it. The main problem with this user is his almost zero knowledge of English. All his posts and edits seem like being machine-translated, and are totally incomprehensible. You can take any of his edits as an example (i'll cite two examples: [60][61]). He created several articles, and other users had a lot of job to clean them out. Look for example how the Kosovo Pomoravlje article looked like when he created it: [62] (it is not clear what the article is about). It took a lot for others to make it look like an article, but then Rrjedha keeps inserting his nonsense into that article. Wehan asked on the talk page to explain his edits, he gives this answer: [63] (totally incomprehensible). He also makes many other problems. He used a sockpuppet account for years (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrjedha). He also promotes his publishing house, shich is also called "Rrjedha" (See: Rrjedha). When being asked by administrator Diannaa to changed his username, he just moved his user page and user talk page to User:Workflow and User talk:Workflow, but that username was already taken 6 years ago, and Rrjedha has no control over it (so, he actually did not change the username). I think all this illustrates his complete lack of competence (both English language competence and Wikipedia policies competence). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support banning from the English Wikipedia Looking at his userpage, I'm seeing copyright, socking and machine translation being used. He states he's Aremnian Albanian, well, we have an Armenian Albanian | Wikipedia he can edit in his own language , let him edit there, but certainly not here . KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• @KoshVorlon: He's Albanian, not Armenian. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OOPS! My bad! I've struck out Armeian and replaced it, also replaced the link to point to the Albanian Wiki. Thanks Vanjagenije KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rrjedha had attempted to rename their account by moving their user and talk pages to the name Workflow. I moved them back, and pointed him to WP:CHU/S if he prefers a different name. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: He now copied his user page to User:Flows1. That is again an already taken username. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rrjedha is indefinitely blocked on the Albanian Wikipedia for a series of offences including sockpuppetry. (Use the Google translator to read his block log). I would favor us issuing an indefinite block here, with the potential for review at such time as his block on the Albanian Wikipedia is lifted. It seems that:

1. He can't edit properly in any language,
2. His ability in English is too limited for him to be effective here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Having taken a look, it seems self-evident to me that Rrjedha simply lacks the competence in the English language necessary to be a useful contributor: [64][65] We can and do make allowances for contributors who's first language isn't English, but I think we need to draw the line when contributions are simply unintelligible, and when communication with the contributor is next to impossible. I would support an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban – if he's already blocked at the Albanian wikipedia, that's proof right there that he's a problem. Question – should this be upped to a "global ban", instead?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

All we can do here is an indef CIR block, but they may be headed for a global block. Miniapolis 21:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support global block. I'm not a big fan of global blocks, but if s/he was already indeffed from his/her own language's Wikipedia before s/he even came here, a global block really might be the only option. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, asking them nicely to stop editing on en: All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
  

• Now blocking indef, per WP:CIR. This thread has been open for two days and Rrjedha has not taken the time to respond. Any admin who is confident that Rrjedha will follow Wikipedia policy in the future may lift or modify this block. Will leave the thread open for consideration of a ban, since I don't want to act on that one way or the other. If Rrjedha gets his indef on the Albanian Wikipedia lifted, it might be time to consider a review here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Fred S. Keller.jpg

An editor took a file, messed with it in photoshop with a filter and claimed it to be "public domain". Nice click of the "Random Article" page lead me to Fred S. Keller with File:Fred S. Keller.jpg. Not sure if someone can pull back the old right one and fix it. I'm not an admin, but such an act is basically image vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a valid version of this image in the history. I've deleted the current file under CSD:F9. Nakon 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There are unedited versions of the file on a number of other sites, but I didn't see any licensing information. There may be a case for using the (un-edited) image under fair use, WP:NFCI permits images of deceased individuals where "obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" though I have no idea how likely it would be to find a free image of the subject in this particular case. Monty₈₄₅ 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering. I had seen an earlier image in the history, but that is a long since deleted image. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Moves and page creations by Tobias Conradi socks

The long time banned user has unique ideas of article naming and moves per that. There's a lot of them done over the past three months that need to be checked to see if they should be moved back and also to see if any of the new page creations meet G5 criteria. The newly identified socks are (listed in order of effort required):

• Eldizzino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimurKirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FreightXPress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The relevant SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Any help in cleaning out the moves that go against WP:NAME and tagging/deleting new creations under G5 would be great. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We used to have a tool that could nail his socks a lot faster, see [66], but it doesn't seem to be functional. Any idea if we can resurrect that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That would indeed be very helpful; given his interest of moving geography articles across the globe, many wikiprojects have to spend time cleaning up the mess. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess from the TimurKirov sock, and I'll do all the article edits for Eldizzino (if there isn't an equivalent for mass-rollback for page moves we seriously need to make one). Someone else is going to have to look at the template and category mess, as I'm not as familiar with that. Also, forgot to ping @JaGa: as the creator of the aforementioned tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think many of the template issues have been addressed already, at least the ones I looked through on Eldizzino. I've done a bit of the moves of articles, but this perhaps explains some of the article moves pertaining to Argentina, but I believe as usual they've been carried haphazardly causing a lot of issues on incoming links, and I've struggled to make sense of it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

At least for now I'll take care of the ones from July, and if no one has gotten around to it I'll work through Eldizzino's from June backwards. Seriously, what the hell is with this guy? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've done some more and I also left a note at WT:CfD to see if a bot run could be done on the categories where needed. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I recently asked Sigma about just such a "move stats" tool, and he said it was not a priority of his. But something like that would be very useful indeed. Pinging @Cyberpower678, MusikAnimal, and Nakon: to see if they can add anything here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Do we know which editor named "Jason" was behind that tool? Are they still active on Wikipedia? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Nevermind! I just figured out that the "Jason" of interest is JaGa!! So, JaGa – any chance your move stats tool can be resurrected on WMFLabs Tools?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you're looking for something like this to be moved to xTools it is unlikely to happen unless we are given the source code. However, one of us might be up for doing a little development. Is there something we need that the move log can't provide? Was this tool built specifically for this sock? What does it do? — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It tracks the number of page moves from accounts and sorts them by how old the accounts are. JaGa made it in Seltember 2010 to deal with Tobias Conradi socks, and it was very effective; we nailed several of them (Bogdan Nagachop being one, search ANI with that username and you'll find him carping about the tool for exactly that reason) because they lit up his tool like Diwali, and his MO in that regard hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that discussion is here. Well, there's apparently a new sock in town per the latest SPI report. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with more familiarity with this case know if an edit filter could help here? Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There's mass moves of multiple articles, categories and templates and the subject focus includes geography and scripts. The thing is that the editors interested in the varied permutations of the subject and type of page are very different, so the connection is made after about a thousand pages have been affected. A look at the move log of Eldizzino can help. The one that I'm familiar with is Bogdan Nagachop. These two are probably representative of the behavior IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am afraid an edit filter would not help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Lord, how many years have we spent undoing the messes of Tobias Conradi? If I get a free moment (some time in August, I've got finals staring me down right now) I'll see if I can resurrect Move Watch. --JaGa^talk 19:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@JaGa:I'm active on WMF Labs Tools and am up for doing a bit of development, if you want a hand or someone to take it over. GoldenRing (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm working my way from May forwards, I have no idea what the hell he was trying to accomplish but it's led to complete and total FUBAR. Thankfully I can move things over redirects, or this would be impossible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is actually the problem with this user: It is not clear what the hell he was trying to achieve. Some edits may be good, some may go explicitly against consensus, some are completely unclear, but there is no system whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncle G's comment in this discussion in 2010 was fairly demonstrative. Now I'm through the first 500 and all of the ones in July, and I know someone's done June 24; any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's development: In addition to a couple of IPs he's been using here at WP:NCGN, he's been busy at Wikidata, see this.—SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. With some help I think I finally got everything from the Eldizzino account that wasn't a category move, I'll let people who know categories handle that. Even now it doesn't cease to amaze me how fucking pointless most of these moves were and how much disruption they caused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put together the beginnings of a tool similar to how Move Watch is described above. Please have a look and let me know how it could be more useful. I'm sure there's lots of tidying up to be done. Perhaps not surprisingly, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights currently appears as an outlier... GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note it currently craps out looking at much more than the last 1000 page moves, apparently because there's a user who has no recorded registration date (?!). The wife is giving me a look like she's wondering what the hell I'm still doing up, so I'll sort it out in the morning. GoldenRing (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It'd be worth someone having a look at User:OrganicEarth and User:Dakarias. There's no evidence otherwise, but they're new accounts and have... well, they've certainly hit the ground running with their page moves (and editing). I'll notify them of this discussion shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't even know why many edits would be considered being a sock. As I've mentioned in my Userpage, I used to edit with IPs- and I've kept editing just the way I used to after making an account. The only page moves I do are misnamed articles, so I don't think that's suspicious, either. Dakar (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard offer for User:Piandme

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

---

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? "I strongly believe that in life individuals should be given the chance to prove that they will act in a decent and proper way. This is something I did not do in the past, and is something I deeply regret. If I was given another chance I feel I would be able to show that those past misdemeanour's are not a true reflection of my character, and were instead the result of my foolishness. Since my block was implemented I have had the chance to review my actions, and I completely see that they were completely out of line. I want to be given the opportunity to help the encyclopaedia, and not make other editor's lives more difficult, because that was what I was doing. All editors are really working for the good of the site, and not themselves. I was selfish before, not selfless, but I genuinely feel that this enforced break has informed me of this view."

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? "When I edited before, I mainly edited Game of Thrones pages, but I don't really see much point in doing that any more. Although I still watch the show, there are many, many editors who edit those pages, with most of them doing an excellent job. I think my time might be better utilised on pages that fewer editors have the appropriate knowledge of. At the moment these pages probably have lower quality levels than most of the Game of Thrones pages, and therefore my time is probably better spent on them."

Therefore, I will mainly focus on articles relating to Contract Bridge. Many of these pages are in need of a severe clean up, and a number have several factual errors. I hope to improve the quality of these. I may also do some work on TV articles, which are in need of improvements. I basically want to focus on articles that are in desperate need for improvements. Many of the Game of Thrones pages are not in need of this, and any improvements that do need to be made are above my level of knowledge at the moment"

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. "The main reason there is a block in place is because of my sheer stupidity and foolishness. I chose not to listen to many helpful editors suggestions, and chose to do my own thing. I felt these editors were bossing me around, but in reality they were just trying to help.

My main 'crimes' were: SockPuppetry: When I had a block for failing to follow the policy on 3RR I created a Sockpuppet. this was something I continued to do every time I got a block or to to try to support the master account. This is something I do realise was wrong, but at the time I just wanted to edit. I want to follow the rules now, so this will not happen again. Vandalism: I kept using an inappropriate source- a fansite for sourcing. I failed to listen to helpful editors informing me this was wrong, but I kept doing it because the website was one I already visited and it was easy to get the links. I will not do this again."

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? "I'm sorry. I really ask for just one chance, because I know that I won't blow it. One chance, and that should be it ( at least for a very long time). I want to show you that the past was not a true reflection of my character.

The block has given me time to reflect on what I did wrong, an I',mm actually grateful I received it in some ways. It has also given me the opportunity to really get to grips with the site's policies, and I feel in a much better place to edit nowadays. Let me show you these are not just words. Please.

Thank You." Unblock appeal by Piandme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), transcribed with permission from UTRS#14038 by Yunshui for consideration under the standard offer. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I Support unblocking. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yunshui: Does your support imply that a CU check confirmed there has not been socking more recent than January 2015? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've not bothered with a CU - the last confirmed sock I can find is now stale, so there would be nothing to run checkuser against. I had a (fairly cursory, granted) look over the recent history of a few GoT articles (Piandme's main area for sockpuppetry) and didn't see anything that stood out as obviously suspicious, so I'm not aware that there's any evidence of malfeasance since late January. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Has Piandme disclosed all socks? Otherwise how would you know if you have all the confirmed socks? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to me, but I don't set much store by self-disclosure anyway; if we don't find a sock ourselves and they decide not to disclose it, how are we to know? Whilst self-disclosure is both polite and sometimes helpful, it's too easily gamed to be of use in deciding whether recent sockpuppetry has taken place. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

However, after reviewing some of the editing involved more thoroughly, I'm no longer inclined to throw my support behind this appeal; colour me neutral (beige, maybe?) with regards to the above request. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm yet undecided, but the fact that when the user was blocked they replied with, literally, "Fuck you, I'll just sock" weighs heavily in my balance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was among the admins who had to deal with this person's unrelenting repeat socking comprising dozens of throwaway accounts. Statements like this one or this one reflect a degree of malice that I think is incompatible with productive contributions to a collaborative project. The appeal's wishy-washy generalities, which does not address the aggressive and confrontational nature of Piandme's conduct, and comes only a few months after the sockpuppetry, makes me doubt that a profound change in character has occurred in the interim.  Sandstein  17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because the socking is too recent; I know it's been six months (the standard-offer minimum), but combined with their stated attitude I don't think it's time. Miniapolis 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the editor first discloses and confirms all socks that were used or not used. We only kept finding some because the editor slipped up and disclosed it and that's not a good start going forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. You had me at contract bridge. Our articles around that topic could use some improvement. Re-blocks are cheap. HiDrNick! 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Based on the diffs supplied by Sandstein, there is more to the user's previous behavior in adding sourcing to fan sites than simple "vandalism". It seems clear it was a deliberate attempt to antagonise other users, not as Piandme says, simply an easy source to go to. As such, I don't believe what is written above shows a clear understanding of why what he was doing was wrong. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  Then ask for clarification on your concerns. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
  

• Strong oppose The history of sock puppetry is disturbing, the nature of the sock puppetry is over the line. This user has demonstrated both hostility and bad faith, I think it would be insulting to those he has been abusive towards to allow them back. Asking for "one chance" after being given multiple chances and engaging in block evasion is disingenuous. The user lists sock puppetry and vandalism as their offences but I see no contrition for the general nastiness heaped on other users who disagree. Chillum 14:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, this was not a little bit of sock puppetry. The was extensive sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Piandme/Archive. Chillum 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

MoveStats tool

I've mentioned it above, but I'll point it out here in case it's got lost: I've created a MoveStats tool at [67]. This originally came up in the context of identifying socks of Tobias Conradi - the goal is to easily identify editors who make lots of page moves very early in their careers. Please leave ideas, feedback and suggestions at User:GoldenRing/MoveStats. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI page for those interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Publicising discussions query

Is labelled as an essay - but appears to have been originally a proposal for a guideline. It appears, in part, to contradict WP:CANVASS in stating "For more advice and common mistakes to avoid, such as inappropriate posting to individual user talk pages, see Wikipedia:Canvassing" which might be misinterpreted as stating that the CANVASS behavioural guideline is only applicable to notices sent to individuals. Ought this be sent to MfD (though I do not think it should be deleted) or ought it be simply be marked as "failed proposal" or "historical" so that people will not rely on it for any validity in itself? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I believe it is clear the clause starting with "such as" is just an example of one item covered. Perhaps you can use the essay's talk page to propose an alternate wording? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Turning over control of a userright to administrators - comments requested

Hello. I have participated in in-person Wikipedia outreach for years. Among types of outreach is outreach to universities, which since 2011 has been called the Wikipedia education program.

Admins may be aware that they have had the technical ability to assign Wikipedia education program userrights to any individual, but historically, the granting of these rights has been socially restricted to users with the "course coordinator" userright. I am a course coordinator. In the earlier days of this program there was a collaborative relationship between paid staff at the Wikimedia Foundation or Wiki Education Foundation and the Wikipedia community to partner in assigning these userrights to Wikipedians and non-Wikipedian instructors and staff at universities to use these rights. This partnership has lessened, as as of this month, on English Wikipedia it no longer exists because no staff person at the WMF or Wiki Ed wishes to sustain it.

It is my opinion that as a result of this, it is not possible for the volunteers currently participating in the Wikipedia Education Program to govern the use of these userrights. There might be about ~10 Wikipedia volunteers who know how these rights work, and yet they can be used in some interesting ways that the broader community might wish to learn. The chief right granted is that users of this right can load instances of the mw:Extension:Education Program into English Wikipedia, and thereby track the Wikipedia participation of a group of editors (so as to watch a class of students, or perhaps any group of Wikipedians).

As administrators have always had the technical right to grant these tools, and as no one in particular is currently governing the social oversight of these tools, I am proposing that all Wikipedia administrators feel free to use or grant these tools at their discretion. In my opinion, nothing would go wrong with the userrights being shared with little oversight, except that there is little documentation or guidance available for using them and people mostly have to learn the tools on their own.

I am seeking comment at the Education Noticeboard to establish whether Wikipedia administrators ought to be encouraged to manage the use of these tools, in contrast to the current practice in which only "course coordinators" oversee the use of these tools. Please comment at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi, I was banned from editing according to January consensus. I read about the Standard Offer, since six months have been passed I would like to appeal my ban to be revoked. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• What do you plan to do to address the concerns raised at the topic ban discussion? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I second Hammersoft's question. I notice you haven't said anything about why you were banned. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Royroydeb. There was a consensus back in January that RRD was mass creating sub standard, poorly sourced BLP articles on non notable football players. Blackmane (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• To echo the above, removing a topic ban is not automatic or a right, it is simply possible after a given period of time upon verification that the problems that caused the ban will not continue. You pretty much need to explain what you did wrong and what you will do right in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: You started this thread, but are not responding to queries in the thread. Yet, you are continuing to edit other areas. If you have any desire to have the topic ban lifted, you need to respond to the above queries. As is, you leave the community no choice but to sustain the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The nasty suspicious bastard in me notes that we just blocked a "brand new editor" who created a slew of articles on non-notable footballers... Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I created poorly sourced and BLPs in haste with low content. If my ban is revoked, then I will be able to create more BLPs to contribute to DYK. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

At your last appeal, in June, the closing admin suggested waiting at least another 6 months before appealing again. What's changed since then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Struway2 I have not created mess since then! And what he meant by six months is that six months from the time of the ban. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That certainly isn't how I interpreted the words "As closing editor, I suggest waiting at least that long before trying again. Continue to work towards improvement, and come back again in 6 months with more good edits."

You say you want to create BLPs to contribute to DYK. I had a look at your current nomination at DYK, an expansion of the one-line stub Cristian Bustos. Your suggested hook fact was inaccurate and, not surprisingly, it wasn't verified in the English-language source you cited (I was disappointed that someone had passed it as good to go, but that's by the by). Given that your ban followed in large part from your sloppy attitude towards sourcing and your refusal to accept that there was a problem, I'm afraid I can't see what's changed. Others may disagree. Struway2 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kokuchūkai

• Kokuchūkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could an admin please have look on latest edits on Kokuchūkai and a possible IBAN-Violation between me and the user by whom latest edits on named article were made? There was only a BOT active in between. Cheers. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, please have a look at the edits. Also maybe block Catflap08 for violating our IBAN multiple times, including here. All of Catflap08's edits to that article were IBAN-violating manual reverts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Either block both of them or neither and close this thread. Catflap had previously made manual reverts of Hijiri's edits, clearly violating the IBAN set in place, but nothing happened even after it was reported. If the recent edits by Hijiri qualify as a violation, then both editors should be blocked. We shouldn't be cherry picking what counts as a violation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I don't mind taking a block if Catflap08 gets a block as well, but the problem with both your proposed solutions is that they create a false equivalence (the default state should be the one before any IBAN-violating reverts took place, i.e. the version I restored). They tell Catflap08 that he can continue rolling back the article to his preferred version just because he was the first one to revert after the IBAN. It also ignores Catflap08's showing up suddenly in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be TBANned, apparently just because he doesn't like me (he clearly hadn't read any of the relevant discussion -- he saw "Hijiri88 topic-ban" in the thread title, clicked "edit" and expressed his support). And your solutions also don't address the fact that Catflap08 insinuated that you and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames -- horribly offensive personal attacks like this would merit a block whether or not there was already an IBAN in place. His wiki-stalking, personal attacks and dubious aspersions about my motives have become worse since the IBAN's imposition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As two old acquaintances seem to have teamed up yet gain I’d rather say no more until an admin may view the WHOLE case. Having said that I find it highly irritating that latest edits aim at withholding references and further reading notes. To me it looks as if some edits are geared at withholding sources from the reader.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first: It's rich being accused of WP:TAGTEAM by the same person who engaged in email contact with a sympathetic party in order to allow him to violate the IBAN via proxy. (Notice how Catflap08 only started directly reverting my edits after John Carter stopped editing?)

Second: Yes, the whole story can be read here: Catflap08 violated the IBAN a bunch of times by (a) joining in a talk page discussion in which I was a key participant, (b) reverting my edits, (c) joining in an ANI discussion about an unrelated topic and requesting that I be TBANned, and (d) calling me and Sturmgewehr88 Nazis because we happen to have been born in 1988. Unanimous consensus was that Catflap08 had violated the IBAN: User:Shii, User:Sturmgewehr88, two other users who I think don't want me pinging them anymore (Snow Rise and AlbinoFerret) and I supported dissolving the IBAN; Catflap08 was neutral; User:SPACKlick and User:Blackmane opposed dissolving the IBAN instead said it should be enforced by blocking Catflap08. Now Catflap08 is trying to turn this on its head by insinuating that I have violated the IBAN (by doing a weaker version of exactly what he did earlier and didn't get blocked for). Part of the initial reason for the IBAN was that Catflap08 and I have trouble using talk pages to discuss with each other, especially when it comes to one of us adding random inline citations that have nothing to do with article content and apparently not understanding why these citations need to be removed. Said user has a habit of getting extremely defensive, accusing users who disagree with him of having a religious bias, even when said disputes are routine WP:V issues. Said user has encountered the same problem with countless other users. The above accusation about "hiding sources" indicates that nothing has changed.

Could someone PLEASE do something about this this this time? I don't know why, if Catflap08 wanted outside input, he would post here rather than ANI: if this thread gets archived yet again with no result I'm considering opening an ANI thread.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the edit histories since last time, I'd still want to see a boomerang hit Catflap08 on this one. IBans need to be enforced or we need to disband them all. SPACKlick (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I second this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

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

1. Kww (talk · contribs)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship

2. Kww (talk · contribs)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

3. The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Corrected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

@Liz: #2 is incorrect. That remedy would been only been applicable if desysopping proposal failed, but it passed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Armbrust. This is now the exact text of the decision. I apologize for any confusion that resulted from my mistake. I appreciate your keen eye. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JIK1975

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 all,

I've recently come across JIK1975, who persists in "fixing" links to redirects on various pages (see contributions). A block seemed a bit ham-handed to me. However, despite numerous warnings against doing so, the user continues fixing them. On July 19, he posted this to his user page: "OK, I won't fix those redirects anymore." His contributions prove that to be not true. In truth though, what this user is doing is silly. While our editing guideline on redirects specifically discourages this type of editing, again I say, my thinking is a block is a bit heavy. I have no idea if the community believes that though. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose a block because frankly, I think the fact that WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline is kind of odd (but that's a discussion for another night). It is a little odd, though, that JIK1975 made that statement on his user page rather than on his talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JIK1975 has now removed that statement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Erpert: NOTBROKEN is not for serious problems, grammatical errors and "adequate but not ideal" sourcing. Those of course can and should be fixed. It is for things where "fixing" the "problems" actually introduces problems where none were there in the first place. Unpiping links is messy because (to give just one example) it makes it difficult to establish how many Wikipedia articles that link to X article use a certain form of its name, which I have seen muck up RMs in the past (I've even seen people unpipe redirect links and then other people change the text of the other articles to match the current title of the linked article). It's a slippery slope.

And then there's the fact that it appears roughly 2,496 of JIK1975's last 2,500 edits (over one month) have been unpiping redirects -- what is he trying to do? I agree a block is excessive, until it's been demonstrated that he has been told that what he is doing is not good and been warned.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I too am not sure if a block it really needed here, but there have been quite a few attempts made to explain WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE to JIK1975 on their user talk page. There was also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893#User: JIK1975 and an attempt by IJBall to explain things at User talk:IJBall#Problems with my edits. I think it's fair to assume that JIK1975 has seen those posts based upon the statement they added (and subsequently removed) from their user page, so I'm not sure why they are continuing on as before. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: At this point, I now support a block. I've tried talk with this user; others have tried talking to this user. But they are non-responsive, or grudgingly agree to change behaviors, and then go right back to these endless WP:NOTBROKEN edits. At this point, I think this editor's actions qualify as "disruptive", considering how many people have objected to them. Between the disruptiveness, the general unwillingness to communicate, and the ignoring of multiple warnings about this, a block is now in order. That's my $0.02, for all their worth... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: pinging Ribbon Salminen, who is the person who originally brought this to ANI's (and my) attention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that his editing is disruptive, this is a non-issue. NOTBROKEN is a guideline. NOPIPE is part of the MOS. Ignoring either is not against policy. Ignoring guidelines is fine unless it causes disruption. What disruption is JIK1975 causing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that you can't get blocked or topic-banned for violating a guideline, but it is demonstrably false. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a guideline and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is an essay, but persistently violating either can and does result in the editor being blocked, topic-banned, or even permanently banned. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been shown above, a link to a REDIRECT is often useful. Replacing such links indiscriminately is more that disruptive, it's harmful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He has deleted his promise to stop[68] and has been busy "fixing" links that aren't broken even after being reported at AN. [69]. [70]. [71] [and hundreds more]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've come across JIK1975 editing disambiguation pages to change appropriate redirects (i.e., that mention the ambiguous term), changing them to piped links, which are generally inappropriate on dab pages. That these sorts of edits make up nearly all of his activity, this is disruptive. I support a short block, to increase if the pattern resumes and if there is no attempt to engage in discussion about these types of edits. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have issued an indef block for the following reasons:

• WP:NOTBROKEN is a widely accepted editing guideline and I can personally recall more than one user being blocked for habitually, pointedly ignoring it in the past so there is precedent here.
• This user has been spoken to about this multiple times, so they were well aware of the issue
• And yet, they have never edited their own talk page and have barely communicated at all with other users in all their time here. Communication is essential in a collaborative project
• Their only reaction to this current discussion was to retract their previous statement that they would stop doing it.
• Given all the above, a short block would most likely result in them taking a short time off and just starting up doing the exact same thing at a later date.
• Of course it could be a very short block if they simply file an unblock request that properly addresses these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at SPI

Hello, All! There is an extremely bad back-up at WP:SPI. I'm following a filing that was made on July 28, and thus far, crickets. There are new, untouched filings going back as far as July 16 that need attention. The checkusers have been in, but there are filings where the checker has been done, but no final decision made going back to June 28. Meanwhile, the guy we filed against, a painfully obvious WP:DUCK sock puppet goes on socking and edit warring. Something needs to be done. --Drmargi (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Harrell Geron

Harrell Geron (talk · contribs) seems to be on Wikipedia for one reason only: to publicise their pet mathematical theory, which they name the "Easy and True Solution". It's been removed several times as a WP:NOR violation by myself and others. When it does get removed, Harrell Geron doesn't revert, but posts a slightly different version, usually a few days later. When not blocked, they put it on Darcy friction factor formulae (as here); when blocked, they put it on their user talk page (as here). They never engage in discussion, nor do they use that talk page to request unblock. Should the current block be increased to revoke talk page access? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OTRS dudes (e.g. @FreeRangeFrog:), search "Harrell Geron". This guy needs indefinitely blocking. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I extended the block to indefinite, removed talk page access and left a final explanation in the talk page, although I doubt it will do any good. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You can probably tell that I tried hard to explain, but this is someone who is in that special place where the word "no" has no meaning. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks from me also. Earlier today, I Googled "Harrell Geron" and the first hit was a Facebook page where it didn't take much scrolling to find the "Easy and True Solution". I guess it's the same Harrell Geron, but it's well outside our remit, so I'll let Facebook worry about it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

AE requests require uninvolved closure

There are two requests at WP:AE that have been stalled for some time and need uninvolved closure: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Request concerning Tillman and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Request concerning Peter Gulutzan Guy (Help!) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Login problems

Can someone please check my account? I can login with no problems here at Wikipedia, but at the other Wikimedia projects it gives me an error. I could log in at Commons earlier and moved to Commons a file without problems, but now it doesn't recognize automatically my account and when I try to log in it outputs this message:

Login error
Incorrect password or confirmation code entered. Please try again.

I tried Wiktionary and it's the same thing. Just at Wikipedia (home wiki) I can log in sucessfully.

Edit: Same thing on my tablet (different SO).

Regards, Friendly Seven (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is generally a question that would be asked at the help desk, but at any rate, from what you're saying, the problem might have to do with the settings on the other computers you're using. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is how is it possible to have log in problems in the same computer that successfully logs in at Wikipedia, but it doesn't log in on the other wiki projects, which I was able to successfully log in earlier. I cleared browser settings to use the browser from the scratch, but it happens the same thing. I think this isn't a client-side problem but a server-side issue, therefor contacting who has "root" access. Maybe my question should be at Meta-Wiki, but I can't log in there. So cookies and cache is out of the question, as they were cleared, and the only thing left on client-side is DNS server and internet connection, but if I'm able to log in at Wikipedia, I don't think those aren't the problems. I also think that a Google Nexus table with stock rom and no firewall/antivirus would interfere with it, as tried using Firefox on Android while I was writing this comment (to be more accurate) and it had the same result. Memo: I cleared browser cache and cookies, cleared browser settings as start from the scratch, I tried a different browser and a different device, I tried reset the password (Commons recognized my account as it sent me the email with reset option, but although Commons said the reset was sucessfully, the change didn't tool place, but only at Wikipedia) and Wikipedia can recognize my password but not the other wiki sites, also changed DNS server but that's not the problem as I can connect to Wikipedia and Commons successfully. Therefor thinking it's at server-side the problem, the reason for me to start this section/threat. Unfortunatelly, it seems I have bumped into people that aren't willing to help me. I wonder if WMF has support to their uers. Regards, Friendly Seven (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I had to downgrade my password to ASCII like characters (which I think it's a limitation), else it would give that error. Now I can log in without problems at other projects. Maybe I will fill a bug report in the future due to that limitation. For now, everything is good and operational. Cheers, Friendly Seven (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Friendly Seven: As Erpert notes, this is not a WP:AN problem (because Wikipedia admins can't do anything about it), but something for WP:HELP, to which I could also suggest WP:VPT. Anyway, I occasionally log in when using computers that are not my own, for example in public libraries. I have found that on several of these, I'm not being shown as logged in anywhere other than en.wp. On some of them I can't even get to Commons so I don't know if I'm logged in there or not (probably not). It's because of browser, firewall or network configuration. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about Rose, but that wasn't the case. It was the conflict of recognition of (or recognizing wrongly) the non-ASCII characters, such as á, ö, ç and so on, which may be misread by the server and hashed differently. Then when you try to log in, it may not recognize the password you have set. Characters a to z, A to Z and 0 to 9 are the basic option for ASCII settings. As I could log in at Wikipedia sucessfully but not as other projects, I may assume that Single User Login (SUL or Unified login) have a glitch about sending account information to other projects besides home wiki, hence why I was talking about filling a bug report because it's not the desired behaviour, as you experienced. I tried the AN to obtain tech support with someone with system rights, which I though it was the best way. If not, please indicate where to get that specific help (not general help) to get proper help. BTW, I'm a computer engineering student on hiatus. Cheers, Friendly Seven (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The admins on Wikipedia do not have any more system access than a regular user - adminship does confer extra rights, such as deleting pages and blocking users, but that's pretty much all done by marking checkboxes and clicking OK. Admins can't get at the login/password handling routines, they're in the hands of the developers. Some devs do hang around WP:VPT where technical advice is normally available from both devs and muggles; if VPT can't help, they might direct you to phab: (see WP:PHAB). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Friendly Seven: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Strange global login behavior and bugs with Gecko based browsers and phab:T108196. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Move request - close review: WP:Don't feed the divas → WP:Don't be high maintenance

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

---

I am requesting a close review of JzG (talk · contribs)'s closing of this move request at WP:Don't feed the divas (WP:DIVA) and his subsequent move of the page to WP:Don't be high maintenance. I challenged JzG's close on his talk page here and was left with the impression that he made a SUPERVOTE. This seems to be an improper close per WP:RMCI, so I am requesting a review by the community. - MrX 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: Shouldn't this be taken to move review? Kharkiv07 (T) 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I will move it there.- MrX 17:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Correct a redirect

Can someone redirect User:Ruth-2013~enwiki to the talkpage of the new account name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

Got it. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for revdeletion

Request was taken care of by Redrose. Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Could someone revdelete this edit summary as it is a (very vulgar and gratuitous) personal attack against me? (I am not sure if I have to notify the author of the attack for this request). Thanks in advance. --Cavarrone 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And, as English is not my first language, I am not sure about this one. If it sounds offensive, please delete it as well. Cavarrone 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Independent of the revdel, I made a suggestion at the pertaining AfD, and I urge both users to follow it. Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I read it and I agree, no problem. Just cleanup the insults in the edit summaries if possible. Cavarrone 18:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I RD2'd the first, left the second alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is not grossly insulting, I'm fine with it (as I mentioned above, I was/am not sure about its sense). Thank you. --Cavarrone 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a pun on Styx (band)'s song Come Sail Away. The verb "to flail" has a variety of usages, so that the intended meaning of the edit summary is not easy to ascertain. The user who wrote it probably knows, but I suggest he keeps it to himself. And now we should move on. Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Template talk:Series overview

Can I get a neutral admin to close the move request on Template talk:Series overview? The discussion was non-admin closed, but reopened and some editors briefly warred over the name, so I've move protected the template until I can get full reassurance that there's a consensus. Participants in the discussion are being blunt, so more eyes on it would be welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I for one would like more time to consider a choice in this discussion. IIRC, move requests may be closed after seven days if there is a consensus; however, there does not appear to be a consensus yet, and it is quite possible that early closure would not give the request a fair exposure. Please allow more time. – Paine  09:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

From the Department of Redundancy Redundancy

• WP:ANI#Before this gets archived...
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey

Thanks much! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Done, Tryptofish. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

World War II

Why doesn't Index of World War II articles (A) get deleted as duplicate article of Category:World War II? Iceblock (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates page. Basically, these different kinds of pages have different functions; in most cases, each page can do things the others can't, so we never speedy-delete them as duplicates and rarely delete them on partly-duplicate-of-other-page grounds. Here, for example, someone could annotate the raw list with explanations of who or what the various entries are. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Iceblock (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Handy Hint...

Just realised today that going through speedy deletions is quite easy on a smartphone...unlike just about all other editing.....so clearing backlongs while on the bus is possible etc.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete these two subpages

They're my subpages. I don't use them anymore, so please delete them:

1. User:Zyma/Archive
2. User:Zyma/Public Watchlist

Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can tag pages in your own userspace for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#U1. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Socking user getting more difficult to manage

We at WP:MED have been dealing with a sock of User:Nuklear for years. They continue to copy and paste material regarding chemical synthesis into Wikipedia and we continue to delete it and block their IPs for 72 hours. They than move onto the next IPs.

The concern is in this group of edits where they have go through 4 IPs in a shorter period of time.[72] Not sure if their is a mechanism to address this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this range 80.42.0.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses) is a very busy one, and there's edits from multiple people unrelated to your problematic user. Page protection of some of their favourite targets might be a better choice. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:AF. DMacks (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to ban 70.208.147.201

I would like to make a recommendation to ban User:70.208.147.201 because all of his edits are pornographic. He has also used other ip addresses such as User:2600:1003:B116:8423:8043:7DCE:2983:6383 and User:2600:1003:B116:8423:E484:6A05:A113:636F. He could easily manipulate other IP addresses to do the same thing. Children use this website, so this conduct in my opinion should not be tolerated by any mean. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

IPs are not banned. The users behind them may be, but as a general rule the IPs themselves cannot be subject to a ban. In any case, it's blocked for 31h by Shirik (talk · contribs). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My proposed ban is for whoever is using the IP address to post the pornography. 2602:306:3357:BA0:F988:206B:94E7:4AF4 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

This is a link to discussion regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement for the last discussion said "I recommend Antidiskriminator try again in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place beyond "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me"." - Can you demonstrate an understanding of why the ban was placed? This request, again, only states that you were topic banned. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. I explained that in my last appeal, but little further in the text. Here it is: "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me....The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). " Although most of the votes for the ban come from editors that I have been in conflict with, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

I appreciate that Antid is entitled to choose to appeal here as an alternative to AE, but the behaviour he was banned for was done under AE/ARBMAC. As someone who has had many extremely frustrating interactions with Antid over a couple of years, mostly on talk pages, but also in article creation, titling and similar issues, I have little confidence that Antid will have learnt his lesson, as the last time a topic ban was proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted in 2012 by EdJohnston, Antid went straight back to the same behaviour (which is why this ban imposed by Drmies is in place now). His initial approach above avoided even describing the topic ban or why it was imposed. If I was appealing, I would consider it necessary to demonstrate that I completely understood why I had been topic-banned, before asking for the ban to be lifted. He chose not to do that, and it had to be drawn out of him. It would also ensure admins could quickly understand what he thought it was imposed for. He also doesn't appear to accept that those that supported the ban and opposed its lifting last time had a case. He appears to think it is some sort of personal vendetta against him.

Since his last appeal, he may well have been productive in the Ottoman Empire period of Serbian history (pre-1900), but any productivity and acceptable wikibehaviour in that time period does not imply that he can achieve that in later time periods, which are far more contested, and I caution admins that if this ban is lifted, they need to be willing to consider a more stringent or even indefinite topic ban if he returns to his previous behaviour. I also think that Antid should be required to provide "behaviour references" from editors working in the area he is apparently productively editing in, including ones he has had disagreements with.

In the interests of fairness, and to give him some benefit of the doubt (something which I have had in short supply with him for several years due to his behaviour), I would be willing to support a small extension of the time period from 1900 to 1913 so that he can edit in the topic area period including the pre-World War I Balkan Wars. As far as his interest in the Ottoman Empire is concerned, this gives him everything except the period 1914-1918. I may live to regret this, but how about a modification of the topic ban to read "a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1914-current' (broadly construed)". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A probation period might be useful. I hope you guys are willing to act if he stays true to form, because you don't deal with him on a daily basis when he is free to roam the Balkans at will. Easy to AGF and agree to lift, but sometimes, when it comes to taking action against a recidivist who re-offends, all we can hear is crickets... So I'll ping you all if (when) he does. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And a point on the much- loved ROPE essay. Under "When not to use" it says "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch" and *Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom"... So, not so much. I'm out. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR is unlikely to be of much use. Most of Antid's most egregious behaviour was on talk pages rather than articles. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless Antid addresses the concerns expressed by myself and others, showing he truly understands what he was doing wrong before and how he will avoid doing it in the future, I am moving to Oppose. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion which resulted in Antid being banned from the Pavle Djurisic article is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator, so no-one here can argue they didn't know his history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions on lifting the ban

• I am comfortable with lifting the restriction on the basis that if the problem recurs, we can always re-impose it. It might be an idea to have a "probation" period during which any recidivism can go straight back to a restriction without the need for further debate. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting of restriction per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Two guys in a row...that's suspicious. Hmm. I personally have no real objection and am a firm believer in rope, though that has a somewhat negative figurative value. I'm somewhat biased, of course, since I think "Antidiskriminator" has a pretty cool (if kocky) user name. Dr. "Not A Guy" mies (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that ROPE essay is a certified genius. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

& a tad Vainglorious to boot. ;) --64.85.217.37 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This request is pretty unconvincing. When asked to explain what led to the topic ban Antidiskriminator simply quotes themselves, and then blames being banned on "editors that I have been in conflict with": even if this is the case, to have got so many editors who are in good standing so seriously offside demonstrates that this wasn't some kind of vendetta, and implying that this was the case here as part of their request to have the topic ban lifted is a rather bad sign. Their "plan" to avoid the problems which led to the ban is also basically a motherhood statement which provides no details on how they will avoid the problems (for instance, by staying away from certain articles, adopting a voluntary 1RR restriction, making appropriate use of dispute resolution, looking for a mentor, etc). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I certainly think a probation period and the 1RR are necessary to promote good behaviour. These topics have been very stable for the past year, I don't want to be dragged into conflicts yet again. As to whether the ban should be lifted or not, I don't think it is my place to say. IJA (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Does Antidiskriminator understand why he/she was banned in the first place? Antidiskriminator hasn't given any examples as to why he/ she was blocked. Instead Antidiskriminator has stated that he/she was blocked because his/her edits were "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". Antidiskriminator has basically said that he/she was blocked because other users viewed his/her edits as being "disruptive" and has listed a few examples of disruptive behaviour. Antidiskriminator still hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. Whilst I support his/her right to appeal the ban, I'm not entirely convinced that Antidiskriminator understands why he/she was banned. I get the feeling that Antidiskriminator still believes that he/she was blocked because other editors were prejudice towards him/her (which is obviously not the case). I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator understands his/her wrong doing. I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator has learnt his/her lesson. Saying that other users viewed his/her edits as being disruptive, then listing a few examples of general disruptive behaviour is not sufficient. Perhaps Antidiskriminator could give us some examples of his/her wrong doing and explain why it was wrong? This way we can tell if the lesson has been learnt. IJA (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• I see little in the way of assertion, let alone evidence, of reform here. AD was banned from the topic area because he was wikilawyering, and he now promises to strictly adhere to policies. I seem to recall that that's sort of exactly what happened the last time - he used every method imaginable that stayed roughly within the realm of a cursory interpretation of the policies, while still pushing his POV and gnawing at our collective patience. Just for example, we need to hear exactly what he would now do at the article about that Serbian general, I forget the name, who got that Nazi decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD), where he was banned from the talk page earlier and where his actions had led to a huge amount of acrimony. Explanation of any other specific example would be good, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to comment other editors (ie their ethnicity) on wikipedia Joy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1. @Joy - The name of the General is Pavle Đurišić.
2. @AD - No one commented on ethnicity, Serb is the name of the ethnic group, Serbian people refers to people associated with Serbia regardless of ethnicity.
3. @AD - Don't avoid what is being said by intentionally going off top and changing the subject, that is the sort of tactic and behaviour which got you topic banned. IJA (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether Joy is right or wrong to raise Antid's ethnicity, Antid immediately goes into wikilawyering mode, but makes no response on how he would deal with the issues he no doubt still has regarding the Pavle Đurišić article, which is the one Joy is refe rring to. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning ethnicity or rather the nation is perfectly pertinent here, because the topic area of the ban is strictly nationally defined. And I've no idea whatsoever why it would be disallowed to say that this historical person is Serbian or that that there are modern-day Serbian people who think something other than the consensus about that. That was one of the flash points in the disputes that led to earlier bans and this ban. I see no point in anyone second-guessing me trying talk about it, it would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe AD is concerned that since he's not allowed to edit about the topic area generally, he's also not allowed to talk about it here? I'm pretty sure there's an exemption for that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. He's wikilawyering about you raising his ethnicity in this context. I agree it is relevant, but I don't think it is necessary. He has worked against the lifting of the ban through his reticence to explain the real reasons why he was banned and by failing to address what he would do to avoid a recurrence. No doubt the page on which he lists all the things he doesn't like about various articles still exists, along with the list of articles he has quarantined himself from after being called out for his disruptive behaviour and wikilawyering. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He actually went the extra mile at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors. If it needs to be said at this point, I implore the community not to lift the ban on this egregious abuser. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Joy, they did, and everyone is welcome to see the exchange there. They will also see that I said that I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage. I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on: you're suggesting "AD is a Serb so they got a Serbian POV". Listen, if you cannot make the point about a POV from the edits, if you have to go by way of ethnic hypothesis, then you should lose the argument. Talk about edits, not about the editor. Consider this a warning: hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

JFTR I explained further at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors now. Let's link the old discussion here too: Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've been invited to comment by Antidiskriminator, so here's my 2c. I found myself on the receiving end of inappropriate conduct from the user on numerous occasions, and we've had disagreements more than once to say the least - but even so: support lifting the ban. While he isn't quite grovelling outright, my impression is he's serious. Plain and simple. That, and I can't bring myself to condone Joy's draconic "Purges", the standard vitriol notwithstanding. If he's stupid enough to actually continue in the same vein then I say t-ban him for good. Move that be made clear in any lifting of the sanction. Best regards to all (yes, even you Joy :)). -- Director (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the ban was introduced at his request, I don't think its "flaming" to point out Joy may be abusing his admin cred and going too far, demanding bans left and right. In fact - mostly "left", usually for those at odds with a Croatian right-wing point of view. Whereas he will defend his own to the point of distaste... As he (imo) made clear even in this thread, he is far from free of local ethno-political bias. -- Director (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with Tomobe03 and 23 editor. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally sentient being, he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, more appropriate sanction.

Then again, you are right in that it would make everyone more comfortable if Antid does actually SAY he understands why he's been sanctioned, and that he WILL ACCEPT the community position when opposed. Antid? It doesn't look good at all, otherwise. -- Director (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Either I am abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no may. May is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, why don't you propose a topic ban? Its not like your accusations of my "flame-warring" are in any way unsubstantiated or inflammatory in and of themselves.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you may have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

But now, in the best traditions of flame-warring, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. At least with yourself. Bye. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus

The template for submitting an AE request is currently geared to accept only a single name, with that name becoming the title of the AE request. Though a title can always be changed, there has nonetheless arisen a custom of one-person-per-case at AE. This has several disadvantages:

• It may induce a "pillory effect", with the title encouraging onlookers to put in their two cents on the individual in question, regardless of whether the input is relevant to the specifics of the case.
• The subject of an AE request may be unfairly singled out from other editors involved, despite a general understanding that WP:BOOMERANG applies.
• In a recent case where several editors submitted boomerang evidence, the case was closed with the suggestion that a separate AE request be made for the boomerang. This is a problem because:
  • Those who submitted boomerang evidence are expected to be around to resubmit their evidence, assuming they somehow discovered that they need to do so.
  • The summary dismissal of evidence may emit a contemptuous vibe; editors may not bother resubmitting even if they are available.
  • With the decline in admin participation at AE, cases nowadays can drag on for weeks. Having boomerangs submitted separately only prolongs the process.
  • AE requests are sometimes discounted or weighted less if they appear retaliatory. Thus there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: submit boomerang evidence in the self-same case, and it gets dismissed as needing a separate case; submit it as a separate case, and it gets dismissed as retaliatory.
• Having situations be the focus of enforcement requests will help engender the understanding that multiple editors may deserve scrutiny. The title and focus of an AE request may still be a single person, but that should not be a requirement, or the default.
• Practically speaking, this proposal only amounts to modifying {{Sanction enforcement request}} and related templates.

Manul ~ talk 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this makes good sense. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. While this makes sense in many ways, from a practical standpoint I'm concerned that it could lead to more sprawling cases that are harder to evaluate. Cases already linger for weeks before finally being acted upon (or going stale). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The spinning off of multiple boomerang cases, as was recently done, looked disruptive to me, and almost surely resulted in more delay. I understand the point about sprawl, but spawning new yet closely related cases seems to be a worse instance of sprawl. Since admins should be following the related cases in order to understand the relationship between them, and since we don't want new admins to come in without that context, it seems better to have one case instead. A case can be organized with subsections containing diffs for each editor, and a redesigned template can set this up.

The lack admins participating at AE is an issue on its own, though there's little that can be done about it, of course. They recently had their salaries doubled, and still no effect! It's part of the general decline in activity across the board, really. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus

The template for submitting an AE request is currently geared to accept only a single name, with that name becoming the title of the AE request. Though a title can always be changed, there has nonetheless arisen a custom of one-person-per-case at AE. This has several disadvantages:

• It may induce a "pillory effect", with the title encouraging onlookers to put in their two cents on the individual in question, regardless of whether the input is relevant to the specifics of the case.
• The subject of an AE request may be unfairly singled out from other editors involved, despite a general understanding that WP:BOOMERANG applies.
• In a recent case where several editors submitted boomerang evidence, the case was closed with the suggestion that a separate AE request be made for the boomerang. This is a problem because:
  • Those who submitted boomerang evidence are expected to be around to resubmit their evidence, assuming they somehow discovered that they need to do so.
  • The summary dismissal of evidence may emit a contemptuous vibe; editors may not bother resubmitting even if they are available.
  • With the decline in admin participation at AE, cases nowadays can drag on for weeks. Having boomerangs submitted separately only prolongs the process.
  • AE requests are sometimes discounted or weighted less if they appear retaliatory. Thus there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: submit boomerang evidence in the self-same case, and it gets dismissed as needing a separate case; submit it as a separate case, and it gets dismissed as retaliatory.
• Having situations be the focus of enforcement requests will help engender the understanding that multiple editors may deserve scrutiny. The title and focus of an AE request may still be a single person, but that should not be a requirement, or the default.
• Practically speaking, this proposal only amounts to modifying {{Sanction enforcement request}} and related templates.

Manul ~ talk 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this makes good sense. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. While this makes sense in many ways, from a practical standpoint I'm concerned that it could lead to more sprawling cases that are harder to evaluate. Cases already linger for weeks before finally being acted upon (or going stale). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The spinning off of multiple boomerang cases, as was recently done, looked disruptive to me, and almost surely resulted in more delay. I understand the point about sprawl, but spawning new yet closely related cases seems to be a worse instance of sprawl. Since admins should be following the related cases in order to understand the relationship between them, and since we don't want new admins to come in without that context, it seems better to have one case instead. A case can be organized with subsections containing diffs for each editor, and a redesigned template can set this up.

The lack admins participating at AE is an issue on its own, though there's little that can be done about it, of course. They recently had their salaries doubled, and still no effect! It's part of the general decline in activity across the board, really. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

There is a need for administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I tried to contact multiple administrators on their talk pages but most of them never respond . I would like somebody to please respond to this message. Thank you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3C9D:FF61:8557:B43B (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin response) One incident of vandalism will almost never result in admin action. You reverted the vandalism, and warned the editor, that's about all that needs to be done at this point. If more incidents occur, report them to AIV, but one isolated incident is unlikely to get the IP blocked. BMK (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete closed vandalism reports at WP:AIV. I know that you thought that you were being helpful because of your comment that they take up space. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, in that deletion doesn't save space, because nothing is ever really deleted. Leave the closed vandalism reports to be archived by a bot. You meant well but were being unintentionally disruptive. If it hadn't been for your edit summary, your own edit would have been reported as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your comment was addressed to the IP and not to me, yes? BMK (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, was Beyond My Ken being bad again? Can I plz blck thm? Drmies (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be honored to be blocked by the good doctor whenever they find it needful. BMK (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to the IP. I don't have a current issue with BMK. The IP deleted closed vandalism reports thinking that they took up space. This was enthusiastic but uninformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The AIV reports are not archived by the helper bot, they're simply removed if the vandal is blocked. The declined reports have to be removed manually. I do this whenever I pop into AIV and it's backed up with declined reports.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. In that case, the IP was doing no harm and a small amount of good in removing the declined reports. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of script page

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

---

How do I delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iady391/monobook.js Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Deor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This thread is followup to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Delete a script page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Standard offer for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs) is a blocked user whose talk page and email access were revoked. Technophant has requested restoration of talk and email privileges, so I'm bringing his appeal in front of the community per the offer's usual terms. I have a statement from Technophant:

I thought I had a right to ban users (including admins) from my talk page with notice and undo their edits. I am requesting that my talkpage access be restored after being removed on 16 November 2014 by Kww. I was under the mistaken impression had a right to ban users (User:Brangifer, User:GregKaye, and User:PBS} from my talk page and undo their edits.Since I was using the Undo feature by refreshing the revision history I did not see PBS's warning that I was violating WP:REMOVED. I've had a lengthy discussion with User:Adjwilley and he set me straight about this and realize now that I was wrong in my actions.

Also, I apologize for abusing the email system. I have had previous disputes with Brangifer and an informal IBAN negotiated through private emails. My message was inappropriate and I regret sending it.

Please add comments and recommendations below. APerson (talk!) 02:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (updated statement and request 02:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) and again on 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC))

That's not the Standard Offer. Not opposed, I am not a huge fan of removing talk page access over removal of stuff. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed to clarify that we're not seeking the standard offer. APerson (talk!) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with restoring TPA to appeal the block, but I don't see a reason to restore e-mail until a block appeal is successful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Notifying @Bishonen: for any comments she may have, as hers is the most recent entry in the block log. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions:

• No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF.
• Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment".
• "Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban. Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior.
• Technophant still has an indefinite topic ban which still applies.
• We don't want to see anymore socking problems. They must only use their registered account.

This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion.

None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy, Technophant should have tpa and e-mail back. I hardly ever remove talkpage access myself, and if it's done, in the case of good-faith users it seems likely tpa can be restored once they've simmered down. The extent of my involvement here was to remove e-mail privileges, on request from Brangifer who had received an abusive e-mail (and who is supporting a second chance above). Technophant isn't requesting unblock and was blocked for serious reasons (socking), so I'm not addressing a potential second chance. I can see one down the road, though. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

New admin needs advice from admins

Howdy. A while back I was involved in an RfC at Balochistan, Pakistan. I have no personal interest in anything having to do with this region, country, neighboring countries, etc—I was there solely in my capacity as a gnome. Two SPAs sprang up and were stonewalling any additions to the article about poverty, insurgencies and human rights violations. The conversation then traveled to Balochistan where these users started stonewalling again. I noticed these editors also editing at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. An edit war bloomed, and I fully protected the page to cool the edit war down, and I removed the unsourced section on language, which seemed to be the focus of the problem. An attractive nuisance as they say. Since then, one of the editors has started a forum-shopping campaign accusing me of bias. Okay, blah blah blah, it's not my first rodeo with that accusation. During the edit war, a disputed map kept popping up, for instance here on the talk page. That map was uploaded to commons by Maria0333, who (you ready?) was a sockpuppet of this guy. So naturally I'm even more suspicious than I was before of sock/meatpuppetry.

Since I'm a new admin, I'm very sensitive to avoid violating WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel I need some real-world experience understanding what is and what isn't considered "involved". I'd like to know if it is okay for me to continue administrating in this area even if I'm being accused of bias. I'm likely to pursue an SPI case. Also, I'd like to know whether or not the disputed map should be removed from Commons because it was uploaded by a sock operator. Thanks, and if there's any advice that you can give that I didn't specifically ask for, I'm all ears. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that one of the users, Zmaghndstakun was just slapped with a 3 month topic ban on India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ceradon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Cyphoidbomb. Absent a request on the talk page which has consensus, it is not usually okay for admins to modify articles that are fully protected. The major exception to that is BLP violations, which does not apply in this case. I'm assuming this is a "new admin" error, and you can revert yourself. That would be my only suggestion at this point, other than directing all of the users to discuss on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the edification, Risker, thank you. Do you have any thoughts about what should be done with the sockpuppet map? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with Commons; they are a separate project that has different rules. When I look at the history of that map there, it seems there's been some dispute about it there too. It's the reality of dealing with maps of regions with disputed territories. In the meantime, you've made a rather serious content decision here, which is outside the scope of the protecting administrator. I disagree with FPAS on this issue. Did someone not tell you about the New Admin Training Wheels Program, also known as "don't mess around in contentious areas for the first few weeks"?  ;-) Risker (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's certainly an unconventional step, but in this particular case I'd endorse it. We typically grant protecting admins the discretion to not simply protect whatever "wrong version" is uppermost, but, if appropriate, to revert to the most recent pre-dispute clean version. In this particular case, however, given the long history of problematic editing and the truly obscene amount of sockpuppetry rampant in the entire topic domain, there is very likely no "clean" version anywhere near in the history of the article, so a reasonable application of WP:IAR may well be to not select any one prior version as the "cleanest", but to remove the entire disputed (and evidently problematic) passage. That said, bear in mind that the topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions, so if editors act up like these two, probably the best thing to do even before it comes to this level of edit-warring is simply to topic-ban the lot of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Fut.Perf. If I've previously had a disagreement with these users, does that make me involved? The disputes at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan are mostly the extent of it, and it never really even got heated on my side. I did have to warn one of the users, Zmaghndstakun on his talk page to stop adding !votes to the RfC. I sort of need to know the threshold between participating as an editor, and when I need to use my admin tools to solve a problem. I would hate to topic ban these editors, be accused of bias, and have my peers find that I violated WP:INVOLVED and blocked the users in retaliation. As I've researched the matter, I found that the disputed language content at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was originally added by Cojamel, a sockpuppet of LanguageXpert circa 2013, the same editor who uploaded the disputed map I mentioned above. Naturally I suspect these other editors to be likely socks of the same person and I'm pursuing an SPI. Thanks for any more help you can provide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." One time, I believe I blocked an editor for repeatedly removing an unresolved {{Citation needed}} tag that I had originally added. The editor appealed, and the reviewing admin unblocked and stated that I was involved. Definitiely be cautious of INVOLVED, but it's also important that you are honestly trying to do the right thing, which you appear to be. Maybe it comes with experience on when to apply it, but sometimes you just got to be bold and do the right thing, and if need be, ask for forgiveness later.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment One suspected sock was determined via CU by Ponyo to very likely be related to the sockmaster. The other suspected sock was determined to be very likely be a meatpuppet operating with LanguageXpert/Zmaghndstakun. Sooo, the experienced gnome instinct prevails. Still, very appreciative to those who cared to comment and edify me above. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pak sock war

There is currently an ongoing sock-war between editors involved in the Indo-Pak dispute with numerous socks of (potentially) Nangparbat, KnightWarrior25, Mrpontiac1, Darkness Shines, Jyotirmoy25 involved. There are dozens of IPs involved, which are not even worth listing (see editing history of Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 etc for example) . A few named accounts are:

• SUMANTHARKI (talk · contribs)
• ShivaParvati587 (talk · contribs)
• Pakistani randi female (talk · contribs)
• Jyotirmoy250989 (talk · contribs)
• Rumanfurki (talk · contribs)

Some of these (like the Jyoti account) are ducks and can be blocked as such. For others sockpuppetry is obvious, but identifying the exact sockmaster would require us to wait for further behavioral evidence, which means allowing for greater disruption to continue in the meantime. And the above list is likely just the tip of the iceberg. So posting here to see to see if some CUs can help out (there are 2-3 related SPI cases currently open, with mainly rival sock armies participating). And admins help to identify and semi-protect the affected paged. Pinging Thomas.W (talk · contribs) who may be able to identify other accounts, or affected pages. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope

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've nominated Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, which many who frequent this page love to reference, for deletion here. Alakzi (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I snow closed the MfD, and I point you to WP:NACD where it says "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Give administrators the right to appoint off-wiki, in-person community spokespeople

Sorry for the sensational title, but that is mostly correct.

A week ago I posted on this board asking people to comment at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights. I am seeking more comments.

There is a Wikipedia:Education program. In that program there are WP:Course coordinators userrights. Administrators have the technical right to grant these, but historically, these userrights have been governed by participants in that program. Right now that program is unable to manage these userrights, and I would like to divest their management to administrators along with the people who already have userrights to grant them.

The title references the likelihood that people with these userrights commonly speak with off-wiki organizations as Wikimedia community representatives in establishing partnerships. A typical case is a Wikipedian inviting a class to edit Wikipedia. There should be a little oversight of this and by default, I wonder if the future of these userrights should go to administrators. Please form your own opinion and comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone answer to user to this question in my talk page

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

---

[73]]--Musamies (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Request Semi-Protection

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 Lenore_Skenazy. Recent vandalism. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO,  Done. In the future though, please report requests for page protection to a more proper venue. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC for binding administrator recall

Hello. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ Rob^Talk 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This type of proposal is not what I would expect from an editor who arrived here two months ago. Thanks for your editing, but Wikipedia is not a students' debating club, i.e. debate should have a constructive purpose here and should not be done just for its own sake. There are at this time more than 10 different discussions going on, all on this and related subjects, including the BARC proposal, and none of them has any chance to get anywhere. I prefer to waste my time somewhere else. I suggest editors focus on content, both writing and cleaning up. Kraxler (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a very unwelcoming response. Anyone can make proposals and anyone is free to ignore them, and focus on building content themselves. The fact that there are so many proposals seems to be an indication that there is widely-perceived issue worth addressing. - MrX 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Too many proposals going on at once, you'll see that people are already making fun of the avalanche of proposals. Admin Mkdw calls it the "shotgun approach". It's becoming disruptive. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, MrX, but I think what Kraxler was suggesting by his/her original response is that it seems a little suspicious that such a new user would even know what an RfC is (I actually have no opinion on the RfC in itself, however). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two months is a pretty long time, actually. You don't have to be here for years to understand we have policies and guidelines (and we're not exactly a brand new website). I think that is pretty bad faith to assume anything other than they are starting a conversation. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

With two months tenure, the user is not even eligible to ask for the tools, so why start a discussion of means to remove them? As I said before, we need new content workers, and new admins, we do not necessarily need new professional debaters. Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice about length of a topic ban, please?

I really wanted to put this on WP:AE or WP:ARCA, but those pages seem to be constrained by various straightjackets (=templates), "you must use this format", etc, so here I am. I recently topic-banned Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs) from Donald Trump and related pages for twelve months for persistent tendentious editing, in the sense of removing well-sourced critical/negative material. I'm not really in doubt about the appropriateness of this ban, as BLPs should no more be whitewashed than they should be negatively slanted, but I've realized the length, twelve months, may not be ideal under the circumstances. Some background diffs:

• 11 July 2015: my warning
• 27 July 2015: the topic ban
• 28 July 2015: Thomas Paine's appeal on my page, and my response

I follow American politics somewhat, but I'm pretty clueless about chronology and timelines, and I've only just realized that the 2016 Republican Convention, where Donald Trump has announced that he'll be a presidential candidate, will be held 18–21 July, 2016. That's in eleven months and three weeks from now… which suddenly makes my choice of twelve months for Thomas Paine's topic ban look pointy, or even cruel. (Not being aware of the convention date originally, I only picked twelve months as a nice round number.) I'm having trouble making up my mind. Should I shorten Thomas Paine's ban to ten months, or even six? Or is it on the contrary ideal as it is? Your wise input would be appreciated. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Generally topic bans from significant future events should be timed until after said event takes place - as at that point disruption/interest should naturally tail off. Intentional or not, a 12 month ban which expires just after July 2016 seems perfectly fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Only in death , he was warned, he chose to ignore it, now he has a ban. No need to shorten it, it's fine, Bishonen. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, Thomas Paine1776 has queried the ban at User talk:Bishonen#Sanctions way too harsh. If that's his best argument, I don't yet see a case for lifting or reducing the ban. Bishonen might agree to listen to an appeal of the ban after three months, if during that time he shows some ability to edit neutrally about American politics. For him to remove critical stuff from Trump's page with no talk discussion or edit summary isn't very impressive. You have already mentioned his practice of removing any messages from his own talk that he doesn't like. It creates the impression that he expects blowback from his edits but plans to ignore it ("..certain editors attempting to just post flags on my page which seems to be a 'pattern' or tactic to achieve their editing goals..") His argument that he didn't notice you were an administrator doesn't cut much ice. A promise to follow consensus in the future would be more credible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. If Tom can demonstrate neutral editing (including not removing well-sourced content) over the next three or six months, the ban can be shortened or lifted. It's up to him. Miniapolis 21:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unarchived. User in question wanted a chance to contribute to the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This sanction doesn't seem fair. General edit warring sanctions seem to be only a few days. Seems like this sanction was more taking sides in a content dispute on the spur of the moment, especially given that its a popular current event. The warning seemed, at the time, like another editor posting their warnings in a row as a 'tactic' to achieve editing goals as explained previously. Other editors routinely remove info from BLP and some post overly with an unduly negative tone which is not neutral in the Trump article and campaign topics. BLP topics are supposed to be careful of potentially libelous info, so removing the unduly negative edits in question was an effort have a neutral tone.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Paine1776 had already complained on 27 July about his topic ban from Donald Trump on my page, as noted by User:EdJohnston above; the link Ed gave has rotted, so here's a permanent link to both his complaint and my response. I believe I answered his points there, as did Ed above. I won't change my mind about the length, since TP is the only user who has expressed a problem with it. It's a topic ban from a controversial biography that you had been editing disruptively, TP (not only edit warring). The usual short blocks for edit warring, which I assume you mean when you say "general edit warring sanctions are generally short", don't have much to do with topic bans per discretionary sanctions. I suggest again, as I did on my page, that you edit appropriately in other areas for six months, and I'll be glad to consider lifting this ban. Don't forget you're welcome to edit the rest of the encyclopedia; you're only banned from pages related to this one public figure. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

Backlog on AIV

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.

---

Just wanted to alert folks to a backlog on WP:AIV. Currently 19 entries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Still a backlog (13 reports) some dating back to yesterday. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:UAA

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

---

Would someone please dive in - some blatant violations that need to be dealt with.--ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hide edit

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

---

Please hide this edit as it has used extremely rude language against the user. Please also block "مکری16" account indefinitely. Thanks -- Nojan (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Community ban discussion: Fnagaton

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Fnagaton is a long term Wikipedia user (8 years, 4000 edits) who I believe for the past 6 years has been using a sockpuppet account, Glider87 (talk · contribs) to game content disputes. I recently indef blocked the sock and gave Fnagaton a 30-day block. It's been suggested to me that I was too lenient, and that given the extent of Fnagaton's disruptive behavior he should be blocked indefinitely. I feel this is a question for the community, so I'm bringing it here. The sockpuppetry case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fnagaton/Archive. Since Fnagaton seems to exclusively edit using proxies, a checkuser match was not possible, but I believe the behavioral evidence has no other explanation.

Details of Fnagaton's activities can be found at the SPI. In short, Fnagaton and his sock have spent years on-and-off tag-team edit warring and participating in the same discussions to distort consensus. Fnagaton and Glider87 have both appealed their blocks, and been denied. So what does everyone think? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just took a look - looks like you weren't the only one thinking that, Omegatron thought so to and had Fnagaton linked to a different username (see the link to the sockpuppet investigations). If that's true, I'd say we have a potential sock farm, but yes, based on the evidence, the duck is strong with this one  :) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the best choice is, but you definitely made the right decision to come here following the suggestion to you. If the user hadn't caused any problems following the initial block, it would be a thoroughly bad idea for you to reblock for a longer time just because you and someone else thought perhaps you'd been too lenient; such an extension shouldn't be done without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this case for further examinations. I believe the sock farm is more extensive than it even appears on the surface. It has been rather clear to me that Fnagaton is not the actual master, but just another sock. It clearly is a single purpose account which does not regularly edit WP on a steady basis, but springs into action when their pet project is effected, after months or year of hiatus. Clearly another account, the master, is regularly involved with WP providing the ongoing process of monitoring. Proving the extent will be arduous likely. The master, that I suspect, has been doing this kind of behavior for a long time and I believe I recently detected another instance in an other subject matter. Accusing someone publicly is of course a serious matter, so I have remained silent, and given the amount of energy required to engage with those accounts is discouraging even trying. Of course this appears to be a rather skillful strategy of those accounts. Let me just say, that everyone (to be fair to all) who ever participated in the subject matter of binary prefixes in the last eight years or so should be subject to investigation, especially since MOSNUM policy has been effected by these socks. However, that subject is not the only one effected. For starters, getting Fnagaton eliminated is a step in the right direction. The amount of editor time and energy that has been wasted by his flagrant, egregious, toxic behavior is staggering, as only the recent talk page battles and article space reverting history exemplifies. I have tried to stay out of the mess as much as possible, refusing to engage with this account's activities, which are a never-ending spiral of circular arguments that never result in meaningful progress, or even sensible dialog. A 30-day ban is utterly too little too late for the amount of damage caused. Kbrose (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the years I had some dealings with user Fnagaton and his 'friends', but concluded that no meaningful interaction is possible with such a single track mind. He manufactured a consent that in my eyes never existed to ban the IEC binary prefixes outright. How is it possible to ignore such officially recognised unambiguous units in an encyclopedia? It is some kind of mind police, completely unbefitting WP. −Woodstone (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, if we have an established user who turns out to have been sockpuppetting, a warning block of the master and an indef for the sock is probably the way to go. The user should be warned, though, that next time (s)he's caught, things will be worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As history shows, we are seriously past this juncture in this case already. Kbrose (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone, whether banning the IEC binary prefixes is right or wrong is a policy dispute, and AN/ANI does not get involved in policy disputes -- they enforce whatever policy the community decides upon whether they personally agree with it or not. I advise waiting until the socks are blocked and then bringing the issue up on the appropriate talk page to see if the socks manufactured a false consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A query: I see that on his unblock request Fnagaton states: "I believe ISPs in Singapore are legally mandated to use transparent proxies that users cannot turn off. I don't think it's fair I'm blocked because the check user indicates a proxy is being used." (Something I have never heard of.) Is it possible that he is implicitly claiming that these socks are "proxies" that he is somehow forced to use because of the ISP he uses? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a red herring. Nobody is accusing him of being a sock because of CU results. They are accusing him of being a sock based upon behavioral evidence. As far as legally mandated proxies, it is true that the Great Firewall of Singapore blocks some sites (mostly porn sites according to reports), but if they blocked Wikipedia we would know about it from the hundreds of complaints. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe ISPs in Singapore are "legally mandated" to use certain filters, but that doesn't seem relevant here. So most likely that statement is highly confused at best, and not worth troubling about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

Administrators are requested to help with the WP:SPI backlog. Several of the requests do not seem like they have CheckUser requests. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously, there's one case that is just awaiting administration that hasn't been edited 17 July. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• ...Any takers??? Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've just done a couple Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for action by steward

• In the page World Trade Center, the most recent 9 edits (21:20, 10 August 2015‎ by A21sauce, to now) are a disambig page, and the rest (from 20:41, 8 August 2015‎ by Charlesaaronthompson, back to the start) are about the well-known buildings. This is an easy history-split, except that page World Trade Center has about 8000 edits and thus needs a m:steward to delete it as part of this history-split. Please history-split those last (most recent) 9 edits (plus any more disambig edits that people may make to that page after this request was posted) into World Trade Center/disambig2, and then undelete the rest of page World Trade Center and leave it where it is. I could then move or history-merge World Trade Center/disambig2 to where it should be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done —DerHexer (Talk) 12:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @DerHexer: Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for speedy closure on three grounds

I've posted a request for speedy closure (for forum shopping, canvassing, and wrong venue) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative, but get the impression that isn't a section that's watched very much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of 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.

---

A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

This is a link to discussion regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement for the last discussion said "I recommend Antidiskriminator try again in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place beyond "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me"." - Can you demonstrate an understanding of why the ban was placed? This request, again, only states that you were topic banned. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. I explained that in my last appeal, but little further in the text. Here it is: "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me....The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). " Although most of the votes for the ban come from editors that I have been in conflict with, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank to all editors who participated in discussion about my ban appeal. I propose to closing administrator to make decision not on speculations but on demonstrated behavior. I think that editors who banned me and want to keep me banned demonstrated communication which can be "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". I think that their behavior is described at Wikipedia:POV railroad essay. Brand, discredit and ban. Nothing I say or do can change that, except to change my opinion to match the POV they consistently support. I don't think that this group of editors should be able to decide about my ban. My behavior in this discussion and during my ban answers all presented concerns about my behavior. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

I appreciate that Antid is entitled to choose to appeal here as an alternative to AE, but the behaviour he was banned for was done under AE/ARBMAC. As someone who has had many extremely frustrating interactions with Antid over a couple of years, mostly on talk pages, but also in article creation, titling and similar issues, I have little confidence that Antid will have learnt his lesson, as the last time a topic ban was proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted in 2012 by EdJohnston, Antid went straight back to the same behaviour (which is why this ban imposed by Drmies is in place now). His initial approach above avoided even describing the topic ban or why it was imposed. If I was appealing, I would consider it necessary to demonstrate that I completely understood why I had been topic-banned, before asking for the ban to be lifted. He chose not to do that, and it had to be drawn out of him. It would also ensure admins could quickly understand what he thought it was imposed for. He also doesn't appear to accept that those that supported the ban and opposed its lifting last time had a case. He appears to think it is some sort of personal vendetta against him.

Since his last appeal, he may well have been productive in the Ottoman Empire period of Serbian history (pre-1900), but any productivity and acceptable wikibehaviour in that time period does not imply that he can achieve that in later time periods, which are far more contested, and I caution admins that if this ban is lifted, they need to be willing to consider a more stringent or even indefinite topic ban if he returns to his previous behaviour. I also think that Antid should be required to provide "behaviour references" from editors working in the area he is apparently productively editing in, including ones he has had disagreements with.

In the interests of fairness, and to give him some benefit of the doubt (something which I have had in short supply with him for several years due to his behaviour), I would be willing to support a small extension of the time period from 1900 to 1913 so that he can edit in the topic area period including the pre-World War I Balkan Wars. As far as his interest in the Ottoman Empire is concerned, this gives him everything except the period 1914-1918. I may live to regret this, but how about a modification of the topic ban to read "a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1914-current' (broadly construed)". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A probation period might be useful. I hope you guys are willing to act if he stays true to form, because you don't deal with him on a daily basis when he is free to roam the Balkans at will. Easy to AGF and agree to lift, but sometimes, when it comes to taking action against a recidivist who re-offends, all we can hear is crickets... So I'll ping you all if (when) he does. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And a point on the much- loved ROPE essay. Under "When not to use" it says "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch" and *Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom"... So, not so much. I'm out. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR is unlikely to be of much use. Most of Antid's most egregious behaviour was on talk pages rather than articles. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless Antid addresses the concerns expressed by myself and others, showing he truly understands what he was doing wrong before and how he will avoid doing it in the future, I am moving to Oppose. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion which resulted in Antid being banned from the Pavle Djurisic article is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator, so no-one here can argue they didn't know his history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions on lifting the ban

• I am comfortable with lifting the restriction on the basis that if the problem recurs, we can always re-impose it. It might be an idea to have a "probation" period during which any recidivism can go straight back to a restriction without the need for further debate. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting of restriction per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Two guys in a row...that's suspicious. Hmm. I personally have no real objection and am a firm believer in rope, though that has a somewhat negative figurative value. I'm somewhat biased, of course, since I think "Antidiskriminator" has a pretty cool (if kocky) user name. Dr. "Not A Guy" mies (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that ROPE essay is a certified genius. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

& a tad Vainglorious to boot. ;) --64.85.217.37 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This request is pretty unconvincing. When asked to explain what led to the topic ban Antidiskriminator simply quotes themselves, and then blames being banned on "editors that I have been in conflict with": even if this is the case, to have got so many editors who are in good standing so seriously offside demonstrates that this wasn't some kind of vendetta, and implying that this was the case here as part of their request to have the topic ban lifted is a rather bad sign. Their "plan" to avoid the problems which led to the ban is also basically a motherhood statement which provides no details on how they will avoid the problems (for instance, by staying away from certain articles, adopting a voluntary 1RR restriction, making appropriate use of dispute resolution, looking for a mentor, etc). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I certainly think a probation period and the 1RR are necessary to promote good behaviour. These topics have been very stable for the past year, I don't want to be dragged into conflicts yet again. As to whether the ban should be lifted or not, I don't think it is my place to say. IJA (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Does Antidiskriminator understand why he/she was banned in the first place? Antidiskriminator hasn't given any examples as to why he/ she was blocked. Instead Antidiskriminator has stated that he/she was blocked because his/her edits were "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". Antidiskriminator has basically said that he/she was blocked because other users viewed his/her edits as being "disruptive" and has listed a few examples of disruptive behaviour. Antidiskriminator still hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. Whilst I support his/her right to appeal the ban, I'm not entirely convinced that Antidiskriminator understands why he/she was banned. I get the feeling that Antidiskriminator still believes that he/she was blocked because other editors were prejudice towards him/her (which is obviously not the case). I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator understands his/her wrong doing. I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator has learnt his/her lesson. Saying that other users viewed his/her edits as being disruptive, then listing a few examples of general disruptive behaviour is not sufficient. Perhaps Antidiskriminator could give us some examples of his/her wrong doing and explain why it was wrong? This way we can tell if the lesson has been learnt. IJA (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• I see little in the way of assertion, let alone evidence, of reform here. AD was banned from the topic area because he was wikilawyering, and he now promises to strictly adhere to policies. I seem to recall that that's sort of exactly what happened the last time - he used every method imaginable that stayed roughly within the realm of a cursory interpretation of the policies, while still pushing his POV and gnawing at our collective patience. Just for example, we need to hear exactly what he would now do at the article about that Serbian general, I forget the name, who got that Nazi decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD), where he was banned from the talk page earlier and where his actions had led to a huge amount of acrimony. Explanation of any other specific example would be good, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to comment other editors (ie their ethnicity) on wikipedia Joy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1. @Joy - The name of the General is Pavle Đurišić.
2. @AD - No one commented on ethnicity, Serb is the name of the ethnic group, Serbian people refers to people associated with Serbia regardless of ethnicity.
3. @AD - Don't avoid what is being said by intentionally going off top and changing the subject, that is the sort of tactic and behaviour which got you topic banned. IJA (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether Joy is right or wrong to raise Antid's ethnicity, Antid immediately goes into wikilawyering mode, but makes no response on how he would deal with the issues he no doubt still has regarding the Pavle Đurišić article, which is the one Joy is refe rring to. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning ethnicity or rather the nation is perfectly pertinent here, because the topic area of the ban is strictly nationally defined. And I've no idea whatsoever why it would be disallowed to say that this historical person is Serbian or that that there are modern-day Serbian people who think something other than the consensus about that. That was one of the flash points in the disputes that led to earlier bans and this ban. I see no point in anyone second-guessing me trying talk about it, it would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe AD is concerned that since he's not allowed to edit about the topic area generally, he's also not allowed to talk about it here? I'm pretty sure there's an exemption for that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. He's wikilawyering about you raising his ethnicity in this context. I agree it is relevant, but I don't think it is necessary. He has worked against the lifting of the ban through his reticence to explain the real reasons why he was banned and by failing to address what he would do to avoid a recurrence. No doubt the page on which he lists all the things he doesn't like about various articles still exists, along with the list of articles he has quarantined himself from after being called out for his disruptive behaviour and wikilawyering. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He actually went the extra mile at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors. If it needs to be said at this point, I implore the community not to lift the ban on this egregious abuser. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Joy, they did, and everyone is welcome to see the exchange there. They will also see that I said that I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage. I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on: you're suggesting "AD is a Serb so they got a Serbian POV". Listen, if you cannot make the point about a POV from the edits, if you have to go by way of ethnic hypothesis, then you should lose the argument. Talk about edits, not about the editor. Consider this a warning: hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

JFTR I explained further at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors now. Let's link the old discussion here too: Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've been invited to comment by Antidiskriminator, so here's my 2c. I found myself on the receiving end of inappropriate conduct from the user on numerous occasions, and we've had disagreements more than once to say the least - but even so: support lifting the ban. While he isn't quite grovelling outright, my impression is he's serious. Plain and simple. That, and I can't bring myself to condone Joy's draconic "Purges", the standard vitriol notwithstanding. If he's stupid enough to actually continue in the same vein then I say t-ban him for good. Move that be made clear in any lifting of the sanction. Best regards to all (yes, even you Joy :)). -- Director (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the ban was introduced at his request, I don't think its "flaming" to point out Joy may be abusing his admin cred and going too far, demanding bans left and right. In fact - mostly "left", usually for those at odds with a Croatian right-wing point of view. Whereas he will defend his own to the point of distaste... As he (imo) made clear even in this thread, he is far from free of local ethno-political bias. -- Director (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with Tomobe03 and 23 editor. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally sentient being, he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, more appropriate sanction.

Then again, you are right in that it would make everyone more comfortable if Antid does actually SAY he understands why he's been sanctioned, and that he WILL ACCEPT the community position when opposed. Antid? It doesn't look good at all, otherwise. -- Director (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Either I am abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no may. May is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, why don't you propose a topic ban? Its not like your accusations of my "flame-warring" are in any way unsubstantiated or inflammatory in and of themselves.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you may have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

But now, in the best traditions of flame-warring, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. At least with yourself. Bye. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this just went to archive, and Antid deserves a decision on his appeal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies, JzG, and Guy Macon:

• Antid has apparently now gone on holiday. Some might take that in good faith, but to me it looks like a way to not respond to the concerns of several editors above or provide information about how he will avoid the behaviour that got him t-banned in the first (of second) place. I still think he is entitled to receive a response from the admins. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're right, he hasn't responded to any of the questions which were asked of him yet. It is only speculation, but it could be an avoidance technique. From previous encounters with AD, I know he does have a few tricks up his sleeve. I too believe he deserves a response from an Admin. IJA (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67, I have said all I wanted to say. If they are on vacation, I hope they have a great time. If they are going on vacation to avoid something, this will, at some point, be closed as "no consensus to untopicban" or something like that, I think. I must say that the lack of "outside" interest is a bit troubling. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's a tough area. What can I say? People don't want to stick their head over the parapet... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: @Kendall-K1, Woodstone, Siafu, DVdm, Crazy Software Productions, Mike1024, and Dicklyon: @Mmeijeri, Roesser, Kvng, EncMstr, NavigationGuy, TomStar81, and EdJohnston:.) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with wikipedia policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is the link to the 3RR report that siafu (talk · contribs) mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:RHB100_reported_by_User:Siafu_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Wikipedia article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [74][75] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this just in: [76] siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [77]

• "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [78]

• "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [79]

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#WP is not a discussion forum
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Accusations that Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Wikipedia policy are false
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Undue weight on Bancroft
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Bancroft method made even more neutral, current reference retained, new may be added
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic operation
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic concept of GPS needs additional sourcing and explanation

and finally:

• WP:Wikiquette assistance/archive94#RHB100 (about questioning the credentials and intelligence of other editors)

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• You don't follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, to start with. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.

It is also stated in the paper, , that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form. The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"

[Please note that the above line, although written by me on a different page, was inserted here at WP:AN by User:RHB100, not by me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Discussion

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres. Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RHB100 - GPS

• I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[80] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of filling in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (There's some related material at User_talk:JzG#GPS Article.) Let's wait and see what the admins say about the strength of the consensus. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples from the talk page

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Wikipedia are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

— Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Wikipedia guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

$(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}={\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}^{2},\;i=1,2,\dots ,n$

or in terms of pseudoranges, $p_{i}=\left({\tilde {t}}-s_{i}\right)c$, as

${\sqrt {(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}}}+bc=p_{i},\;i=1,2,...,n$ .

Comparison of these equations with the Equations in R3 section of Sphere in which $(x-x_{i})$ corresponds to $(x-x_{0})$, $(y-y_{i})$ corresponds to $(y-y_{0})$, $(z-z_{i})$ corresponds to $(z-z_{0})$, and ${\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}$ corresponds to $r$ shows that these equations are spheres as documented in Sphere.

Since the equations have four unknowns [x, y, z, b]—the three components of GPS receiver position and the clock bias—signals from at least four satellites are necessary to attempt solving these equations. They can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods. Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions are discussed by Abell and Chaffee. When n is greater than 4 this system is overdetermined and a fitting method must be used.

With each combination of satellites, GDOP quantities can be calculated based on the relative sky directions of the satellites used. The receiver location is expressed in a specific coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude using the WGS 84 geodetic datum or a country-specific system. RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

This is essentially the exact same argumentation used before, and as before not only do the equations not, in fact, represent spheres, the sources you have cited also do not, in fact, claim that they do. siafu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)"

Here, siafu is saying that the above equations do not represent spheres which I find to be absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what in the world he could have been talking about. I can't understand why anybody with any kind of an engineering education would make such a statement. I then made the comments below. These comments in this context are certainly quite proper.

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?" RHB100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And this whole discussion seems to be aimed primarily at taking frank and honest comments out of context and pretending there is something terrible about being frank and honest. But telling someone they need to review Analytic Geometry is sometimes quite appropriate. But the more important aspect of human behavior, putting correct critiques and proposals for improving the article is ignored. No one has been able to point out anything wrong with the technical content of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" which I placed on the GPS talk page. RHB100 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RHB100 time too valuable for Wikipedia GPS article

I have decided that in view of the fact that all indications are that I am better educated and more professional being licensed as a professional engineer, my time is too valuable to spend further contributing to the Wikipedia article on GPS. The fact that other editors seem incapable of comprehending the fact that the section, Geometric Interpretation is a disaster and should be removed causes me to conclude that these people are not of the quality I want to continue to work with. I have been one of the primary authors of the section now called Problem description and I have written much of Error analysis for the Global Positioning System but now we have very hostile, highly disruptive editors working on GPS and I do not care to work with these kind of people. RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to impose upon yourself an article ban on GPS and its talk page, as kindly requested initially; your understanding is very much appreciated. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Malik Shabazz

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed. This is temporary until the entire Committee has had time to review the situation. Discussion is continuing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case at the present time.

Supporting: Courcelles, Guerillero, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, and LFaraone.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

NAC closure undone, again

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 nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Handshake Murders unclosed the discussion which I closed as "no consensus" after it had been open for almost two weeks. I left a message on their talk page about WP:NACD, and they answered this which is difficult to parse. IMO, with two keep !votes and no more opinions in a whole week, there is not much chance that this can be deleted. Hence the "no consensus" instead of relisting again. Please, somebody have a look. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler I agree with your close. Per WP:CLOSEAFD , AFD's run for 7 days, this has gone on for eight, in that time, 2 keep and one delete vote, mostly centering on whether the band was notable or not. I'd say your close is accurate. For sure Walter_Görlitz should not have been the one to re-open this AFD since he started and voted in the AFD which makes him involved. Further, his rationale on the AFD of "closed too soon" is inaccurate, it ran 8 days. It should be closed back up as no consensus. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RE User:KoshVorlon The AfD was opened on August 4, it had been open for 13 days when I closed it. It had been relisted on August 11, not getting any further comments. Per WP:NACD "...any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO" Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Update, the discussion has been relisted again, and another "keep" vote was added. Under the circumstances a restoration of my closure is not feasible. Anyway, I wish users of 10 years Wiki presence would follow the guidelines instead of wasting other users' time. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale in the closing was sound, but the decision to close as a non-admin can sometimes be polarizing when it's not close to a unanimous decision. I wondering if Walter was expecting a different close, or just felt more comfortable with an admin closing it. While it wasn't an admin who re-opened your close, NACD's advice still seems applicable: "take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought"—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit filter noticeboard

As part of our efforts to improve the use of the edit filter, an edit filter noticeboard has been created. We hope that this will be a better venue for users to discuss and ask questions about edit filters, whilst also freeing up WT:EF for discussion of the corresponding project page. Sam Walton (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• [Like], as one of those who suggested this at the RFAR. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Absurd warning from Tom (North Shoreman)

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

---

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Leo Frnk. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I MADE A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THE LEO FRANK TALK PAGE, GRANTED AS A NOOB, BUT I KNOW THAT CASE AND THINK THE WIKI ENTRY IS MISLEADING, NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, POORLY SOURCED, AND I GET A WARNING FROM ONE OF THE CULPRITS?

SERIOUSLY?

I didn't put any link in the text of the article, the link I provided is not"defamatory" simply because it doesn't comport with the ADL's version of events.It is meticulously well researched - view it for yourself. I sawit as an entry that was in a sense'whitewashed' to give an ADL-friendly revision. The comments reflect this back and forth. My link cited to lots of the *primary* evidence.

It seems that very often, any source espousing a Zionist or pro-Jewish view is fine, even if the author is discredited - but any source not comporting with Zionist revisionism or politically correct narratives is simply defined out of the realm of the 'trustworthy'.

Is this really how things are done here????

edit/ p.s. I WILL COMPLY, ABSOLUTELY, WITH ANY DIRECTION ABOUT EDITS OR COMMENTS - but his struck me as absurd and bullyish....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.130 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are required to notify editors if you post about them on this noticeboard. I have done so for you in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Given your edits, the warning seems well-deserved. I recommend you read WP:BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank has been dead for 100 years, so BLP doesn't really apply (I made the same mistake earlier today on another article). But I think there's a policy that anyone trying to use the American Mercury as a source automatically loses their right to an assumption of good faith. I can't seem to find that policy page, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The BLP violation was not against Leo Frank but against a living historian. Most of the IP's edits at Talk:Leo Frank (see [81] and [82]) were merely annoying -- personal attacks, allegations of Jewish conspiracies, false charges of vandalism, etc. He/she crossed the line to BLP violation when he/she wrote about a living historians, "[name of historian] was a Jewish apologist for Frank who never intended anything honest and has been discredited on several fronts. HE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE." Similar attacks on the same historian by a blocked editor and other IPs have been deleted in the past with warnings by another editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

HUH? The guy is NOT a reliable source. The link I provided discusses this - he was an apologist for Frank. I can't say that because he's Jewish?

Huh??? I mean, this guy Tom didn't read the link or consider my arguments at all. indeed his own edits show slavish devotion to ADL revisionism.

"87. Leonard Dinnerstein is an author who has made almost his entire career writing about anti-Semitism, with a special concentration on proving that Leo Frank was a victim of anti-Semitism. His book, The Leo Frank Case, is promoted as a canonical work — and is one of the main sources for the claims that 2) anti-Semitism was pervasive in 1913 Georgia and 2) that anti-Semitism was the major factor in the prosecution and conviction of Frank.

Both of these claims are hoaxes, as shown by Elliot Dashfield writing in The American Mercury: “Dinnerstein makes his now-famous claim that mobs of anti-Semitic Southerners, outside the courtroom where Frank was on trial, were shouting into the open windows ‘Crack the Jew’s neck!’ and ‘Lynch him!’ and that members of the crowd were making open death threats against the jury, saying that the jurors would be lynched if they didn’t vote to hang ‘the damn sheeny.’

“But not one of the three major Atlanta newspapers, who had teams of journalists documenting feint-by-feint all the events in the courtroom, large and small, and who also had teams of reporters with the crowds outside, ever reported these alleged vociferous death threats. And certainly such a newsworthy event could not be ignored by highly competitive newsmen eager to sell papers and advance their careers. Do you actually believe that the reporters who gave us such meticulously detailed accounts of this Trial of the Century, even writing about the seating arrangements in the courtroom, the songs sung outside the building by folk singers, and the changeover of court stenographers in relays, would leave out all mention or notice of a murderous mob making death threats to the jury?

“During the two years of Leo Frank’s appeals, none of these alleged anti-Semitic death threats were ever reported by Frank’s own defense team. There is not a word of them in the 3,000 pages of official Leo Frank trial and appeal records – and all this despite the fact that Reuben Arnold [Frank’s attorney] made the claim during his closing arguments that Leo Frank was tried only because he was a Jew… Yet, thanks to Leonard Dinnerstein, this fictional episode has entered the consciousness of Americans of all stations as ‘history’ – as one of the pivotal facts of the Frank case.”"

http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

This is but one source.

Tom's argument seems to be the man can't be discredited because he's a Jew.

Isn't that... um.... racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.130 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I see how this is going so - I give up, you win. The ADL revisionism shall not again be questioned here by me. Not worth it. Was trying to provide some balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.130 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Behavior of Fangusu

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.

---

• Fangusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.42.15.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user was indefinitely blocked in 2008, and then engaged into sockpuppeting (see: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu/Archive). She was unblocked on 6 July 2015 by MaxSem after a successful unblock request (see: User talk:Fangusu). But, just several days later (on 18 July), the user started IP socking again. She admitted it after being accused of sockpuppeting (see: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu). This is obviously deliberate logged-out editing used to avoid scrutiny (see: [83][84],[85][86],[87][88]). Not just that the editor wants to give expression of being another person, but she uses logged-out editing to attack other editors (see this edit summary). Obviously, this editor has not learned anything from her 7 years of being blocked. I propose to ban her from Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE. I agree that she has apparently not learned a darn thing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support How the unblocking admin missed this reversion of advice during Fangusu's attempt at asking for an unblock is beyond me; that should have kept the block going. Their noms at AfD for Digimon come down to WP:IDLI concerns and when I called them out for it, they made aspersions that I thought they were evil, which I never said. No improvement and admission of socking on the SPI shows nothing has been learned. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support To return to the same behavior that brought about the block shows that they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I rarely support these requests, since they're normally made either in bad faith ("this admin deleted my page; ban him!") or for people who already haven't a hope of getting unblocked. This editor's not so bad that she couldn't be unblocked, and normally someone who requests unblock after several years is reformed, but she's proven herself otherwise: if you don't change after this much time, you're not likely to change. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support User evidently does not "completely understand why (they) got so many blocks". Blackmane (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

@MaxSem: Maybe you should also block her IP? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Autoblock should take care of this. Max Semenik (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @MaxSem: Is your action a "block" or a "ban"? Just wondering since you stated "block" in your closing statement, but the community considers those two different things, and since Vanjagenije placed a "banned" template on Fangusu's user page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've clarified the block message, thanks. Max Semenik (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @MaxSem: Thanks. I'm not an administrator, but given Fangusu's recent edits on their talk page, I'm wondering if talk page access needs to be revoked with a note of how to request unblocking via email. (WP:UNBAN) Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The text in question is related to her previous block, so I personally don't mind if she removes it. Max Semenik (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure

Hello all,

At this point, the best I can do is honesty, so, here goes: four years ago, in early 2011, I edited using the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SunCountryGuy01. Several days ago, I disclosed my editing history to the Arbitration Committee, and I was told to put this before the community. So here I am. This all comes down to the fact that I made a mistake four years ago, all in an effort to edit Wikipedia. Since then, I've become a productive member of the community, I think. I've brought five articles to GA status, and am currently working to bring two articles, Battle of Malvern Hill and Kurt Vonnegut, to FA status. In just the past month of being an administrator, I've become the 78th most active administrator, carrying out nearly 650 administrative actions. This is all to say that I am not the same person I was four years ago.

I could say that I never intentionally mislead the community during my RfA, as, in the four years since 2011, and in a two-year absence, I forgot about those accounts. But, that's bullshit. I have been misleading the community from the day I created this account. This is something I regret deeply and bitterly, especially since becoming an administrator. When I was finally did recall my past accounts, I went to ArbCom. In truth, I should have come here first.

I can't recall why SunCountryGuy01 was blocked. MauchoEagle was blocked for being a sock of SCG01. Marcusknight was also me -- my most ignominious one, really. As for the way forward, I will resign my bit tomorrow (I'm a bit shaken up right now) and go for reconfirmation. If the community sees fit to look past my crimes, I will be forever indebted. If it does not, I wouldn't necessarily feel okay with staying in a community that no longer trust me, so I would likely retire and ride off into the sunset. At least I would have known that I served the community in whatever capacity I could. This could too easily be considered emotional blackmail. It certainly was not intended as such.

@WereSpielChequers: I feel most horrified for letting your good name be so closely linked with my bad one. For that I apologize. @Courcelles and Euryalus: thank you for sage advice. @Wehwalt:, thank you for collaborating with me on Vonnegut, and @Lingzhi:, thank you for collaborating with me on Malvern Hill. And to the rest of the community, thank you for putting up with me for four years. If my reconfirmation RfA should fail, well, I suppose the sun does set in paradise. Wow. I've never felt so much like a piece of shit. --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It was certainly the right thing to do. Although it would have been best to disclose up front the fact you did so far after there would have been any chance of other parties finding out shows positive character. I'll almost certainly be supporting your reconfirmation RfA, though I was part of the discussion that came to the arbcom conclusion. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Likely it is only a few checkusers who even remember who SunCountryGuy01 was. I sure didn't, and I became a CU during the time MauchoEagle was in use. While I too wish you had done this before going to RFA, that you came clean when no one would have ever remembered or suspected is highly honourable and speaks well of you. Courcelles (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support is a meaningless gesture. Non-support is a meaningless gesture. All responses are ultimately meaningless. Only you can look at yourself and know whether you are really you, or are playing a meaningless game for other people's responses. Retrace your steps and find yourself, then be yourself, and stop living so much in the looking glass self.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Only you can do as you see fit. I will happily vote for your reconfirmation. I hope you will not let anything ride on the outcome as the community is capricious.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Dipping into Wikipedia briefly to add that whilst I was one of those arbitrators in favour of having you disclose your past accounts, I will fully support you retaining the tools at a reconfirmation RFA. The community does have a right to know the history of an editor to whom they hand the tools, hence the need for another RFA, however you're a good admin, and misdeeds from so far back should not be held against you. Take it on the chin, rerun, and let's put the whole thing firmly in the past. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• A noble gesture, though I would reconsider your statement that should the reconfiration not succeed that you will retire: though you probably did not mean it as such, this could be seen as emotional blackmail. –xeno^talk 10:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for coming clean, Ceradon, but I'm confused by your reasoning as you describe it above. You say you could claim you forgot about the previous accounts but then you say that's "bullshit" and you've actually been misleading the community since day one of the "Ceradon" account...but then you also say that as soon as you "recalled" your previous accounts, you told arbcom. Is it the case that you didn't remember you had older accounts until now, and immediately told Arbcom when you did remember? Or is it the case that you've known about your old accounts since you began your current account, and you went through RFA, etc while concealing that information? I don't know about anyone else, but one of those strikes me as a far worse offense than the other and I'd like to know which I'm dealing with. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fluffernutter: I started editing again in December, and ran for RfA having completely forgotten about those accounts in my two-year absence. When I did remember, I went to ArbCom. I meant that by using a sock, I was misleading the community, something I regret. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• It seems that the SunCountryGuy01 account was blocked because of something discussed in email and is not available for us to really take a look at. We don't know if it was a disruptive account. However, it seems like you have genuinely tried to do the right thing here and come clean. I'm guessing they will strip you of your magical admin powers but since you're a valuable contributor, you should just stay around as an editor and keep doing excellent work. And then in a year or so think about being reconsidered as an admin. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• After posting on AN, Ceradon went to Bureaucrats Noticeboard and resigned their administrator tools. They have now started an RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

gotwikipedia.com

Just wanted to know if this was on anyone's radar. It purports to guarantee Wikipedia backlinks for at least 6 months, and this edit, given as an example at this subpage, reveals no disclosure per the requirements in the Terms of Use. http://wikipediaeditorsunited.org/ uses the same content and is probably related. The edits of User:Tzufun are another example, given as one of the case studies on the site. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

They claim to be in "moderator positions" on Wikipedia. User:EBY3221 (blocked for spam, had rb and reviewer rights), made edits that linked to OMGMachines.com in the references of Mike Long [89] (linking in refs appears to be a modus operandi of his). gotwikipedia.com has testimonials from a guy whose website is listed as "ONGMachines.com". Seems pretty interesting. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

wikipediaeditorsunited uses our logo as their favicon, and gotwikipedia uses it as their portrait picture on their Facebook page. Figuring that these might be trademark violations, I've emailed the address given at meta:Legal for reporting trademark violations. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Found the guy who runs wikipediaeditorsunited, it is User:Kingoptimizer. The gotwikipedia.com owner appears to at one point have been User:Duberz. To err on the side of caution of violating the outing policy I will not show my evidence here but administrators/legal should free to contact me for private evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Email that to the Foundation, or to me and I will forward it to Jimmy. On the face of it, this appears to violate the terms of service and if your evidence holds up then these users must be banned. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the legal team do, but it's certainly worked for me in the past! See this COIN thread for background on EBY3221. They accepted many AFCs written by SPAs which in light of this might need looking at in more detail. I don't recall seeing SEO-type edits though so there must be other users we haven't found yet. Pinging @Brianhe: as he first noticed EBY3221. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Mean as custard whether they've noticed any refspammers like this recently and then noticed on their TP an exchange with WilliamFinnHarrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) who was adding links such as this ony a few weeks ago. Do we think this is enought to justify CU attention? SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That also led me to ArdenM29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been adding similar links: [90]. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging by her earliest contributions (example), EBY3221's real name is Elizabeth B. York, a name that I'm not finding on either of these sites, although admittedly they're almost totally anonymous. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes we worked out who EBY3221 was off-wiki but from what I understand there is a lot of outsourcing of PEing, so it's perfecly possible that EBY is linked to these companies even if there is no trace of her on their website. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads these testimonials and still supports this activity, probably does not belong on Wikipedia. "They helped me beat my competitors within a few months!". For pay. And now volunteers will have to pick up the pieces. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, more work for us at COIN, at WP:COIN#EBY3221_revisited. Most of the articles listed aren't corporate PR, though. They're mostly bios of marginally notable individuals. There's a forgotten band from the '70s, and a wood carver. Three marginally notable startups are on the list, and those articles look promotional. But out of 37 entries, maybe five look like possible paid business PR. Are there particular articles that need COIN attention? John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

These types of edits are usually done by single-use accounts which are set up, quickly make a single edit and then disappear. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this is a rather sophisticated operation, so the reviews of the AfCs could be covers for reviewing the paid PR. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some recent examples of spam references being sneaked in under cover of apparently-legitimate edits, which appear to fulfil the claims made by the spamming websites mentioned above: *[[91]], [[92]], [[93]], [[94]]. In some cases the edit includes several academic references and the single spam link is hard to spot. . Mean as custard (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a SPI for these accounts? I'm going to stick these domains on the spam blacklist, but such a measure is not going to be effective unless we get a substantial portion of the spammed sites. MER-C 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. I'll start one later on today. SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tzufun. SmartSE (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blacklisted ongmachines.com, businesses2sell.com.au and commercialproperty2sell.com.au to get things started. MER-C 11:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly that turned up a lot of socks but as usual it's impossible to tell whether they're this site or not and the main group have only been spamming a couple of sites. If anyone recognises or notices contribs like these where editors rapidly make minor edits and then self-revert it would be worth adding them to the SPI. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Searching for deleted articles

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T23555

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109561

When one searches for existing articles, one gets a choice of reasonably near guesses by the software. When searching for a deleted article (whose title is not remembered exactly), one gets no guesses. The title you type in is the only thing searched - or rather, offered as a page to create. I don't know about other admins, but I would find a search-deleted that would give near choices amongst the graveyard of the deleted. If you search in the current way for 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkles', you won't find 'Fred Bloggs & the Twinkles' or 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkies'. There may already be a way of doing this - I haven't found it and would be grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Failing that, would anyone else feel that it would be a useful feature? Possibly not just admins would find it of use - I can see NPP and others making use of it to locate deleted titles (but not the content, of course...). It could be handy in salting too - if salting 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkles' (fourth creation) one may also need to salt 'Fred Bloggs & the Twinkles' (created twice). Peridon (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any way to search for deleted articles either. It would be helpful to be able to search a deleted article using a partial title. -- GB fan 12:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The major problem I see with this is that the title of a page is often the reason the page is deleted (i.e. attack titles). By having these attack titles returned in search results, the offensive content is still public-facing. –xeno^talk 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it alleviate your concerns for this to be an admin-only search function? Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. –xeno^talk 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've long wanted such a feature. It's especially needed in places like WP:REFUND, where someone may be asking for a page that someone else created (i.e. the requesting user's deleted contributions won't help) and at other newbie-facing pages such as WP:HD. Why don't we just ask for a way to search the deletion log? It should resolve the problem entirely. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support this too. It will also help OTRS agents with "why was my article deleted" queries. Most OTRSers are either admins or know a friendly admin who will check it for them so admin-only would work for this. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's another example of why I want it. I'm pretty sure I've seen a category like "Films in the public domain", but Category:Films in the public domain and Category:Works in the public domain have never been created, and none of the subcategories of Category:Public domain are relevant. If there were a way to search for deleted pages, or a way to search the deletion log, it would be easy to decide whether such a category never existed or whether it has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't attack titles be removed from the logs anyway as part of OS? I too would very much like to see deleted articles. Or perhaps more accurately, I'd like to see a log of created/deleted articles by users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wouldn't"? Sometimes, but not all the time. "Shouldn't"? Yes. WP:CRD explicitly permits log redaction when a page title itself is highly problematic. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We do have this highly dubious service brought to you by the fine and responsible people at Wikia, which uses bots to scrape everything tagged for deletion on en-wiki and copy it across to Wikia where all our spam and libel can live in peace for ever more. (Jimbo's much-trumpeted moral resolve apparently only applies to WMF projects and shuts down when it comes to his other sites.) I have no intention of looking into its history to see how far back they've been doing this. ‑ iridescent 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(Adding) To answer User:Nyttend's original question, the deletion discussion you're looking for was here. ‑ iridescent 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir, regarding "I'd like to see a log of created/deleted articles by users", both are already publicly available for all users. Here's my deletion log as an example. ‑ iridescent 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: pardon the lack of clear wording. I meant to say I'd like a log of now-deleted articles created by users. For example, if I created Iridescent like donuts, I'd like to see it somewhere even after it's deleted. The best we have are AFD notifications on user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that less useful than you expect. A lot of AFDs end in the article being blanked and turned into a redirect, which doesn't technically count as "deletion" so doesn't show up in deletion logs. I'm not sure it would even be possible to have "created a page which was then deleted" show up in the logs; I've just checked and page creations of since-deleted pages just show up as edits in the logs, without any kind of "new page" flag. ‑ iridescent 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My thought was that it would be useful for sockpuppet investigations. But you're probably right that it wouldn't be terribly useful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

iridescent, the history of their main page began on 5 June 2012. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

About the articles not deleted but turned into redirects - won't they be available in the ordinary search? It wasn't so much things like that I was thinking of with this idea. It was more the niggling 'I know I've seen something like that somewhere, but this one's only just been deleted so it wasn't this one' sort of thing. The last creator's talk page can find some, but some of the authors change name with each repost. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Something like Peridon's original suggestion - suggestions from the list of deleted articles - would be enormously useful. It would especially help when you are looking for something you sort-of remember, as with Nyttend's category, or when you suspect there were previous articles with titles similar to the one you are dealing with now. Example: Quebec Telemarketing, Quebec telemarketing, Quebectelemarketing, Quebec Telemarketing Corp, Quebec Telemarketing Inc - each of these was a real, now-salted article title. If I'm trying to recall that series but I look for Quebec Telemarketing Inc. with a period, Wikipedia will give me no hint that any of those others exist. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• FYI: Special:Undelete with no arguments is essentially a Special:Prefixindex for deleted articles. MER-C 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MER-C, interesting link! (Only works for admins I see.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Very nice, and a lot better than before! But still, it would be nice to have a way of searching the deletion log; I never would have found "Category:Public domain films" with my method of searching or with Special:Undelete, but if we could search the deletion log, it would be easy to find all category pages that had "Public domain" in the title. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a nearly six year old Phabricator ticket for this. Search functionality should also probably exist in Special:Undelete -- I lodged phab:T109561 for this purpose. These requests are something we should bug the Community Tech team about when they canvass community wishes in a couple of months time. MER-C 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: , for a quick-and-dirty fix, can I suggest doing a keyword search using the "Advanced" mode, limited to the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. This should bring up any deletion discussions for relevant page titles, as well as talkpage speedy deletion notices that weren't deleted by the recipients, plus the occasional REFUND request and complaints to deleting admins. Hardly perfect, but a decent workaround, in my experience. (You could also add the User namespace, to pull in articles-I-created and articles-I-nominated-for-deletion lists, but that hasn't turned up anything for me yet.) @Nyttend:, using this approach led me immediately to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain, which identified the now-deleted category you're looking for as Category:Public domain films. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That really helps only with discussions, but only discussions. It will sometimes find CFDs or talk page notices, but even aside from when recipients remove notices, speedy deletions routinely aren't accompanied by notices in the first place. If something existed, this method may show that it did, but you can't trust it to say "Nothing of this sort ever existed". Much better to give us a way of searching the deletion log, or at least to add a search feature to Special:Undelete. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's things that are just deleted that I was thinking of, rather than discussed articles. Things where multiple re-creation using slightly differing titles is involved, and also very often involving more than one user name so that talk page viewing doesn't help. Thinks like the fictional 'Fred Bloggs' things I mentioned above. They are often not deleted by 'me' but by 'them', and who 'them' was gets forgotten like the exact wording of the title. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have also wanted this for years. As Peridon says,searching for text with the WP search function will work with AfDs., and will sometimes pull up a talk page notice, but there's a great deal it will miss. In particular, the most obvious of the speedies are indeed often not accompanied by notice, basically in order not to feed the trolls. This function would be a trivial one to implement, and the only real qy is whether it should be limited to admins. But since the Search:Log is not so restricted, I don;t see why this need be.

A related very useful feature would be the ability to filter the log in some easy way for specific namespaces, just as it can be filtered by username or date. and just as the regular search can be filtered by namespace DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

One can already do this with the API -- the GUI portion is phab:T16711. MER-C 05:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Errrr..... Pardon? Peridon (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The API (application programming interface) is how bots, scripts, tools and other programs interact with Wikipedia. This is the query. The GUI == graphical user interface, or Special:Log in this case, is for humans. MER-C 13:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Involved TfD closures

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

---

Recently, there was a decision to allow non-admins to close TfDs as delete. From what I've seen, such closures have largely been good and I'd hope this discussion doesn't end up focusing on it. However, recently I've noticed some problematic closures by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) where he has closed discussions that he has participated in, often as the nominator. Some examples include 1, 2, 3, 4. Myself, Redrose64 and Opabinia regalis have asked him to stop making such closures and frankly his responses were far from adequate, but I thought after Opabinia regalis's request he had decided to stop. However, just in the last few hours I see he has continued to close TfDs that he was involved in as delete (e.g. 1, 2, 3). It should be noted that the majority of these are very uncontroversial in that they mostly only had delete votes, but at the same time it still seems unwise to have anyone, in any deletion process, closing discussions they are involved in – for oversight reasons, for the look it gives to inexperienced editors, and because of inevitable time wasting that will be caused when they get taken to and overturned at DRV.

So my questions are two: am I just being a process wonk here and should I just leave it be? If not, what should be done? Three users have already made good faith requests for him to stop and it appears to have made no difference. Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In at least one case, Pigsonthewing didn't sign the nomination, but did sign the closure. So, I added the missing nom's sig. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jenks24. To close a discussion he's involved with, just that alone is wrong, but the to close as a delete, when he doesn't have the tools is just totally wrong. I'd move to overturn those closures and given his responses on his page, think about a ban from such discussions. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They're unanimous deletes. A bot could close them. If someone took them to DRV, I can't imagine them being overturned. I'm perhaps the overturniest person at DRV, and I'd struggle to take a request to overturn them seriously. His response here is correct, if people can't see why asking him to stop closing unanimous results in which he "participated" is wrong, they should go to DRV and see how out of touch they are with the purpose of the process they're involved in. They're unanimous. Anyone can close them successfully. Including anyone. TfD develops backlogs because it's boring and mostly pointless. If someone wants to do the work, stopping them because they understand the purpose of the rules, rather than just the form of the rules, is a terrible decision. WilyD 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

TfD develops backlogs because it has become a very hostile place. Some regular nominators - Pigsonthewing included - simply cannot accept that others might not share their opinions, and feel the need to challenge every "keep" vote. This puts people off participation; as a result some template deletions get rubberstamped through since nobody dared to vote "keep". This hostility is not confined to the TfD pages: the current backlog has not been helped by the departure of Plastikspork (talk · contribs) (a prolific TfD closer), who was unjustly criticised once too often just over a month ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what happened to Plastikspork????? Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about unjustly criticized; just burned out I think. Feeling obligated to do something because nobody else is doing it is a good way to make your dumb internet hobby no fun. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64: You make assertions, about my beliefs and actions, which are utterly fallacious. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Which tools do you think I lack? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion here is that it would be better if he stuck to others' nominations, all else being equal, but it's kind of a waste of time to worry too much about hypothetical future wastes of time. Don't trouble trouble and all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenks24: I have invited you - twice - to take (any or all) of these deletions to the correct venue, deletion review. You have chosen not to do so. You offer no argument that any one of these closures has in any way failed to improve - let alone harmed - the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NACD says Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion. Why does he close discussions if he can't delete the template? Who actually deletes/will delete them? Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The page of which WP:NACD is a part is headed with a notice that it "...is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Almost all of the templates concerned have already been deleted, under CSD, without drama. Twinkle even has an option specifically for this (one or two may still be at WP:Holding cell, as is usual). So which necessary technical abilities do you think I lack? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything, I asked a question, knowing that non-admins can't delete anything. So, let's recapitulate: You close the discussion as "delete" and then add it to the Holding cell, and then some admin comes by and deletes it. Is that correct? Or is it a bot which makes the deletion? Kraxler (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most of the closures in question went straight to CSD; they were either unused, or I Subst: or manually removed the only one or two uses. For items with a higher usage, I added then to the holding cell, then anyone (admin or not) can remove the transclusions, and either delete (if they are an admin) or CSD them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting dilemma, but ultimately this is a straightforward violation of WP:Deletion process and common sense and I have warned Andy against doing so as his responses to the concerns raised have not been appropriate. Never has it been permitted for nominators to close their own deletion discussions and there's obviously no spoken or unspoken consensus for that to change. Swarm ♠ 17:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: WP:NACD also states "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e., a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well". Doesn't WP:INVOLVED come into this too? Wes Mouse ✒ 17:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED applies, as a rule, only to admins, who are held to higher standards of ethics/behavior. Non-admins may bend the rules and see what happens. In this case, I'm still trying to determine whether Andy's proceedings may be considered "routine housekeeping". Hence my inquiry above. Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You - and others - are flinging around WP: acronyms without apparently having understood the underlying guidelines. I've already pointed out what the header of WP:NACD says: "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a situation where the concept of appearance of impropriety applies. I doubt anyone would dispute the result of closing a unanimous decision, but process actually matters. If the process is likely to create an appearance of impropriety, such as when someone is closing discussions in which they are a participant, then the process should be avoided in order to avoid unnecessary drama (such as this very discussion). Deli nk (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

" I doubt anyone would dispute the result of closing a unanimous decision" Do read the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone is arguing to keep them? Deli nk (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course not; they're just disputing the result of the closing a unanimous decision. Go figure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your first comment to me then. (Not that it matters much, I guess. We're just sidetracking the discussion.) Deli nk (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I made the "avoid unnecessary drama" argument originally, but I think I've changed my mind. If everyone says they don't care, but they think someone else might care, so they have to act as if they care, we end up in a situation where no one actually cares but everyone thinks someone does. That's dumb. The reason people shouldn't close discussions they've participated in is that other participants might not feel fairly treated. Unanimous decisions on essentially trivial matters do not pose much risk of that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is exactly what I was thinking, Deli nk. Because if WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply to non-admins when it comes to closing their own nominated discussions (other than to withdraw it), then it means I could just carry out all the GA reviews on articles I nominated, because I am exempt from WP:INVOLVED, based on what is being said in this discussion. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and INVOLVED should not just be for a sole admin purpose, but a community-wide rule. Otherwise, it makes a closure overly-biased to the nominators advantage. I had read WP:RCON, which OK is a failed proposal. But after seeing this, I think it should be re-opened and be implemented alongside WP:INVOLVED. And if we're to bring "common sense" into the equation, then common sense would say not to close something which you are involved with either as the nominator or a participant. Or it makes the judgement outcome too biased. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"a closure overly-biased to the nominators advantage"; "outcome too biased"; Please provide evidence of such an example in the deletions in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, please read the entire context and not just pick out a singular piece which takes it out of context. It is clear I am talking about biased closure in general, and no specific example. Then again, it figures that one would be selective in what they wish to cherry-pick out of other's context; just to make them look like a fool. A fool only looks at themselves in the mirror. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to have a more general discussion, please do so elsewhere, or at least in a subsection, rather than in a discussion [sic] in which the torch'n'pitchfork brigade were immediately already seeking to have me topic banned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if it is the entire context, then you would already know that I am referring to this matter in a general meaning, and not any specific case of closures that you have done to date. And do not tell me when I can and cannot participate in a discussion. Has one forgotten about freedom of speech? Oh sorry I forgot, you are the law and everyone must obey to your orders. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a non-admin making closures in good faith. Regardless if he was in the discussions in question or not, if there's a clear consensus after the time has elapsed, there is no problem. Apart from the problem of not enough admins doing the work they should be doing. And that's the elephant in the room. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

*Applause* Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is a shame, Lugnuts, that there are not enough admins, and I agree on that wholeheartedly. And the fact it has come down to requiring non-admins to assist in an area that some non-admins may feel a lack of confidence to carry out, is of concern. I have thought in the past to assist in closures, but I just don't feel I have the confidence to take a huge bite out of that apple just yet. Although if an admin were to provide me with some tips and advice on how to do non-admin closures, then sure, I would love to help clear up any back-logs out there. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Final verdict The lack of admins is decried every day here around, and a recent RfC (linked at the top) allowed non-admins to close TfDs as "delete". We are talking here about templates, i.e. add-ons which serve a merely technical/decorative function. We're not talking about content. The unanimous vote at the discussion gives anybody (including the nominator) a clear mandate to act upon the outcome. If the sole intention to close such a technical discussion is to avoid backlogs, and the result is undisputed, then it is "routine housekeeping" and, being beneficial to the maintenance of Wikipedia, is one of the very rare instances where WP:IAR applies. Anybody who disagrees with the merits of any nomination may !vote "keep", and Andy won't close anything. I suggest to close this thread now, and everybody move on. There's real work to be done. Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately this issue isn't resolved with Andy apparently unable or unwilling to understand the issue at hand, and with editors such as yourself misrepresenting the correct processes which have been determined by community consensus and which all other editors abide. Wikipedia does not have strong rules, and if a rule impedes the improvement of the project we're allowed to ignore it. I wholly and completely dismiss the notion that obviously-controversial, out of process, involved XfD closures that raise multiple objections from the community are valid per IAR. Again, we do not have strong "rules", but we operate according to processes that have been determined by the community, and willfully flaunting these processes in the face of legitimate objections does nothing to improve the project and on the contrary, creates completely unnecessary conflict and drama. Swarm ♠ 19:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The closure process at TfD was amended by community consensus (see RfC linked above), to expressly allow things there that are not allowed anywhere else. I assume good faith and suppose there was a reason for that. Among the new proceedings is the fact that Andy's closures are not the last word in the process, the actual deletion is executed by another user (admin), as the next step, which excludes any possibility of abuse. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It is you, and people like you, above, who are woefully "unable or unwilling to understand the issue at hand", as exemplified by your claims about guidelines saying (or even "prohibiting") things which they do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Kraxler: That is a straw man, nothing more. The proposal, if you cared to read it, was pretty specific and it wasn't to vaguely allow "things there that are not allowed anywhere else". It was to allow non-admin delete closures according to a reinterpretation of the existing deletion guideline, namely WP:NACD (specifically referenced in the proposal). The clause prohibiting involved closures was not rescinded somewhere along the way, nor was it even discussed, presumably because nobody thought an experienced editor would think it's okay to perform an action that the relevant guideline clearly states not to perform. @Pigsonthewing: I know you probably feel that you're receiving an excessive amount of backlash in response to a relatively minor issue, but when a cavalcade of people are telling you the same thing and you're refusing to consider what they're saying, you have nobody but yourself to blame. Contrary to what you suggest, the guideline does prohibit involved closures. Myself and other people have pointed out this glaringly obvious fact and at this point I'm not sure how you are continuing to expect to debate this. I'm sorry you don't agree with that, I don't always agree with processes or consensuses either, but the simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia doesn't operate according to our individual whims. The sooner you can admittedly or unadmittedly accept that, and refrain from willingly breaching a guideline when it's obviously bothering other people, the sooner we can all move on from this topic. Swarm ♠ 02:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just let it go now, could you? Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Everybody else up there have taken my advice, and went back to work. Please. Kraxler (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You're the one who's been pushing an argument here, at the administrator's noticeboard, that's contrary to the opinion of every single administrator who's weighed in. So, I'm sorry if you would feel better if I just let that slide without comment, but no, as I've given an administrative warning to the editor against this, I will continue defend that action and refute the dissenting argument as long as is necessary, thank you very much. Swarm ♠ 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not true; WilyD had no objections to this, and mine are moot since the unnecessary drama has arrived anyway. If you really want to do some adminning I know where there's a backlog you might take a look at... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors should not close discussions that they have !voted in, with the exception of the nominator having withdrawn the proposal. Simples. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is pretty apparent that provided a significant number of people have opined, and the opinion is unanimous, it matters not one whit who closes a discussion. I would have expected Andy to realise that if others think it matters it is wise to refrain. However there is no policy or even guideline against a lack of wisdom, for which we should all be thankful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC).
  
• I for one think it is poor form at best to close a discussion one is involved with, even if the discussion is unanimous. I'm not sure if guideline or policy strictly prohibits this. I'm inclined to think that it should. I think that after this discussion, making such closes again would show very poor judgement indeed. DES ^(talk) 03:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the last couple of sentiments. Involved users should not be closing TFD's or other XFDs (with the exception of one they have withdrawn). Also closing without the ability to delete really creates more work, because the deleting person then has to check that the close was valid. (But that is not a real issue that needs argument here). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need arguing here, but it's also not the case that this is any more work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Since I found User:Pigsonthewing's participation in this discussion disruptive, and I am not involved, I banned him per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions from further participation in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please clarify under which sanction User:Pigsonthewing was actioned? Nakon 08:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

From the page I linked above: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite bluntly and quickly: it seems unfair that they can't participate in a conversation about their actions. Perhaps their last comment may have been slightly rough in tone, but they mostly quoted from those above in it. While this is titled "Involved TfD closures", that's perhaps inapt; this seems to mostly concern their actions in particular, not the issue in general. But that's just my two cents.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to be overruled, no problem from my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I do not wish to overrule your Arbitration Enforcement action at this time. Nakon 08:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to strike restriction

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

---

I request that an admin strike this undue restriction, which the admin involved has refused to explain, and which has no justification. Otherwise, it will no doubt be used against me in some future discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to make clear I was not involved before adding the ban (I do not think Andy means this, just to make sure).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Ymblanter Sorry Andy, just look at the discussion above . Non admins don't have a delete button, therefore they can't close a discussion as delete, second, you voted in the TfD make you biased to one side. That was just wrong (and I know this as fact, as I was chided for doing the same thing a few years ago ! ) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a request to re-run the above debate (and you're wrong in any case; a recent RfC decided to allow non-admin closes; not one of the closes I made was overturned at WP:DRV; and almost all of the items concerned have been deleted, without drama, through CSD. Note also the closers hatnote), but a request to strike a bogus allegation of disruption in that debate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The restriction only applies to that particular discussion, which is now closed, so un/banning you from it is now moot. Do you mean that you are worried the ban will be used as evidence against your character in the future? @KoshVorlon: The ban was about whether Andy was being disruptive in the discussion above, where he was defending himself... erm... vigorously from charges of inappropriate conduct. To the extent that I think his participation in the discussion was not disruptive, I think the restriction ought to be formally rescinded. This is without prejudice to the issue of TfD closures. BethNaught (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely that; yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Ymblanter Meh, this is hardly Andy's first rodeo at the noticeboards with regards to templates - see discussions in the archives. Before that it was infoboxes. Generally the pattern is the same. Someone has an issue with what Andy does. Andy responds by wikilawyering and endless arguments regardless of the consensus against him. See the exchange closed above with swarm. The only real way to deal with this (as the restriction he is under implies) is by quickly ending the discussion. Deliberately prolonging and extending what is a simple issue/discussion is disruptive in itself and a tactic that Andy has used repeatedly over a number of years. So I endorse the enforcement action above. Suggest this is closed as well or it will be another timesink. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, the above discussion closed as "no consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Ymblanter - The RFC to allow non-admin closure at TFD referred to both WP:NAC and WP:NACD. They say, respectively; "Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, ..." and "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e., a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided.", in each case making the exception for a withdrawn nomination. The RFC did not propose changing that. Andy's repeated refusal in the discussion to accept those clear statements became disruptive, so Ymblanter was not unreasonable in his action. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a request to re-run the above debate; please see my reply to KoshVorlon, above. Further, the section concerned closed as "no consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My rationale for closing the thread was more like "there is no point arguing about this, no harm is done to the encyclopedia, now silence, or I'll cane the lot of you." Please find an article to improve, everyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Ymblanter in a comment above I see Pigsonthewing reference "It is you, and people like you, above, who are woefully "unable or unwilling to understand the issue at hand", which basically alludes to WP:COMPETENCE. Why do I mention this? Because just ten days ago or so User:Pigsonthewing was chastising me for using it, now this either means it was mock offense or that they were upset enough to disregard their own principles. I assume good faith therefore I believe they were just upset and popping off at the mouth and that sanctions did serve a purpose. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It most certanily does not allude to WP:COMPETENCE, and I was quoting the person to whom I was replying. This is not a venue for you to settle scores. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • User:Pigsonthewing, There again good faith goes a long way, and I'd be more inclined to believe you if the lead up was not "It is you, and people like you, above, who are woefully" and then the followed by a quote "unable or unwilling to understand the issue at hand". So it's ok to accuse them of that if they say it first? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support User:Pigsonthewing on the principle that refusing to answer a simple, and honestly-motivated question, shows two fingers to WP:5P4. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, I did answer the question and even provided a direct diff.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only did you not answer, but you claimed "I am not under obligation to answer this question". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest next time you ask me the same question 10 times and when I answer every time claim I did not. People are not stupid. They can go to your talk page and check that I did, contrary to your claims.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I've read the discussion. You supply one diff as an example, don't explain why that one diff is an example, and follow up with a short "your free to appeal". That's not an answer, that's a dismissal. While I have the opinion that Andy's contribution was getting to the disruptive side in that discussion, your reasoning for topic banning has not been provided when requested. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do think the diff shows he behaved disruptively. Given that only couple of month ago he was sanctioned by arbcom, I feel I do not need to explain why this particular behavior is disruptive. If they think it is ok they should be banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not "sanctioned by arbcom only [a] couple of month[s] ago". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, five and a half months ago. Thank you also for pointing out again that English is not my mothertongue. It is always refreshing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that you think the diff shows that, you wouldn't have used it if you didn't. However, you didn't explain your rationale as to why. And you do have to explain per WP: ADMINACCT, also Andy isn't the only person who questioned your example as a rationale on Andy's talk page. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. I do think that I explained why the behavior is disruptive, exactly by providing this diff. I am sure if I was wrong this thread will be closed as overturn. You are of course also welcome to file an arbcom case for desysopping me, since this is currently the only avenue to remove flags from administrators who fail WP: ADMINACCT. You should not however expect that I would agree with your judgement.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not "sanctioned by arbcom five and a half months ago". If this fallacy is the basis for your ban, you should remove it yourself, immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand you at this point. You are listed at the sanctions page, with the list to the arbcom case, signed on 5 March 2015. Please contact another administrator who will lift the ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I see. You were sanctioned in 2013. Fine. It is a pity you still behave disruptively.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment if the topic ban was for something which was substantively already over with, then the ban was moot ab initio - and rescinding it now casts no blame on anyone. If the desire is to make sure that the topic ban for a single discussion remains in view, then it is, IMHO, unwise to succumb to that wish. In short - the best result would be for the person who applied to topic ban to voluntarily delete it as moot currently. Collect (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not going to happen. The bans should be logged according to the arbcom decision. If the consensus would be to overrule my decision, the closing administrator will delete the log entry.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion was not over at the time of the ban. Indeed. it prevented me from participating. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added "substantively" as no actual real discussion ensued - such points as were made had already been made. Collect (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

: Question to Pigsonthewing Andy, I've "voted" on your proposal, now how would you feel if I decided to close it in favor of those supporting Ymblanter (which appears to be the consensus at this point) ? Would this seem fair to you , or in some way, the right thing to do ? Somehow, I doubt you'd think so - am I right ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 13:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC) _{Struck, Andy's right in this case KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)}

Why are you still trying to re-run the previous discussion? You're comparing apples with pears. In not one of the TfDs I closed was there a single dissenting voice. They were all unanimous decisions to delete. Nobody was "unfairly" treated by my actions. No injustice took place. No harm was done to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sanction was reasonable, and should be upheld. Andy has demonstrated a breathtaking lack of awareness in his responses to this issue, and doesn't seem to understand what the problem with his conduct actually is. If you participate in a discussion, really any discussion, in any substantive fashion, then you cannot close the discussion and judge consensus. Even if that consensus is crystal clear. Even if the result requires no administrative tools. If you said anything on the merits, or anything more involved than adding a signature to someone's unsigned comment or correcting a wikilink or something, then you're a participant in the discussion and cannot close it. You kept citing the "occasional exceptions" language of the policy, and that doesn't apply here - because there is absolutely no good reason for you to close any of these discussions. If consensus is that crystal clear, then someone else will see that and act accordingly. Besides which, you seemed to find these exceptions necessary a lot more than just "occasionally". Be thankful that you have not been topic banned from all of TFD and move on. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We disagree on whether it applies; and others - including admins - agree with me. Hence the discussion, which closed with "no consensus". And again: this is not a request to re-run the above debate; please see my reply to KoshVorlon, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not arguing that the closes were or were not correct. I'm arguing that you are disqualified from closing those specific discussions the instant you make any statement on the merits. Period, full stop. And the previous discussion is absolutely relevant, given the fact that the sanction you're attempting to have removed was a direct result of the conduct that was the subject of that discussion. Several editors in this discussion take issue with your conduct, saying (correctly, I think) that it creates the appearance of impropriety. Could you explain to me why it doesn't? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not Support Ban. I would repeat this is not about the discussion above. We are using personal opinions on a close to support a sanction for supposed disruption in a discussion This is about a sanction that accuses an editor of disruption when he responds to accusations on a NB. Continuing to focus on a closed discussion when this is not the issue anymore is in fact disruptive, a red herring, and unfair. ArbCom decisions are not meant meant to hammer editors in normal exchanges. I would ask that the closing admin review his actions. Fortunately admins who do so are more often respected for reviewing than not. Further, In the discussion above the tone of many editors is combative. not disruptive but combative and Andy shows admirable control in the manner that he responds to those accusation. I'll add his actions were those that a bot could perform not as suggested equal to closing an AN discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC))

• Strike. Ymblanter, read WP:BANEX. Only in the most exceptional cases do we ban people from participating in discussions about their own actions. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  WP:BANEX does not list the above discussion as an exception. It is very clear that the second point only ('that is') applies to the ban appeal or clarification (like for example this discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW (and speaking as someone who sometimes finds Andy's "determined" style frustrating), I think the sanction was poorly imposed, is poorly justified, and should just be removed from the log. In our sort-of-makes-sense but also sort-of-crazy AE system, commenting here makes little sense; gaining a "clear consensus" or "overwhelming consensus" or whatever the terminology is to overturn an AE action is nearly impossible. But that's what I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving on

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 confused. Does it now mean that an XfD nominator is allowed to close as "delete" a discussion that they initiated? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everything in that thread was so personality-focused, I don't think this was actually settled. There was certainly no strong consensus in the thread one way or another, as far as I can see. But surely there's a better place to discuss this than WP:AN (page motto: "slightly less horrible than ANI"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I made this post. Which was apparently the trigger for all this dramah. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm offering to close all of Andy's nominations I've not commented on if we can avoid round two. Alakzi (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to find a dysfunction-free zone around here. Maybe an RFC at WT:RFD? Regardless of who thinks which subset of people have been acting poorly, it might be better to decouple individual editors from the underlying issue. Address the issue of whether this should be done going forward, rather than whether it should have been done by Andy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why RFD? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm an idiot. I meant TFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that AFD's (or RFD's) can be closed as "delete" by the nominator, my understanding is the claim was TFD's were a special case. If people are suggesting that, then WT:DEL or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It has never not been allowed. Furthermore, not one of the closes I made was overturned at WP:DRV; and all but one (whose CSD tag was removed by the admin who first raised the matter here; but who declined to take it to DRV) of the items concerned have been deleted, without drama, through CSD. And to reiterate: in not one of the TfDs I closed was there a single dissenting voice. They were all unanimous decisions to delete. No harm was done to the project. I note though that none of the admins opining on this matter seem to have closed any of the backlog of finished TfD discussions, in recent days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Filed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh god please no more discussion about discussion; who's going to close it, anyway? ;) Conclusion from the above: no one cares enough about this purported problem to not get distracted by personalities and side issues. Maybe the people whose level of care is just enough to get over the 'complain on AN' barrier could work up just a little more motivation and go close some discussions? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I named no names. I pointed to no discussions other than the previous RfC which apparently relaxed the rules for closure. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Need second opinion from an admin

I need a second opinion from an admin in this RFPP request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2015_Indian_Super_League_season. Please feel free to take admin action. I am in 60-40 mentality now (decline-semiprotect), so both will be fine for me. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say decline at present. This always happens during transfer windows in any sport, as people race to be the first to add new signings and sometimes jump the gun before official announcements are made. As "I want to update my favourite team" is one of the primary drivers for recruiting new editors, I don't think we should be closing off that avenue unless it's to address serious issues. While "showing players signed for the wrong team" is technically a WP:BLP issue, there's no real potential for harm, and enough sports fans monitor Wikipedia that anything problematic won't last long. ‑ iridescent 09:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We had a similar situation regarding actors and awards in the recent Kww arbcom case. When a well-known actor gets an Oscar or Emmy, someone (usually a brand new IP editor) instantly updates Wikipedia with no citation, and if the first editor is wrong another new editor corrects it seconds later. Within an hour or so a regular notices the change and adds a citation. Doing things this way really doesn't conform to our rules about verifiability, but the end result is the same and (usually) nobody complains. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I usually protect on request when unsourced changes like this are constantly made. It's not a similar situation to the Kww case as awards are sourced to factual news stories. Unconfirmed trades/signings are often based on rumors plus Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newswire service. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Move attempt of a Redirect to Amarna letter EA 256

When I first made a MOVE (after the REDIRECT was made) to EA 256, a notice of my username conflict (across the Wikis) edit appeared: User-talk:Mmcannis. I logged off, logged back on and it was then Black listed.....when I tried to recreate the move of the redirect. The redirect is presently Oaths and Denials, by Mut-Bahlu, "Where is Ayyab.

The intended original title was meant to be along these lines (the original REDIRECT, cut off the ending): (the subject of Amarna letter EA 256).....Oaths and Denials, by Mut-Bahlu, "Where is Ayyab?" & Golan Heights (=Garu) townsites. The title can be changed; it is only meant to be an 'abbreviated' description of EA 256. (And is listed under the category: Category:Amarna letters by letter)Mmcannis (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're trying to move the redirect from Oaths and Denials, by Mut-Bahlu, "Where is Ayyab to another title? Please don't bother — moving a redirect is pointless for technical reasons. Feel free to create the other redirect; the result will be the same as if you moved the first page. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure

Hi. Hope this is the right place. It is the Wikidata interwiki of our page for delete requests. I believe you need to delete this redirecton, because of its name - now, when Gadget namespace was created. Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The redirect is in place since it is the former name of the article before the "Gadget:" namespace was created. Deletion is not advised, and I personally would vote to "keep" if this was nominated for WP:RFD. Also, see WP:NC-COLON. At the present time, the redirect is presenting no harm. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@IKhitron: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#New "Gadget:" and "Gadget definition:" namespaces? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, IKhitron (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@IKhitron: A bot removed the enwiki link (which was the only link) from Wikidata when Gadget: became a namespace.[95] I have readded it with the new name.[96] Was that your concern? I'm not sure what you mean by "It is the Wikidata interwiki of our page for delete requests." PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @PrimeHunter:. The Wikidata was not about gadget, but because I was affraid I'm using the wrong page (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard) for deleting request. What disturbs me with a gadget, on the other side, is that all queries, bots, media wiki programs (including Gadget 2.0) will see the redirect page as a gadget and even maybe try to run it. IKhitron (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@IKhitron: The English Wikipedia is huge and has many pages for functions which may be together in one place for some other wikis. Wikipedia:Deletion process lists various ways to nominate different types of pages for deletion. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is for redirects but this case may require specialist knowledge. I don't know how the Gadget namespace is used but Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) has many editors with various technical knowledge and nobody has mentioned a problem with the redirect at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#New "Gadget:" and "Gadget definition:" namespaces? Are you discussing hypothetical issues or do you know real situations where the redirect causes damage? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:. Thanks for the pages explanation. About Media Wiki - it's hypotetical. I believe the problems are possible, but I don't know yet. It's too fresh. Ask me in about three months. In other places - it indeed causes not-so-serious-but-still problems. For example, it makes untrastable every SQL query about namespaces or about redirections. And indeed can make problems for bots. Most of them will be false negative, but still... IKhitron (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#New "Gadget:" and "Gadget definition:" namespaces? User:MaxSem wrote about the move of the article: "I actually used my shell access to do it, there is currenty no user group that can do anything with Gadget: in web interface." Indeed, a test of action=delete with my admin account gives: "You do not have permission to delete this page, for the following reason: You do not have permission to edit pages in the Gadget namespace." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is one more problem... IKhitron (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Derek Prince and User:GorgeCustersSabre

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

---

I am an user and admin in Commons. I find a free gravestone file of a Derek Prince (File:Gone Home (5857962728).jpg) which is an article without any photos. I was reverted twice by User:GorgeCustersSabre - first time and I add it again un a differnt place in the article and reverted the second time. I am not active her and don't know if there is a restriction of adding gravestone photos to articles. I don't think I need any special justification for adding a photo of gravestone of a person which the article is about. But maybe I'm wrong. Please advice. --geagea^Talk 12:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• My objection is that it seems wrong to have a photo of a headstone in a bio article which has no photo of the subject himself. Why not add a pic of the man? Why is this man's gravestone notable? Why not have a photo of a school named after him? Or a bridge? I am not dogmatic and I have not edit warred with user geagea. I have not violated the three-revert rule. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a restriction ("no gravestone pic on bios without a portrait"), see for example Stephen H. Wendover where the only pic is a gravestone. What actually was objected to was to put it in the infobox, which is forbidden by WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic;" a gravestone image does certainly not represent a person. The image may be added in the middle, where it was before the last revert. I re-added it there. Kraxler (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kraxler. Infobox images should generally just be representations (photos if possible, paintings or statues if not), but other related images are absolutely appropriate elsewhere in the article. Even if we didn't have a picture of his statue, it would be thoroughly absurd to remove the image of the Step Pyramid from the Imhotep article, for example. Gravestone photos are more significant than schools, bridges, etc., because they're fundamentally different: they're directly tied to the person himself, the final place in his life story, rather than being a functional place that's named for the guy. An image of a gravestone is here comparable to an image of the person's boyhood home. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks friends. I won't challenge or revert. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kraxler and Nyttend. As I thought, no such rational says "no gravestone pic on bios without a portrait". --geagea^Talk 09:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

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

1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

hi admins - dont know if im in the right place

came across this guy not sure he is here to help ... not sure what to do in this situation - here is a vid he posted on here that i reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defecation&diff=prev&oldid=677700722 please advise Kap 7 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not an admin, but looks like run-of-the-mill vandalism. I've added the page to my watch list since the issue seems to be from a few months ago as well. If it continues, the user can be warned and, after a final warning, reported to WP:AIV if necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks ... i'm used to dealing with vandals but this is kinda an oddball case for me ... im not sure what warning to even throw at him Kap 7 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also wanted to point out he says he has consensus for the vid - kinda the opposite. Kap 7 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This seems like a grey area. On the one hand we do have a policy on offensive material WP:OM however we also have a policy on censorship. We do have a list of "banned" images MediaWiki:Bad image list so Wikipedia is not fully uncensored. Listed on that list are images regarding human excrement but nothing regarding the actual act just the aftermath. So this does seem like a grey area to me. Oh and looking at the talk page, there definitely was NOT consensus to place that video on the page (not yet anyways). --Stabila711 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I nominated the videos for deletion because they're unused, low quality, and frankly out of scope. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The video looked so out of bad taste to me (and im sure u read the talk page) .... i'm not against a vid but completely but it should be something educational not porn like ! Kap 7 (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

okay well i'm gonna leave it here - was i wrong to revert his vid? i'll leave it up to the community Kap 7 (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong at all. There wasn't consensus. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

hope u didn't have to see the video because it wasn't pretty :\ I came across this article because I was trying to learn about the digestive system ... didn't realize i'd get into a debate over a vid of a guy taking a crap. geeezzzz!!! Kap 7 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did watch it just to come to an informed decision on its appropriateness. In any case, if the user brings up the idea that there was consensus again you can mention that sporadic comments over 6 years does not make a consensus. If they want to discuss it now that's fine but even RFCs only last 30 days at the most. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Gaivri'el

Gaivri'el (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

After Ceradon desysopped, this account still holds abusefilter right, while Ceradon's was removed. Should Gaivri'el's abusefilter flag also be removed?--GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and I've done so. @Ceradon: I've restored your alternate account to the default set of Userrights; if that account requires any of the rights you granted it, please request them in the usual way. –xeno^talk 09:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom procedures

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Why do some editors get more space to make their points? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .

• Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related point, since I might be a closer on this one: so far, I've generally announced on this page any intention to close RfCs that show up at CENT, mainly for transparency and to try to get other closers to sign on. One problem is that I don't want to interfere with other closers, so I'm not going to do that any more. (Another problem is that someone who wants to be a closer now may not be so enthusiastic when it's time to close.) So, fair warning: if an RfC is at CENT and I'm interested in closing, I'll make a perfunctory statement in the RfC itself, so that a closing process or statement doesn't catch anyone by surprise, but I won't advertise for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Rules should be equal for all wikipedia?

I have a question, the rules of the English Wikipedia should be equal to that of other wikipedias? I have observed that the policy of the English Wikipedia is different from the others wikipedias I think all Wikipedias should have the same rules. Best Regards. --Silver Man 77 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — Silver Man 77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The various Wikipedias are administratively separate from one another, and policies and guidelines don't carry across. If you've spotted some good ideas which you think we could adopt, please suggest them on the relevant guideline/policy's talk page or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There are some things we do better, some things we do worse, some that are specific to the problems at the speicfic wikipedia, some that are somewhat reflective of national customs. To take examples of two things we do better, we are considerably stricter in demanding inline citations for BLP than any other WP, and the deWP has chose to exempt itself with Foundation acquiescence from the terms of use regarded undeclared paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

es.wp and de.wp do adminship a lot better as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There are policies that apply to all Wikipedia languages, and all Wikimedia projects too; but they're not discussed here - or anywhere else on English Wikipedia, it's a matter for meta:, see meta:Policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way, Frog? Be interesting to see if that could be replicated here. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Both the Spanish and German projects establish something that's called "voting rights". These are rules that determine how and when an editor can participate in an community-driven discussion as well as other venues such as some RFCs. That is applied to RFAs, where the procedure is a straight vote, with some minimal discussion and candidate questions performed in a separate page. In es.wp an RFA runs for 14 days, in de.wiki there must be at least 50 votes to establish quorum. There are many other differences, but the key is that it's just a dry ballot pretty much, which eliminates most of the drama we have here. In my humble opinion, if someone wants to support or oppose a candidate then they should not have to explain at length why, and no one should badger them when they do, so long as they are established editors per the voting rights charter of the project. Of course there's no such thing as a voting charter around here, which is perhaps the root of a lot of problems. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with formalising voting rights. But moving to an unexplained vote would be a retrograde step. I can understand voting against someone without explanation in an election like Arbcom where you have a limited number of people to elect and may simply prefer someone else. But for RFA there is no limit to the number of mops, so if someone opposes that should mean there is a reason why they think the candidate is unsuitable. Giving a rationale means the candidate and others know if they have spotted something serious, have misunderstood something, care more about some particular attribute than most voters, or are simply making a personal attack. !Voters misunderstanding something is surprisingly common, and RFA benefits by that being pointed out to them. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

While that may be true, in some cases the Voting section of the RFA has degenerated into little more than a brawl. There is something to be said for having a section that allows editors to vote with an added comment. E.g. Oppose - See talk page for rationale. This would keep the RFA page relatively tidy without all the acid commentary or badgering cluttering things up. Blackmane (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion; I feel a better place for it would be the Village pump, so I'm copying the last three messages to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suggestions for removing clutter on RFA. — Sebastian 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Silverman. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that much of the decision making is done by the volunteers, and therefore is done in a decentralised way. That has many advantages over a hierarchical system where someone in headquarters makes decisions that everyone is then supposed to implement. But it does mean that some things will be different - for example the Germans have a more efficient system for dealing with vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Months worth of hoaxing from far south-east England

A months-long spate of hoaxing has been generated by IPs from the extreme south-east of England:

• Hastings, East Sussex
  • 86.132.110.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 81.135.194.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Saint Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex
  • 5.80.249.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 5.80.249.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 109.146.186.120 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 109.146.184.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 86.132.109.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An alarming amount of disruption has been aimed at the BLPs John Mariano, John Barrowman, Brad Garrett and Toni Collette. The IPs are difficult to rangeblock. Any ideas? Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Block all IPs? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is IPs doing the disruption you could always go to WP:RPP and request that the page be semi-protected. That would stop any IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocking all IPs would suit me just fine, Lugnuts. I think everyone should be required to create an acct. In the meantime I have semi'd these 4 target articles for 2 weeks to start. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that, sister. BMK (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with User:Stabila711, and for obvious reasons, disagree with other proposals of a more drastic and far-reaching nature. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Malik Shabazz case request

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The [Malik Shabazz] case is accepted with the aim of reviewing and if necessary modifying by motion existing sanction provisions in the prior Palestine-Israel articles case.

This case may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 . For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Malik Shabazz case request

Fix broken 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.

---

Please move Wikipedia talk:Translate wiki pages to other language back to Wikipedia talk:Translate us to reassociate it with its parent page ({{Requested move}} cannot be used in such circumstances). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but no response. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyvio question

Hi. Not sure if this is the right venue, but I wanted admins to take a look at a comment I received on my talkpage regarding a copyvio issue. Normally I would have responded with a brief hello, and pointing them to WP:DCM, but I'm not sure if more is warranted in this instance. Guidance would be greatly appreciated. The comment in question can be found HERE. Also, the editor of the article in question has also left a message that I'd like to respond to (HERE), pending any suggestions you all might have. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what s/he was trying to say there; it looks like the post was written in broken English. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with looking at range contribs

I've tried using range contrib gadget which I've used successfully in the past but cannot figure out how to get it to show results for 2600:1:e400::/48. Any ideas or other tools I can try? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ultratools? [97] JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to see contribs. Don't think that will help? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Try with the longform 2600:1:E400:0:0:0:0:0/48 ? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That didn't work but I learned something! The gadget is case sensitive. 2600:1:E4* works, 2600:1:e4* doesn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: @Kendall-K1, Woodstone, Siafu, DVdm, Crazy Software Productions, Mike1024, and Dicklyon: @Mmeijeri, Roesser, Kvng, EncMstr, NavigationGuy, TomStar81, and EdJohnston:.) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with wikipedia policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is the link to the 3RR report that siafu (talk · contribs) mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:RHB100_reported_by_User:Siafu_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Wikipedia article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [98][99] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this just in: [100] siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [101]

• "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [102]

• "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [103]

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#WP is not a discussion forum
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Accusations that Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Wikipedia policy are false
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Undue weight on Bancroft
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Bancroft method made even more neutral, current reference retained, new may be added
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic operation
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic concept of GPS needs additional sourcing and explanation

and finally:

• WP:Wikiquette assistance/archive94#RHB100 (about questioning the credentials and intelligence of other editors)

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• You don't follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, to start with. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.

It is also stated in the paper, , that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form. The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"

[Please note that the above line, although written by me on a different page, was inserted here at WP:AN by User:RHB100, not by me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Discussion (User RHB100 and GPS article/topic)

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres. Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RHB100 - GPS

• I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[104] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of filling in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (There's some related material at User_talk:JzG#GPS Article.) Let's wait and see what the admins say about the strength of the consensus. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples from the talk page

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Wikipedia are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

— Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Wikipedia guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

$(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}={\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}^{2},\;i=1,2,\dots ,n$

or in terms of pseudoranges, $p_{i}=\left({\tilde {t}}-s_{i}\right)c$, as

${\sqrt {(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}}}+bc=p_{i},\;i=1,2,...,n$ .

Comparison of these equations with the Equations in R3 section of Sphere in which $(x-x_{i})$ corresponds to $(x-x_{0})$, $(y-y_{i})$ corresponds to $(y-y_{0})$, $(z-z_{i})$ corresponds to $(z-z_{0})$, and ${\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}$ corresponds to $r$ shows that these equations are spheres as documented in Sphere.

Since the equations have four unknowns [x, y, z, b]—the three components of GPS receiver position and the clock bias—signals from at least four satellites are necessary to attempt solving these equations. They can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods. Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions are discussed by Abell and Chaffee. When n is greater than 4 this system is overdetermined and a fitting method must be used.

With each combination of satellites, GDOP quantities can be calculated based on the relative sky directions of the satellites used. The receiver location is expressed in a specific coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude using the WGS 84 geodetic datum or a country-specific system. RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

This is essentially the exact same argumentation used before, and as before not only do the equations not, in fact, represent spheres, the sources you have cited also do not, in fact, claim that they do. siafu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)"

Here, siafu is saying that the above equations do not represent spheres which I find to be absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what in the world he could have been talking about. I can't understand why anybody with any kind of an engineering education would make such a statement. I then made the comments below. These comments in this context are certainly quite proper.

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?" RHB100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And this whole discussion seems to be aimed primarily at taking frank and honest comments out of context and pretending there is something terrible about being frank and honest. But telling someone they need to review Analytic Geometry is sometimes quite appropriate. But the more important aspect of human behavior, putting correct critiques and proposals for improving the article is ignored. No one has been able to point out anything wrong with the technical content of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" which I placed on the GPS talk page. RHB100 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RHB100 time too valuable for Wikipedia GPS article

I have decided that in view of the fact that all indications are that I am better educated and more professional being licensed as a professional engineer, my time is too valuable to spend further contributing to the Wikipedia article on GPS. The fact that other editors seem incapable of comprehending the fact that the section, Geometric Interpretation is a disaster and should be removed causes me to conclude that these people are not of the quality I want to continue to work with. I have been one of the primary authors of the section now called Problem description and I have written much of Error analysis for the Global Positioning System but now we have very hostile, highly disruptive editors working on GPS and I do not care to work with these kind of people. RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to impose upon yourself an article ban on GPS and its talk page, as kindly requested initially; your understanding is very much appreciated. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)