Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 37 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 102 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 56 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 47 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 46 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 21 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 24 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted by ThadeusOfNazereth. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 312 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 24 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

I really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:

• I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Wikipedia:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
• The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.

• Here is just the latest example of misrepresentation of sources: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Another_source_misrepresentation_.2F_inaccurate_edit_summary.3F. The edit summary doesn't cover the whole edit, and the edit doesn't match what the source says. This misrepresentation of the source sat in the article for several days before somebody noticed.
• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_21#Deleting_reliably_sourced_accurate_material_again, there are more examples of sneakiness, where Mike was using the minor edit button to try to slip in significant content changes to the article. (He has since stopped trying to use the Minor button in this way.)
• More examples of misrepresentation of sources from the archives:

• DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.

What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".

• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Misrepresenting_sources_again, from over a year ago, DeknMike is trying to do the exact thing as he's doing in the latest example, so clearly, this is a long-term, protracted problem that is still continuing through today.

• The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
• Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
• I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Wikipedia. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.

Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin observer comment]. I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting [1813 "Hebrew Congregation"] into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 [[1]] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 [[2]]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: DeknMike is correct on the dates of the article's delisting and the start of his involvement editing it, and it was not my intention to imply that his editing caused the de-listing. My point was that DeknMike's involvement at the article was an impediment to its return to Good status. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether I would qualify under the terms of TPC above, but I had gone through the sources available to me on EBSCOHost, JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and other databases, as well as the materials in the local public libraries and the libraries of Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and Webster University. There is very little in the way of academic books dealing with the topic of modern Messianic Judaism. While it is included in a few encyclopedias and dictionaries of religion, none of those I saw, including some of the most relied upon, trace the MJs to before the middle 20th century. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

• First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Wikipedia (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole.
• Second, when you say:

  I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.

  Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

Pesky, you are asking others to make a careful, painstaking review of the detail; have you done so yourself? Have you read Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again? Have you reviewed the edits and compared them to what the reliable sources say? Of course everyone can contribute to these WP:AN discussions, but contributions here can't be valuable if you haven't done your homework. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit counting isn't necessarily a mark of quality or knowing what you are talking about. John Carter became an admin on 14 Jan 2008, if it matters (I have no interest in the subject) Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the date. I understand what you are saying. I was trying to come up with some objectively quantifiable, independently verifiable way to determine if John Carter is an "editor in exceptionally good standing" as Pesky requested. It's difficult to be a very, very active editor and also keep sysop over a very long period of time, so I think it says something. Perhaps what Pesky is asking for is too subjective to satisfy. Zad68 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all difficult given the near impossibility of desysoping. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then Pesky will have to leave it to the individuals reviewing this to make their own, subjective determination. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. DeknMike has strongly held and fixed personal views on the topic. This wouldn't be an issue, except that he continually edits the article to conform to his personal views, regardless of what reliable sources actually say. A classic (and the most recent) example is this edit. The source in question is discussing Christian missions to Jews; from the early 1800s to the mid 1900s mainstream Christian churches established Missions to Jews (often in areas where significant numbers of Jews lived), attempting to convert them to Christianity. The source itself states

"Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication."

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

Its leaders used the decades to build a strong, respectable reputation, and hired Jewish converts as missionaries. Among the missionaries were Martin (Moishe) Rosen, who later founded Jews for Jesus.

This shows the heart of the problem. The source itself says nothing whatsoever about "strong respectable reputation", "hir[ing] Jewish converts", or Martin (Moishe) Rosen. Moreover, when asked what the phrase "its leaders" in his insertion refers to, he states "Why the Messianic Judaism movement, of course!". The source itself is discussing Missions to Jews by established Christian churches, and also explicitly states in that chapter that the "Rise of Messianic Judaism", the "first phase of the movement", occurred "during the early and mid-1970s". DeknMike is well aware of this.

This has been going on for three years. DeknMike has fixed beliefs about the origins of the Messianic movement, and cannot accept what reliable sources say on the topic, so he attributes things to them that they don't say (in the past he would also delete them, but he doesn't do this as much any more). As the various links provided above show, he has modified one specific statement in the article, sourced to seven reliable sources, twenty-three times, simply because he cannot accept what they say. When confronted on the article's talk page, he makes unsubstantiated claims, often accompanied by irrelevant comments about other editors, then typically goes away for a couple of months until the furor dies down, before repeating. There seems to be no way of making him accept what reliable sources say when it disagrees with his beliefs, nor any way of convincing him to edit in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I rarely even look at that article any longer specifically due to this problem. Previously, I was quite an active editor at the page and had numerous encounters with Mike. The problem was exactly as already described: Mike would take vast liberties in claiming that a particular reference stated something when, upon examination of the source, the reference did not. The agenda-pushing was obvious. In fact, without wishing to cast too negative a vibe towards a fellow editor, I often felt that Mike's methods of POV were sneaky - that, if able to get away with it, Mike would re-insert or re-attempt the agenda-pushing after a short time in what I perceived was a hope nobody would notice. This grew tiresome. and only Jayjg appeared up to the task of constant enforcement, whereas I drifted away from the article. Lastly, I agree that the article at one point was in better shape - if I recall correctly, it was written by consensus without the need to tilt it in one direction or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

My apologies for having been away from this thread for a short while (thus leaving questions unanswered). Too much going on IRL. The biggest qualifier I had for someone to look through the entire history was the completely uninvolved one. That really means someone who has, to date, expressed no particular opinion. And someone who doesn't focus on religion-related articles, too. I really mean completely uninvolved. @Zad, no, I haven't had time to do a thorough review (too much going on IRL, again, and I'm spending quite a lot of time researching a different history, at the moment). As for "deviations from truth", it's a kind of nebulous, skewy thing; a smudging of borderlines, the inclusion of things like (for instance) the "delisted GA" being included as if it had something to do with DeknMike; as if there was some desire to encourage people to assume that it did, and so on. I'm not saying that it was deliberate (yes, I said that before, and I'm saying it again now, to avoid people feeling that they have to attack me, too; attacks on me are not warranted, and they upset me probably a great deal more than most people realise). I can think of one user off-hand, who has previously shown an exceptional talent in going through old history. I have no idea whether they're involved or not, or could spare the time to assist, but I will ask them (some time soon) whether they could / would take that task on; just the dusting off, bringing into the light of day, the old stuff (everything relevant, not just what's here. That's what I mean by The Whole Truth™). Pesky (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, can I ask you to do me a favor--Please step back from your suspicions of what you think might be going on, assume good faith, at try to look at it from our point of view for a minute. Can you see that your involvement in this discussion so far appears to assume that the concern that John Carter and myself and Jayjg have been dealing with isn't legitimate? Can you see that you have made vague but pointed statements that appear to question whether what is being presented here is truthful, but you bring no specifics that deal with the heart of the issue for us to review with you--in fact, you then admit you haven't actually reviewed the details? (This was made especially clear when you wrote, "See if you can discuss this one carefully ... Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead?"--the archives show we've been trying do exactly that for well over a year!) Can you see that you imply we are trying to hide the truth? Pesky, these assumptions feel like an attack, and are upsetting. However, if you feel you know someone who meets your standards (and they are good, high standards!) please do invite them to review and comment here. We want the same thing as you. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: the "warning bells" thing stems from a real-life hat which I've worn for nearly ten years, not a WikiHat. Pesky (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this or how I'm supposed to address it. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad (and others!) – apologies if I upset anyone; that wasn't my intention. Sometimes we get so tied up / bogged down in a situation that it interferes with our ability to see the big picture as a complete outsider would. (It's that Confirmation bias thing.) I can see that you all have problems with this situation; my suggestion of discussion wasn't about discussing the article, as such, more about finding a page where you could all get together and discuss the history of your problems with each other, try and unravel them, everyone (DeknMike included) walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and that stuff. Sometimes that works much better than discussing the article itself (but I do know how much yer average male dislikes openly discussing his feelings! Gross generalisation, I know, but it often holds true!) It's a shame you can't all go down the pub and have several beers together ;P I did email the editor I thought of, but they are on a break and haven't responded (yet). Hugz to all concerned, anyway. I hope you can work something out with the minimum of pain all around. Pesky (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. However, I tend to agree that, intentionally or not, your own comments seem to imply that myself, a self-described devout Catholic, and Jayjg and Avi, who are I think both Jews, are in some way sharing a single confirmation bias. I do not see how such a position is very reasonable itself. In fact, the talk page history will reveal, in fact, that I have engaged in rather substantial discussion with both of them regarding whether there has been any sort of authoritative rejection of the Jewishness of the MJs, which would I think go even further to weaken such claims. This complaint however is not about that. Like I said before, there isn't a great deal of academic material out there on the MJs. I've checked the Washington University libraries, counted as one of the ten best university library systems in the US, the Saint Louis University libraries, counted by Gordon Melton as one of the best religion libraries on the planet, the local public libraries, seminary libraries, and other libraries, in addition to the various databanks. As Jayjg indicated in the section I linked to, DeknMike has a fairly clear recent history of misrepresenting sources, producing material which fails verifiability, and other conduct issues which are, I believe, sufficient cause for action to be taken in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, we're not looking to start a personal relationship with DeknMike, we just want him to edit in conformance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and yet this has been going on for three years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I am certainly an involved editor as relates this article. DeknMike has had, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of patience shown to him as regards his edits. He tends to misrepresent sources, promote fringe or insufficiently (for Wikipedia) substantiated opinions, and does so with the intent to promote a particular point of view (to which he is entitled to hold, of course) which certainly does not reflect the vast majority of reliable and verifiable sources written by peoples of all creeds. He may disappear for a while, but comes back performing the same non-wiki-acceptable edits, despite the policies abd guidelines having been explained to him again and again. Whilst unfortunate, I agree with the above editors that at this point, DeknMike is acting as an impediment to improving the article, and has acted in a way that makes it difficult to trust that he will edit the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines in the near or forseeable future. A one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions) would seem appropriate; perhaps focusing on other areas for a while will help DeknMike internalize the policies and guidelines, and the extra care needed to maintain the necessary neutrality when we edit articles about which we have a strong feelings. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What this comes down to is an opinion that Messianic Judaism as a belief that is illegitimate and is nothing more than a new name for Christian missions, created in the 1960s. There has been a consistent push (beginning before I joined) to delegitimize it as a religious movement that is separate both from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The methods include emphasis on why it's the wrong name, discounting sources that give alternate views on the movement, and attacks on anyone who writes otherwise. My so-called 'strong feelings' are for a fair and balanced article that lets the movement talk about itself as freely as other editors let outside/opposition viewpoints be heard. I'm grateful to the other editors for improving my skills, for spurring me to additional research from more sources on all sides of the issue (my opinions aren't 'fixed'); I wish these others could approach the topic with equally open minds and not make it fit their preconceived notions about it. If the content reverted to the 2008 version, with minor updates, it would be much better. They have been trying to reign me in to their views, yet I keep reading sources that contradict their POV. When I've asked for OUTSIDE opinions, they follow me to those boards and make the same tired accusations. This POV won't accept any source that doesn't align with their preconceived assumptions. If Feher, who said its "origins can be traced in the United States to the Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" had meant 'began' she would have said 'began' and not 'arose.' Of his oft-repeated 7 sources, four say a segment of the Hebrew Christian movement emerged and changed its name and one says it existed in the 1940s. Yet they continue to harp on that one undefined word with no thought as to finding consensus, though I have tried over and over to find a synonym that squares with the 'approved' sources, even discounting the sources they veto as 'not authoritative enough'.--DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, Mike, it is generally understood without saying that the person being proposed for a ban disagrees with it. Second, your own comments above clearly indicate why the ban is sought. And your clear statements which directly violate WP:AGF contained in the above statement also demonstrate part of the problem. You accuse others of "preconceived assu\mptions", which have to my knowledge never been demonstrated, as an apparent excuse for avoiding dealing with the issue of your own violations of policies and guidelines. The "tired accusations" you rail against are in fact attempts to get the material to abide by policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, and WP:WEIGHT, and, in your individual case, WP:POV. In short, you have been regularly acting out of accord with policies and guidelines, and sought instead to impugn others as an attempt to distract from that. I personally have no opinions one way or another about the MJs, about whom I have no particular interest one way or another. The fact that you keep reading sources self-published by MJs does less to demonstrated the POV of others than perhaps the POV of those sources, and perhaps that of an editor who seems to seek out those sources. Like I've said, I have been to several libraries, and consulted all the online sources available to me. It is so far as I can tell your own preconceived notions which are the issue here, not those of anyone else. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Sadly, as the latest edits to the Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism (my latest edit here), and Mike's latest edit here, show the behavior causing this WP:AN discussion to be created in the first place is continuing right through this moment. Regarding Messianic Judaism, Mike's ad hominem that the other editors at the article are on a mission to "delegitimize it as a religious movement" instead of a embarking on a good-faith effort to get the article to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say is a new attack that fails WP:AGF and continues a disruptive editing pattern. Mike's suggestion that the article should be rolled back to what it said in 2008 (which was "Modern Messianic Judaism was reborn in the 1960s," supported by a single reference to the outrageously non-WP:RS anonymous blog "Messianic Judaism - The Best Recipe. RabbiYeshua.com. Kehilat Sar Shalom.") is a conclusive example of his desire to push a POV using sources in a way that is entirely unacceptable to WP:V, over having the article reflect what reliable sources say. Regarding the content (especially Mike's latest untrue contention here that "one says it existed in the 1940s"), please see the latest on the article Talk page--this WP:AN thread is about editor behavior issues, article content discussion is at the article page. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it untrue that reference 10, by the same author as reference 3, says quite clearly: "When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form. ... It conveyed the sense of a new, innovative religion rather that[sic] an old, unfavorable one. The term was used in reference to those Jews who accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and did not apply to Jews accepting Roman Catholicism who in Israel have called themselves Hebrew Christians. The term Messianic Judaism was adopted in the United States in the early 1970s by those converts to evangelical Christianity who advocated a more assertive attitude on the part of converts towards their Jewish roots and heritage"? How, then is my direct quote of the source 'untrue'? I keep assuming good faith, but see little in return. I acknowledge my own point of view and guard against it, but see little reciprocity. I tolerate wp:weight with regards to detailed lists of why others don't believe MJ is a valid religion. I don't remember a single instance in the past few years of WP:SPS, though perhaps you've been keeping track.--DeknMike (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The quote is true, your interpretation of it is not, as I mentioned before this content dispute is covered here: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism. At this point I'm going to leave this to the review of others. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I became aware of this problem last October. At the time, DeknMike was doing exactly what is being raised here. Multiple reliable sources stated one thing, DeknMike disagreed, so he insisted on changing what they said, or interpreting them as saying things they did not say. When challenged, his answers were mostly inventions, tangents, OR personal attacks. I don't think there's any hope he'll stop, after this long. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban for now, as too many potential analogies of babies and bathwater come to mind. I think I'm neutral enough to chime in here -- I've been an occasional editor at the article in question for a while, and have watched various debates involving DeknMike from afar. I can see the basis for claims of POV-pushing, but he absolutely has contributed constructively to the article. In the case of this edit, Mike's statement actually is backed up by the latter two sources. Though the text shouldn't have been placed behind several refs that did not explicitly support it, that doesn't look like a blatant misrepresentation of sources to me. I've countered some of Mike's arguments before, but I give him the benefit of the doubt here, and note that he actually made a change to the article which comported with multiple sources cited. Granted, there are places where he hasn't done this, but I've also seen other editors ignore sourcing at least as much as Mike ever has. For example, Jayjg completely ignored the source's actual words when he reverted an edit made by Dalai lama ding dong that was basically a matter of syntactical nuance only, and should have been completely non-controversial. The fact that I had to revert a revert that wouldn't have taken place had Jayjg bothered to scroll to the bottom and read the source excerpt just irks me, and makes me suspect of this whole situation.

There are problems with the article. For sure. Until I fixed it, one ref had been used to back up a statement exactly to the contrary of what it actually said. No one who has edited the article of late is innocent, but it's completely unreasonable to single out Mike alone in this regard, and the fact that it's being done like this just makes me uneasy about some editors' motivations, particularly given other seemingly nonsensical changes to sourced material by Mike's opponents that seem to only serve the purpose of distancing the content of the article from what associated organizations say about themselves, no matter how non-controversial the (sourced) statements may be. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said that Mike is incapable of making any good edits - as Marwood says in Withnail and I, "even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day". The problem is that the vast majority of his edits on this topic have consistently been problematic, a fact your comment fails to address. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My point, though, is that many of the claims (made by multiple users at the talk page) of certain of his edits being nonconstructive or uncorroborated by sources simply were not true. His edits were reverted and combatted on that basis, but in some cases (not all) that basis was either incorrect or nonexistent. I haven't gone through every one of his contribs, so I can't verify whether or not the majority of his contributions were nonconstructive, as you say. As far as I can see (and I'm not all-seeing by any means), he doesn't deserve his topic ban. I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Evan would you please, please, please read up on the full history here, there plenty of links are here for you in this WP:AN discussion, it's distressing that you would !vote without reviewing the contribs and Talk page history. Please read my !vote above in support of this topic ban; I said specifically that I have indeed had constructive interaction with Mike at the article and gave a link to a specific example. This is actually already taken into account in the proposed action--the ban would not include topic-related Talk pages for that very reason. Question back to you is, how low can the signal-to-noise ratio be allowed to go, and for how long, before action needs to be taken? One good edit out of... 10? 100? Take a look at the history please and tell us if it changes your mind. The rest of what you wrote, such as questioning a revert of Dalai Lama Ding Dong by Jayjg, is basically "nobody has clean hands" and reminds me of how WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When did I say that I haven't reviewed the contribs or the talk page history? I said that I hadn't "gone through every one of his contribs". I'm familiar with the situation; in fact I have been for months now. How many of Mike's 1,661 edits have you personally reviewed?

The Jayjg revert is relevant because it shows how much attention (i.e., none) several of the editors pay to edits before getting revert-happy on the article. I'll respond to your question on the signal-to-noise ratio by inquiring as to how many times constructive edits (a few of which Mike's, most of which weren't) ought to be reverted before action is taken. There is no mathematical ratio established by policy that deals with that sort of thing. You know that as well as I do, so don't be facetious.

I've already shown that at least one of Mike's contested changes to the article was backed up by at least two sources, while it was disputed and removed from the article under the false assumption that it was not backed up by any of them. In other words, a large part of the reason we're here is because the reverting editors didn't take the time to actually check the sources before reverting Mike's edits based on a hunch. Is that acceptable to you? Don't we have a responsibility to honestly and thoroughly evaluate changes to an article before dismissing them out of hand? Or are we at the point now where a group of editors can completely override verifiability? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It has also been shown above that the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Wikipedia's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate. Bringing in one revert by Jay about the term "religious", done to the edits of a different editor, not Mike, does not in any way shape or form detract from the well-documented history of Mike's inability (or outright refusal) to follow the rules which he agreed to follow by creating an account here. If anyone has an issue with verifiability, Evan, it's Mike, not Jayjg. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I can see easily why everybody's got heated here, and everybody (DeknMike included) has excellent points. Also, I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation, and moving forwards. Pesky (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, did you read the history as was asked of you before !voting? This !vote does not at all address any of the well-documented, long-term, persistent disruptive editing. It appears to be based on a desire not to see someone's feelings hurt, rather than a desire to allow improvement to Wikipedia content. How much weight should be given to a !vote that doesn't address any of the core issues raised? Regarding "I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation"--I am not seeing any evidence to support this statement because DeknMike has not made any article edits and has not at all joined the discussion on the article Talk page since you started providing input there. All the current activity at the article proves is that when Mike is not involved in editing the article or in the discussion, progress can be made. Zad68 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Application to End Topic Ban

I was given an indefinite ban on August 21st, 2010 for off wiki activities related to Israel. The ban was lifted on October 28, 2011 as long as I agreed to avoid topics relating to Israel and the Middle East. In the time since, with one absent minded exception, I have held to the ban and contributed to areas of my expertise. If others would agree, I would like to have my topic ban removed for the following reasons:

1. Since the sanction I’ve done work in the article space, focusing on non-controversial topics in the areas of my expertise.
2. I’ve made good use of article talk pages, when needed, in an effort to work collaboratively with other editors.
3. In addition, I acknowledge the actions which led to the sanction. I did not act as collaboratively as this community expects and should have known better.
4. I promise to make better use of talk pages when making substantive edits and a good-faith effort to work collaboratively in the topic area.
5. I have a lot to offer in the topic area, especially in the field of culture and history. I think that my contributions during the period of the sanction demonstrate that I am not here to impose a certain POV but rather to help improve the article space.
6. I am also willing to undergo a period of probation (the duration of which to be decided by you) to help monitor compliance.

I hope that you will look with favor on this application. I am sincere in my desire to edit neutrally, collaboratively, and in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

--Eric (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor - I think if you will look above you will find that you should contact the administrator who topic banned you. If I am incorrect, perhaps some administrator or editor knowledgeable on this would comment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, a WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK. Bans are usually imposed by the whole community or by ArbCom. If it was a community ban, then the usual place to appeal is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Eric1985:

• Eric1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In fact the ban was an unblock condition that Eric1985 agreed to in October, 2011. User:Panyd then agreed to lift the block. The original block was by User:Tariqabjotu. I am notifying Panyd and Tariqabjotu of this discussion. See also:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine.

-The original ANI discussion in 2010 when the indef block was imposed. Eric1985's posts on an external website are mentioned there.

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Jiujitsuguy.

-An AE discussion which mentions that Eric1985 used the external website to comment on specific edits of I/P articles by named individuals.

• User talk:Eric1985/Archive3#Unblock Request - The unblock discussion in fall 2011.

Since Eric1985 has made less then 100 edits here since October 2011 I don't see enough of a track record to justify lifting his unblock condition about ARBPIA. He also seems to continue using the external site to comment on the editing of I/P articles. This is not an open-and-shut violation of anything but it does give us some inkling of his approach to editing I/P articles. - EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

EJ the guy said he's willing to undergo a period of probation. If he gets out of line, block him. True he's made about 100 edits since his block was lifted but he wasn't that active before the block either. As for his own blog, it's just that - a blog, nothing more nothing less. He's entitled to his opinion and there is no evidence of any nefarious purpose. Other editors, such as RolandR have engaged in outside activities relating to IP and we don't hold that against them. The guy is asking for a second chance. What's the harm in giving it to him?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to participate here, given I was the one who imposed Eric's indefinite block back in August 2010. But given no one asked for my opinion before replacing his block with a topic ban, and I wasn't even informed of this action until -- well -- now, I don't understand why anyone would really care now about what I think about this matter. So, consider this an official expression of indifference toward what happens here. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the ban was for off-wiki activities related to israel, and off-wiki activities related to Israel are still ongoing (is this the right site? The latter part of this probably falls a bit short of incitement to meatpuppetry... if I got the wrong site, feel free to delete this parenthetical text), then is it really appropriate to lift the ban? Disclaimer: I'm just a random passerby with no interest in I/P articles bobrayner (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see any call to arms from that website and I concur with bobrayner that it falls short of incitement to meat puppetry. We shouldn't topic ban an editor simply because he started a critical blog. Perhaps its his way of venting. We all do that sometimes. What about the Wikipedia Review and the way editors vent their frustrations on those boards. Should we start banning those who post there as well? I say we should cut the guy some slack. Everyone deserves a second chance. He's willing to undergo probation. If he gets out of line, block him for good.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Eric has been editing Wikipedia since 2006. The NPOV policy is not difficult to understand, compliance is mandatory and neutrality is especially important in the topic area. The article from the blog selected by bobrayner is direct evidence of a failure to understand this critically important policy.

"Where NPOV Fails ... Just 50 years ago, someone would not look at you twice for calling a black person a “nigger,” but we all know that we not an NPOV term. The same goes for terms like “Israeli Occupied Territories,” which are, in fact, disputed territories."

Referring to the territories that are occupied by Israel and recognized as such by the entire world as reflected in countless reliable sources using the entirely NPOV compliant term “Israeli Occupied Territories” is not like a racial slur...at all. This is obvious. Perhaps that can all be written off as an irrelevant personal opinion and venting ? No, because when you combine "which are, in fact, disputed territories" with the statement that follows later "If you are certain that your edits are factual and well sourced, you can confidently make changes that will be in the open encyclopedia indefinitely", as the editor appears to be, you have direct evidence that this profound misunderstanding of policy, and in fact, reality as represented by RS (it's not Wikipedia's fault), presents a risk to content that is easily avoided by not giving editors the privileges to do things they haven't earned. The editor has had almost 6 years to understand what NPOV means. He may be sincere in his desire to edit neutrally but this shows that after 6 years he doesn't know what it means. Are we going to have a general amnesty for editors who have been expelled from the topic area for breaking the rules, PalestineRemembered perhaps, because everyone deserves a second chance and if they get out of line they can be blocked ? I hope not. Should we start banning those who post on other sites ? Yes, probably, if there is clear evidence that they are here to advocate and they don't understand mandatory policies. The topic area is bad enough already. I can't see how allowing Erik back will make it better. Where are all the neutral editors who just want to make the encyclopedia better ? Wikipedia should be making it more difficult for people to enter and remain in the topic area. Having checked for a potential conflict of interest on my part, Erik has not taken much interest in my editing in the topic area and I would defend his right to be as critical as he wants in his blog, but I think there is insufficient evidence available to indicate that allowing the editor to return would be a good idea and improve the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sean, The Comparison with User:PalestineRemembered is misplaced and the two accounts should not be placed in the same category. First, PalestineRemembered was indefinitely blocked for egregious sock puppetry, editing under at least 9 different accounts[3] Second, PalestineRemembered had one of the worst recidivist block records of any editor[4] One can not say that he wasn't warned of his bad behavior. Eric on the other hand never abused multiple accounts and until his indef, had never been blocked. Aside from that one block, his record is squeaky clean. As long as he keeps his personal POV out of the article space and edits in a neutral dispassionate manner and his edits are sourced with verifiable and reliable sources and he discusses his edits on the relevant Talk pages, everything should be okay.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions on MMA articles

Originally I posted at ANI in an ancillary thread asking that general sanctions be imposed on all MMA related articles as well as a 500 edit minimum for editors to participate in MMA related AFDs (but not just to edit MMA pages). It was pointed out by The Blade of the Northern Lights that AN would be a better venue to ask for these sanctions.

I'm sure the majority of the admins here are familiar with the constant editwarring, SPAs, arguing, etc - the general battleground that now makes up MMA articles. We're dealing with new problems on a weekly basis at this point; this is the latest thread to pop up on the board, aside from the one I originally made my proposal in which ended with a boomerang indef for the OP.

We're dealing with some very passionate fans, some of whom have been off wiki canvassed (see the current ANI for some info on this), who don't quite understand the point of WP. Anyway, any arguments that need to be made for this are probably already well known by the community here, and those who need a refresher can check the current ANI to get a taste of how this has been going.

For those who may not be familiar with this, the reason I'm proposing a 500 edit minimum is that MMA AFDs have attracted tons of SPAs.

I think both of these provisions will better allow admins to deal with the situation, or to quote The Blade of the Northern Lights: "If you think it'd help, you can ask to impose standard community sanctions at AN. That's what we did for Indian caste articles, and from an administrative standpoint it's made the problem about 10x easier to deal with." Though I'm sure I don't need to sell you on making your job easier :).

Note: Insofar as I know I am completely uninvolved with MMA aside from removing a delrev tag from an MMA page after the review ended.

SÆdon^talk 05:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very clearly an involved editor in this situation, so I won't comment on what sanctions should or should not be put into place. As I have stated before I am willing to accept whatever sanctions Admins or the Wikipedia community at-large decides, on me individually or as part of a group of editors. However, I do have a question as this process potentially proceeds. WP:GS seems to be broad in terms of what "sanctions" are and/or could be (and reviewing the sanctions log it seems that any and everything is on the table). I realize this may be intentional, but even with my years of experience around Wikipedia I'm not totally sure what this action could result in. Can I safely assume that if sanctions are put into place, the terms of those sanctions will be clear to both established editors (like me) and those new to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (like those coming in from the MMA forums)? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just use the Obama sanctions text since it's quite specific:

Exact wording:MMA related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing MMA pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedon (talk • contribs)

Heh... fair enough. I was just wanting to be sure that if sanctions are applied by the time this AN is closed that those sanctions are clear. What you basically seem to be proposing is that a user gets one warning, if that much, before the ban hammer comes down, even if just temporarily. I have no problems with that. I just wanted to sure I know what's going on. I supposed the possible sanctions could have included topic bans for all involved editors, including myself, which is why I wanted to be sure the sanctions were clear by the time this AN closed. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think sanctions could be a good idea, as long as we take care to design smart sanctions. Be clear about what the problem is and how the sanctions aim solve it - this is especially important if there's a chance that somebody could get blocked for defying the terms of the sanctions. In particular, I think a time limit would be appropriate. (If when the sanctions end the editing is reasonable, we all win. If not, just click on "renew sanctions" or find a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in MMA but I've probably made a few edits to MMA articles over the years)

That's a disambiguation page. Do you mean SMART criteria? Nyttend (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I am an idiot and I forgot to copy & paste the right target for that link. I've updated the link; thanks for pointing it out. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as to sanctions in general, but would just say that 500 edit limit can be easily overcome by a person of average intelligence using a Perl or other script that any novice could write. I could do it in less than a day with just the mouse and keyboard, and I'm not extraordinarily clever. This would leave us with 500 minor edits of dubious value, and an SPA that doesn't look like an SPA on paper. If you underestimate the determination of others, you do so at your own peril. Whatever the community decides is fine with me, but there would have to be a time elements as well (or similar test), or you are just creating more problems. To be sure, there is no silver bullet here. When dealing with problem makers, you have to think like a problem maker if you want avoid the sanctions being easily bypassed. Additionally: I would remind you all that WP:MMANOT is an essay, it is not a guideline, which is part of the problem. As an essay, it has no teeth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if a SPA goes to the effort of making 500 scripted/minor edits (which they'll probably get caught on some sort of automation/WTH is this user doing trigger) they'll still look like a SPA. If the SPA goes through the investment of 500 meaningful edits and then immediately changes to a entirely different style where they start exhibiting MMA-SPA behavior, it'll be obious they're a SPA. They'll reason the same way, make the same types of arguments, etc. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The regular sanctioning processes are not working or Administrators are declining to enforce the current community behavorial guidelines. While I appreciate the additional tool in the toolbox, it doesn't help if the repair man is not doing anything with the tools that are already in the toolbox. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right, but there's a chance that a big dialog on a page, or a warning on given to a user that's got the dire language usually in these general sanctions might, might cause a problematic user to adjust their techniques. For most of these SPA's, it won't do much though. Someone will stir them up off-site and we'll get new accounts and IP's that frankly don't care about basic things like courtesy, respect and polite disagreement. And getting block? That's just a badge of honor to take back to their home site! Ravensfire (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

500 edits may be relatively easy for somebody competent at automation (or somebody who has an entire day spare) who already has some knowledge of what kind of edits / which locations permit rapid increases in edit count. These are not as obvious to outsiders as they are to old hands here; I'll keep quiet on specific examples. However, most potentially problematic single-issue editors are unlikely to fit that description. Even if 20% manage to jump over the hurdle, meh, we've reduced the number by 80% and that's a big improvement as far as I'm concerned. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A 500-edit restriction is not that easy to game. There is such a restriction on a particular article in WP:ARBAA2. Two editors received an indef block for a silly process of editing one word at a time to reach 500. The edits they tried to do were revision-deleted as being obvious abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think sanctions are quite necessary yet. Sanctions against users with less than 500 edits can be (reasonably) viewed as an attempt to exclude everyone except "wiki-insiders" from the discussion. It says to everyone outside of Wikipedia, "your opinion isn't important." Just because there are some SPA's ganging up on AfD's is not a reason to ban them from joining the discussion, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we should ignore their input. A better use of our time would be to educate them about our policies. Eventually, they'll either get bored or exasperated, decide there is nothing they can do to stop the destruction of their favorite articles, and leave; or, they'll dig in, read the relevant policies, and start arguing their points from a policy-based standpoint (which would be a good thing). Admins who close AfD's regularly can spot SPA's a mile away, you needn't worry about them changing the course of an article's fate by posting arguments that are not based on policy. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sanctions have been necessary for some time. Several editors have spent significant amounts of time explaining the rules/policies. And it has changed from outright claims of WP:ILIKEIT to filibustering and screaming that they're being ignored if you don't answer every single one of their posts. It's not just AfDs, some have moved on to the talk pages where it is appropriate to discuss the inclusion of MMA based articles and completely derailed the consensus building (posting long diatribes, using formal logic processes instead of WP policy, posting proposals counter to the entire purpose of the consensus building). It's not that we need a new tool in the box, just some technicians that are not afraid to use the tools already in the box. Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you can't beat em, join em. Break the discussion down into bite-sized pieces, and create separate threads to decide each small chunk. Note that any off-topic discussion in a topic will be removed. Get a consensus on each individual chunk, then put them all together. They can only derail a discussion if the discussion is unfocused enough to allow it. If there are editors out there who are obviously intend to disrupt the debate instead of contribute to it, then they need to be blocked. But, new editors who don't fully understand policy may not necessarily be intentionally disrupting the debate. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 01:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Scottywong, there are other responses from SPAs and new editors who get frustrated with the process you didn't include. Hasteur includes one of them, the filibustering with WP:TLDR comments that run discussions in circles, never bringing up any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, which basically torpedoes any constructive attempt at resolving the issue (which is happening now at the supposed MMA event notability guideline RfC). The other response ranges from out-right vandalism to talk page haranguing about how bad the alternative is without providing anything constructive in return (see Talk:2012 in UFC events) to harassment and personal attacks (both on and off-wiki) of those who are trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There was even push-back a couple months ago when I was trying to add actual prose to articles so that they wouldn't contain simple WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. Other than a few cases, it hasn't been any one user/IP causing the havoc, so it isn't as if I could file a report at WP:AIV as warnings stack up. The issues have been taken to WP:ANI numerous times and essentially gets blown off. The result is some of us who were active in the MMA article space leave because, quite frankly, we're tired of the BS. I've moved to working on the backlog at WP:CCI for now. Some other editors are also finding other things to do, yet some simply leave on their own accord and haven't been seen from since. I would potentially like to go back to the MMA article space to add content to those articles which do cover notable topics and clean-up, yes delete, those articles which are not notable. But I'm not going to do it if it's going to cause me to be harassed and attacked further. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you want to pursue sanctions, Arbcom is probably your best bet. Otherwise, I'd say you need more editors to outnumber the SPA's. Your best bet there might be to stage a well-organized RfC that is advertised at WP:CENT. If you go this route, be sure to define your proposal in a crystal clear way with no room for misinterpretation. I imagine the proposal would be to decide the fate of the individual vs. omnibus debate, as well as secondary notability guidelines for MMA events. Once it's decided at RfC, then there are no more arguments to endure, and it will give the SPA's a sense of closure on the issue (rather than forcing them to stop participating in the discussion, which will only anger them and encourage more disruption). I'd be happy to review a draft RfC before it goes live, just hit me up. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 04:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You mean the like RfC here that was advertised at WT:CENT here and already appears to be a dog chasing its tail? Okay. Maybe should should continue to hanging out at WP:CCI --TreyGeek (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok, well just wait for the RfC to finish before you get your panties in a bunch. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Also, it was not listed at WP:CENT. I have added it there now. Wait a few days and you should get more involvement from experienced Wikipedians. Be patient. The more you respond to every comment the SPA's make, the longer and more TLDR you make the discussion. Let them make their non-policy-based arguments, and don't respond to them. They will be ignored by the closing admin, just like they were on many recent AfD's. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose restrictions based on edit count, it goes against the anyone can edit ideals of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 01:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose' also to any sanctions based on edit count. The principles involved are that anybody can edit, and AGF, two of the most basic ideas here. I strongly oppose individual event MMA articles unless we change all of sports similarly, but I would much rather lose this argument than lose the principles of Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose restricting AfD based on edit count particularly such a high count, and also on such a limited set of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG. The problem is a select few individuals, and some socks, who have escaped blocks solely because most admins do not want to wade into the muck. This is one reason I have exited the discussions there, as I can't take action because of my previous attempts to create order there makes me too "involved" in the eyes of my peers, and my inability to get fellow admins to help when blocking was needed. Let's face it, virtually no admin wants to get involved in the MMA disputes, and almost every ANI discussion is all but ignored by admins and dies a long, slow, verbose death with no action. We ignored the real problems long enough, and that hasn't worked out very well. Why we are allowing editors involved in MMA greater latitude in personal attacks and disruption is beyond me, but we have created our own problem by trying to ignore problem editors because it was "controversial" or a lot of work to slog through the reams of circular conversations. What is needed isn't more rules, it is strong enforcement of our current guidelines for conduct and existing inclusion criteria, and holding this "community" to the same standards that we expect of anyone else. I spent months trying to compromise already, it is time to simply treat MMA like any other article type on Wikipedia, no matter how upset it makes a few fans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 06:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • With respect to the above editors who have opposed, while I can understand why we should oppose a ban on editors based on their edit count, I don't see why we should not at least offer a view on (if not support) the proposal that this area be subject to general probation. It seems remarkably unhelpful to offer a strong view on one part of a proposal, and stay silent as to the rest of it. Is it not possible that admins have waded through even parts of this area, but found that after consuming so much of their time, the conduct did not warrant something so entirely preventative as a block? With probation, at least other measures are available to uninvolved admins to address the types of disruption allegedly found on these articles...if you care enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for GoldenGlory84

• GoldenGlory84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is quite enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a whole lotta socks in that drawer. Based on this alone, I'd support a community ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I can't imagine any extenuating circumstances that would excuse this much socking. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Get him out of here. Talk about a fall from glory. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but I'm waiting for the "what, y r we wasting tiem juzt de facto bannnifiez, doodZ!" crowd to show up. Night Ranger (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - we're better off without this. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Doubt it will change much, but needs to happen. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but per Shadowjams. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question of procedure As the subject of this proposal is currently blocked, who is appointed to speak for them? CrawlBacker (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This has almost gotten to the point of WP:LTA. No need for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gundagai article bullying

• Gundagai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gundagai Aboriginal lore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bullying continues on the Gundagai article page and on the Gundagai Aboriginal lore page. I have authored a lot of the content of the Gundagai article page and 99% of the Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page. Bidgee and mattinbgn trump up reverts, then bans and someone reverts what I put when I try to seek assistance as Jenks24 reverted my post on 5 March at the Village Pump. Currently after a "severe edit" by garyvines in February the Gundagai article page has several errors. Even the references are out of synch. I recently added another reference to the Jeanine Leane content in the authors section on the Gundagai article page, to go with the first reference I put. That got reverted. The Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page which is a page garyvines created, is inappropriately named as its content is not all Aboriginal lore or even folklore. The acknowledgement at the top of that Gundagai aboriginal lore page that Gundagai is a place of Aboriginal significance was out there by garyvines who is an archaeologist so the significance of the place is recognised, but then the vandals who put other stuff and/or prevent things being corrected mess everything up. Any attempt by me to put a link to Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page from the Gundagai article page gets reverted. This bullying on the gundagai article page has been going on for several years. Lies re me also get told. That is all pretty crook but the mess these antics from the perpetrators make of the article pages and wikipedia is pretty sad. Currently they are putting on edit summaries that I can return from being banned if I contact them. Why would I want to be contacting bullies and liars. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.201 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You've posted this... well, everywhere, near as I can tell. Let's keep discussion in one place, shall we? Unless there are comments at the other village pump/help desk discussions, I'd suggest that place be here for the moment. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. This editor was banned in 2006, and due to constant evasion of said ban has yet to actually see it out, even though it was only supposed to last a year. WP:RBI is the way to go. Jenks24 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree. The last block was a rangeblock on several IP ranges in January 2011; might that be an option here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that his range is 144.128.0.0/12, the only other option to stop this is semi-protection and, failing that, full-protection. --MuZemike 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why no one has acted on the "Gundagai Anon"'s above trolling, it has no place here. Please deal with them, we are getting sick of them and the false accusations. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With no blocks in over a year, is it possible that the IP finally heeded the ban? I've not checked the page history, and except for the IPs of this person who were bugging me last year after I blocked one of them, I've not been at all involved. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I reported the Anon on IRC a number of times but no one did anything, myself and others just gave up reporting them. The Anon didn't take heed of the ban, if they didn't edit the Gundagai article there were making false accusations. I'm really disappointed that Mattinbgn and myself have to put up with the Anon's bullshit and harassment. Bidgee (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Both pages are now semiprotected for a year; feel free to ask me for more semiprotections of comparable lengths, or feel free to unprotect/reduce protection or to request either of them without notifying me first. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits related to Vera Peterson pages

Relevant pages are: Vera Peterson, Talk:List of recurring Cheers characters, List of recurring Cheers characters, and Cheers

I made edits to reflect the fact that Vera Peterson is no an "Unseen character". User:Snappy disagreed with my changes and reverted them. What followed was a series of edits and a brief discussion of them at Talk:List of recurring Cheers characters. Snappy has been uncivil in the discussion, has violated 3RR and admitted as much in his reply to me on User talk:Snappy, and falsely accused me of being "an IP hopping vandal". I would ask that this user be warned about his willful violation of 3RR and his making flase accusations just because he disagrees with me about an edit. I will not be making any further changes to the above mentioned pages until an administrator can address the matter. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP user above is also 99.192.72.5, and has been using both addresses to violate 3RR, so this is the "IP hopping vandalism" I was referring to. He has admitted as much on my talk page, which on Vera Peterson, he violated 3RR first. I too violated 3RR, I regret doing and I note that user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5 has now reverted back to his/her version. I thought I was improving the Category:Unseen Characters by adding Vera, (I was looking at it for another reason and saw the omission). Many references provided at the talk page back me up on this but they were not good enough for user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5. At no point was I uncivil to user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5, I merely pointed out that they were using multiple addresses. They replied that I was being uncivil but later confirmed, that it was them, using both those addresses. Snappy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Snappy's talk page my ISP uses dynamic IP addresses. I have no control over when it changes or what it changes to. In fact, I was not even aware it had changed while making these edits. I made no effort to hide who I was and never denied making edits that I made. I also have explained to Snappy on his talk page that I did not violate 3RR, but it seems he wants to count an initial edit that was not a revert as if it were one. But at least he is now admitting he broke the 3RR rule. Also, the incivility started when he accused me of "edit warring" the first time I reverted his edits. One revert does not a war make. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, technically your first edit (using 99.192.72.5) wasn't a revert but it was a partial revert of my change, then you made three further edits using 99.192.88.40. So while you may not have violated the technicalities of 3RR, you certainly violated the spirit of it. Now you are just wikilawyering in order to explain your actions. Is something stopping you for registering as a normal user instead of hiding behind multiple IPs? At no point was I uncivil, merely pointing out your actions. Snappy (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

IP editors are human, too ... and many people's IP addy changes on a regular basis. Editing without a named account, and having changeable IP addresses, is not necessarily a sign of anybody "hiding" anything at all or anything else underhand. As for anonymity, I really doubt whether your actual name is "Snappy" ;P Pesky (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad block

I was blocked because false information was presented about me in the edit warring noticeboard, and I got upset about this. Instead of dealing with the false parts of the accusations, EdJohnston insisted that - although I had opened talk page conversations about the sections in dispute - that me being upset about the misinformation being spread about me - which the reporter refused to retract - was sufficient grounds to block.

Specifically, Masem listed me reverting myself as part of a supposed 3RR violation (as well as listing a false diff as the one being reverted to), and Ridernyc claimed that me setting out my proposal on the talk page was me editing the policy again. These were probably down to errors. Masem's refusal to correct this error, however, shows poor behaviour on his part

I was unable to get the block reviewed throughout the lenght of the block, being told I wasn't allowed to complain about the actions of other people when appealing a block - when the fact that false information was provided in the section asking for the block was rather significant.

I think this demonstrates a major problem with Wikipedia. If you perpetrate bad blocks, it's going to drive people off Wikipedia. Indeed, I feel little urge to edit here anymore. The extreme rudeness of admins, visible in User_talk:86.**_IP#Edit_warring_at_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.2FWriting_about_fiction, and claims that because the block is short, it being unjust doesn't matter, are also extremely bad.

You often talk about how you have trouble keeping editors. If editors are prone to Kangaroo courts - and this is the second such I have experienced, both led by EdJohnston (the previous involved an editor on one side of the dispute pointing out a 1RR that I wasn't aware of - then saying that as he reverted it already, I should agree not to edit the article for a month instead of correcting something that had already been corrected.

EdJohnston's blocks seem to be capricious, partisan, and prone to presume the accused is always wrong. He allows one side of an editing dispute to silence the other side simply by calling on him to act first, and any objection to the other side's proposed solution to the dispute - or even complaining about direct lies in the filing on the edit warring page - is considered evidence you will continue edit warring, even if you have agreed to stop editing the page, and take it to talk long before.

This is terrible. This is nothing but Wikipedia bullying editors, and treating being upset at gross injustice as proof of guilt.

86.** IP (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm "the reporter" that 86.** is talking about, I will still not retract that 86's actions in said case follow WP:DUCK-like 3RR edit warring, even if 1) they weren't reverting to exactly the same revision and 2) it wasn't within the 24hr period. It is completely fair to put that type of behavior up for review at the EW noticeboard. 86 was free to challenge that and claim "no, that's really not a revert" or similar, and the closing admin would determine the strength of the argument. If the admin closed it as "no 3RR", I would have shrugged and moved on. That's the whole point of the EW noticeboard. I, as an admin, could just have easily blocked 86 right then and there on said claims (ignoring the fact that I was involved), but only then would 86 have a valid complaint that I was falsely accusing him without recourse. I would have then expected admin review potential action against myself in that scenario. Instead, I put it to discussion at the noticeboard.

Instead of calming arguing against why his actions weren't edit warring, 86 took the path of claiming false accusations and lying and effectively was blocked because of the bad behavior in responding to standard dispute resolution paths, not only issuing from that case but other more recent discussions where other editors found him behavior tenacious and unproductive. The block - only 24hr - was completely fair for a cooling off period. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you deny that your first edit reported was me reverting myself, and that you got the diff being reverted to wrong? If you make a mistake, you need to correct it. Standing by falsehoods moves you from mistaken to malicious.

EdJohnston shows no evidence of having considered the factual nature of the accusations. Indeed, on my talk page, he states that my complaining about the false information was why he blocked me. [5] Therefore, your presenting false information, which he did not check, was the only reason you managed to get me blocked. You can't do that. You cannot lie about someone, then say it's alright, because they had a chance to complain that you lied. 86.** IP (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It may have been an edit to a previous thing you had, but in the pattern it is one step of consideration. When presenting EW dispute cases, you put forth all the available evidence; the closing admin judges the value of each. So yes, the first diff is as you say, but I stand by that it is relevant to the case and not a mistake to incldue in consider the EW pattern. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll also point out that it still is your attitude that is the core problem. If you had responded calmly at the 3RR, dismissing the claims in a rationale manner, it might have well been dismissed and life moves on. Instead, you shout your head off and throw accusations at people. That is not accepted behavior at WP, regardless of what page you're editing at. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is about an important MOS page, the fiction guideline at WP:MOSWAF. It is unpleasant to have to lock down a major guideline when (as it seemed to me) one of the parties was doing a poor job of negotiation and seemed like they were going to revert indefinitely. The dispute was from May 4 through 7. Over that period 86.** reverted about six times. Nobody supported his changes. The edit-warring complaint that led to this 24-hour block was here. Note my offer both earlier in the day and also in the closing statement that "If you will commit to a plan for reaching consensus and abiding by the result, this block can be lifted." Three other admins declined a succession of unblock requests. In none of those cases did 86.** IP agree to accept consensus. His complaints were addressed to what he saw as flaws in the original report. The block didn't assume the correctness of the original report. After seeing the report, I did my own analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly leaning towards full-protecting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction for at least 3 months until the users can get themselves together. Failing that, blocks will occur. --MuZemike 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• You'll only exacerbate the problem with the latter. The problem here is that several people are operating without thought. More I-don't-care-I'm-just-going-to-block-on-the-numbers heavyhandedness won't improve the situation. But page protection I support, because the edit warriors (and I'm including you and Ridernyc in this, Masem), are at this stage not even hitting "show changes" or "show preview" to see what their reflex reverts are doing. The changes to the page need to stop, because the page is suffering as the edit warriors substitute reversion for editing. In this edit for example, a reversion (which I agree appears to be a self reversion after realizing that one has removed more than was intended) a "fair use" section, whose placement and first paragraph are disputed, ends up occurring twice on the page. But the edit summary for this edit indicates that people are substituting edit summaries for the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "People" aren't substituting edit summaries for the talk page, only User:86.** IP is. Masem, Ridernyc and myself have all independently reached the conclusion that the changes made by 86 are somewhere between suboptimal and unacceptable. 86 then plays deaf and tries to push through his changes to the guideline. Where exactly did Masem and Ridernyc go wrong? 86's edits are clearly controversial and have been met with unanimous opposition. Of course we reverted those changes and asked 86 to engage in talk page discussion. He refused. So how is any of that anyone else's fault and not solely 86's? I can't even believe what I'm reading. Masem and myself responded to 86's posting at WT:WAF. He didn't even bother to reply. Neither does he appear to get the message at WP:PLOTSUM. Instead he runs here complaining about "lies" and the entirely appropriate block against him. You're saying we're to blame that we reverted this person's edits? Seriously? Seriously? --87.78.0.224 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You realise I could not participate in discussion, because I was blocked. Further Masem has generally approved the majority of the 6 proposals, you are the only one opposing at the moment, which is a 2:1 majority in favour of (most of) them as it stands. This is yet another attempt to distract the issue with blatant untruths. 86.** IP (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm saying what I actually wrote. Yes, people are using edit summaries in place of the talk page. Masem's placement of talk page discussion in an edit summary is in the very next edit after that diff. Rydernyc even used Twinkle's vandalism rollback tool, mislabelling the disputed changes as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• MuZemike, why would you bother posting such a "tough on crime" heavy-handed comment? It's quite obvious that you haven't actually looked into the recent history of WAF and its talk page. Whom else besides User:86.** IP are you considering for a block? Who else made any edit against consensus besides 86.**? This is a completely onesided "conflict". --87.78.0.224 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to see where you've all taken User:Uncle G/Describe this universe, by the way, and how far you have run with the ball after picking it up. ☺ A warning to article writers of the fair use concerns is a good idea, that I probably would have got around to in an alternative universe. Your disagreement is in part over what the case law actually implies and even is. Take that to the talk page.

And remember that even a manual of style can use footnotes and further reading. Why not cite the cases and some expert legal analyses, as you would in a (well written) article? Then this situation won't be so likely to happen in the future. (Yes, I know that you tried to do that once. You forgot to put a <references>...</references> tag and section in, though, so the citation was invisible. How ironic that a manual of style page wasn't kept up to the standards of the manual of style!)

Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again this all could be avoided with discussion IP.**.86 seems reluctant to take part in. It was only after things were taken to the 3RR notice board that this editor responded to any requests for discussion. Also the fact that we are still here once again talking about how unfair the world is to IP.**.86 shows where the problems lie. IP.**.86 is rude, edits with an agenda, and refuses to talk to other editors until things are taken to ridiculous extremes. The course any rational editor would have taken would be just to sit out the block and move on with editing the article in question, instead we are here once again discussing how unfair the world is to IP.**.86. Ridernyc (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also what exactly is the purpose of bringing this here now. What is AN/I going to do about this? Just more distraction from forming a consensus. Ridernyc (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is how the talk page discussion stands at this time:

	Positive	Neutral	Opposed
Proposal 1	Me, Masem (for see also)		213.196.211.143
Proposal 2	Me, Masem ("starting point")		213.196.211.143
Proposal 3	Me	Masem (needs more discussion)	213.196.211.143
Proposal 4	Me	Masem (add more content as well)	213.196.211.143
Proposal 5	Me, Masem ("That's fine")		213.196.211.143
Proposal 6	Me, Masem ("That's fine")		213.196.211.143

So these are not the horribly controversial proposals they're being painted as. The initial discussion shows many have a general level of support, and only an IP user has opposed. The reverts give the strong appearance of ones that did not actually review the content. 86.** IP (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is the second admin noticeboard report about basically the same issue. drop the fricking stick (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Again why is this being discussed here at all. Move on and just discuss your changes there. Not sure why you keep making a mountain out of a mole hill instead of just discussing your changes which is what I advised you to do several times. You where not blocked because of the content of your edits, you were blocked because you insist on arguing and using foul langue instead of just discussing your edits. GO to the talk page and discuss your proposals, simple. Ridernyc (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This was a bad block, based on an administrator treating upset at an inaccurate claim about my edits as proof of wrongdoing. If people can get one blocked simply by lying about their edits, that's a major problem for Wikipedia, and needs corrected. 86.** IP (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello, and welcome to planet Earth. Have you met the humans? They're not telepathic, not clairvoyant, and all of the time have to work from limited information and heuristic mental models, the poor wolflings. Some of them even have the nutty idea that they can band together and write a Branch Library of their own, from scratch. Can you imagine? Uncle Galactic (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I will just take the time to point, this editor is still making changes to fiction related guidelines without prior discussion [6], I'm not sure what is so hard about talking about changes to guidelines before editing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a guideline, that's an essay, and one that misquotes policy, as explained on the talk page. Again, you are being misleading about the content of my edits, by claiming it's a guideline. Can we have some basic respect for truth? 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again before I can even correct myself, the persecution and lier allegations start. You are correct it's an essay and labled as an essay therefore there is no reason that it's needs to match policy and really no reason to edit war over it. Again why can't you simply discuss your changes BEFORE you make them? Ridernyc (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit confluct] Indeed, I don't think that there can be anything controversial about the edit Ridernyc quoted if you read the discussion on the talk page. The guidelines and policy quoted unambiguously were being misrepresented in the essay. They did not quite say what the essay said they said. This is basically editing policy and guidelines by the back door. If I write an essay stating "The WP:NPOV policy requires us to present companies and people in a favourable light, eliminating anything that might cause them offense" , the essay would be deleted or edited to be in line with policy. However, apparently, in this case, you can make up what policy says. No, you can't. 86.** IP (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, a little bit of advice, Rider. In a discussion about people being careless with the truth, if you know you have an issue with misstating things, double check before hitting save. It looks really bad if you're falsely attacking me for something in the middle of claiming that I should stop complaining about being falsely accused of things. 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As we all can see this editor refuse to discuss changes and form consensus and will argue endlessly when asked to do so. Moving on as there things to actually work on and edit warring over every essay, guideline, and policy on fiction is not my agenda. Ridernyc (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rider, you did three reverts on the page, and are the only person involved in the edit war not to have taken things to the talk page. Instead of acting as if there werent' ongoing discussions about all the edits, and attacking me for... um... having not moved things to the talk page, except I did... maybe you should actually participate in the discussions instead of pretending they don't exist in order to attack me for not discussing things. 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's two issues here. One of them can be sorted out with discussion on the talk page - which discussion has been opened. The other is the bad block by EdJohnston, and the kangaroo court nature of that block. That cannot be dealt with on the article talk page, so it has to be discussed here. 86.** IP (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[7] First thing I ever said to and it the same thing I have repeated to you over and over again. You can go on deflecting now and playing the victim. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Bad_wrtiting.2C_factual_inaccuracies.2C_and_nonsense.. You haven't participated in it, and seem to prefer attacking me to actually engaging with edit contents. You seem to have te Orwellian idea that starting a 6-section discussion on the edits, carefully setting them out in detail, as well as the reasoning behind them is the same as not being willing to discuss the proposal. And, I repeat, you are the only person involved in the edit war who has not participated in that discussion of the edits. 86.** IP (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLIT: Correction that should have been this edit[8] so as you can see I have talked on the talk page. I however will not freak out and start calling people liars. This is part of the problem some many ranting edits and corrections you can't even reply and god forbid you need to make a correction. Ridernyc (talk)

Comment: I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but I strongly suggest that these conversations be advertised to editors who write about fiction on relevant projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. I do write about fiction and have opinions about this, yet haven't seen a peep of it until it cropped up here. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it's high time that WAF got an update and overhaul. 86 simply never announced, let alone discussed his changes beforehand. He just started editing, keeps reverting, and wikilawyers and IDHT in every discussion he's involved in, including this one. Once we got the current problem with 86 resolved (by getting him to enter reasonable discussion, or another way), we should definitely start a structured discussion about WAF, and involve all related WikiProjects. --87.79.213.106 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

.You mean the problem that I was inappropriately blocked after beginning discussion? 86.** IP (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for simpler editing

Ummmm "discussing changes beforehand"? What happened to WP:BRD? Pesky (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Let me catch my breath...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK...better. Seriously? _{Oh my side hurts now.....}--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! Laughter is so good for you ;P Pesky (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. If I didn't laugh...I'd cry. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So, is anything going to happen from this, or are we just going to let the problem carry on into the future? 86.** IP (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In my mind there's not an issue that you edited a page that badly needs an overhaul, but now that apparently objections exist, I'd strongly suggest bringing the discussion to the attention to the projects that are involved with writing plot summaries about fiction so as to get more involvement on the talk page. I haven't reviewed the edits and all the talk page proposals but once I have I'll make comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus and little support for the concept the block was inappropriate, so there's no reason to think anything in that regard will change. As far as the policy itself, as TK indicated above the talk page is the appropriate forum (perhaps aided with RFC, etc.) Continuing to assert the block was inappropriate will most likely have one of two outcomes: 1) no one will reply and the bot will eventually archive the thread, or 2) an editor will wrap the discussion in an archive tag. If 86 returns to behavior observes at 3rr (all caps, profanity, idht), another possibility might be another block. Nobody Ent 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Noone has even reviewed the block. Shall I take it to Arbcom? 86.** IP (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At least three admins -- the ones who declined the unblock request -- reviewed the block, and it's likely others have and have declined to comment. Your best bet for action here to go quiescent (unless someone asks you a direct question) and let it brew -- AN has a two day archive period which would at least get you into Monday which often gets more traffic. However, the probability you'll get any results you want is essentially zero. You can, of course, take it to ArbCom, but it's very unlikely they'll take the case and/or give you the result you want. The block is over and there is no justice here. You best path to Wiki-happiness is either to forget it or consider it an educational event in how WP dispute resolution works. Nobody Ent 22:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. Block was reviewed. Next block will be for continually wasting the community's time again and again. Someone needs to get the chip off of their shoulder, and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed for RFC

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

---

Hi, JCAla has copy pasted the sources he is using to support his view atleast four times in an RFC creating WP:WALLSOFTEXT (with the first being a separate section he created for the sources) - as of this version [9]. Just referring to that section later might have been fine but copy pasting those sources everywhere seems disruptive to me. Given the insistence and that this debate has been brought up by the same user repeatedly (so many times after being settled) I think an uninvolved admin who does not have an opinion on the dispute might help by keeping a watch at such issues. This is not the first time so I'm requesting an admin to take a look himself rather than creating a drama by reporting behaviour issues at ANI. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I was explicitly asked by User:Stfg to provide the sources to him, although they were already present in the source section. Stfg: "If any government denials are now superseded by later government admissions, please show sources for that." Edit summary saying: "what you need to show". In order to make it easier for Stfg to find the explicit 2-3 sources (out of dozens in the source list) I was referring to I copy pasted them under his request as well as RP's statement who is an admin, btw. That's it. In the context of a new discussion with Samar, I quoted a totally new source to him which was not in the source list, but have now referred him to Stfg's section, so he can look up that new source there, although it would have been easier to have it straight in our discussion. Anyways. It is telling that TopGun, instead of staying on topic, is trying to counter the contents of the sources by going to AN and again unnerving everyone who is tired of the same names popping up again and again. JCAla (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not likely still, but you only (apparently) justified a single repetition there. RP has given an opinion there so he can't act as an admin, nor is your copy paste there justified. I'm sticking to the topic, but this was not something to be ignored. I will not reply to this further to prevent a useless debate about debate, that's why I've asked here that an admin checks out himself. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what. Stfg explicitly asked for the sources. Samar (with whom there was an interesting discussion going on) I have now referred to Stfg's section. So, that is cleared. As for regentspark, I am goint to ask him on his talk, if he thinks citing these sources was too much. With that I am done here. JCAla (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the issue is hereby solved then. JCAla (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My request to check still stands, this is not about a single reply to RP. It is at 4-5 instances which are still there (and it doesn't hurt to have an uninvolved admin keeping an eye at a contentious dispute like this). Please do not mark issues as solved again when you are an involved party unless you initiated a request. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone hat the walls of text and let's move on. Why do you two constantly need to bicker? TopGun, JCAla's wall-o-sources is about the least important things on WP:AN and WP:ANI right now. No admin is going to waste their time. This isn't worth arguing about. If it's such a serious matter to you, you need to pick your battles better. What do you want to happen? Do you want me to indef-block JCAla and proceed with a Site-ban discussion for JCAla over him presenting sources? Get a reality check here.--v/r - TP 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

MMA merge requests

Can an admin look at the following merge requests at Talk:UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch and Talk:UFC 150, on the face of it there appears no consensus to merge, but given the lack of poicly based reasons and the recent outcomes of :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 (2nd nomination),
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (2nd nomination),
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (2nd nomination) and
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (2nd nomination)

Can an admin close the discussions . Mtking ^(edits) 05:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Due to my prior involvement, it would be improper for me to close these. The lack of willingness of others to go close these does demonstrate my previous observations that no admin wants to touch MMA with a 10 foot pole, making the problems there worse. I did noticed that there is not a single oppose vote that is based on a guideline or policy, which makes me think a policy based consensus does exist. Now to find a brave admin who isn't too "involved". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Richard Daft

Moved from WP:ANI

 – Nobody Ent 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Richard Daft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on May 2012. He repeatedly evades his indefinite block by hopping on to IP Addresses, and uses them to make legal threats and persistently hurls uncivil conduct to further a single purpose. He has used 7 accounts to evade this block since 2008. Having said that, this Sockpuppet Archive clearly demonstrates that knowing that adopting new personas will get blocked, and so he uses IP's to avoid scrutiny. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

...and the diffs of the evasion, attacks, etc? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the behavior of the IP's and account's he's used demonstrate the operator's behaviour of Richard Daft, but since you've ask for some diffs, here's some [IP Daft used to personally attack BlackJack], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], and [[13]]. All evidence of pure trolling and disruption to Lady Wikipedia. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, are you there? Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Patience :) It had only been five minutes. People need to take time to read diffs, think, etc. Not everybody (I hope) is constantly refreshing ANI... Anyway, I'm inclined to support this community ban, but are we certain that this IP hopper is Richard Daft? The context of the diffs isn't completely clear. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Because I am the nominator of this ban. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The laundry list of socks and IPs at SPI is enough to convince me regardless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - Don't ban proposals belong on AN, not ANI? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question of procedure As the subject of this proposal is currently blocked, who is appointed to speak for them? CrawlBacker (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Traditionally a talk page stalker would copy/paste their comments from their talk page. Nobody Ent 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No action is necessary, the editor is defacto banned (indef'd since 2008) Nobody Ent 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If ongoing work is needed to keep up with his socks and revert their edits, it simplifies the work of whoever does that if there is a formal ban. Daft's SPI report already has 21 sections. Should Daft ever change his mind and want to return to normal editing, his talk page is open for an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - (Don't really understand the distinction but that's not important right now.) Nobody Ent 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - better late than never I suppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Already de facto banned, don't really see what the point of this is seeing as all his edits are distinctive and reverted on sight. Support I guess, but I don't see how this will change anything. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Even though he's defacto banned as Jenks points out, using IPs to evade the block just keeps the cards stacked against him. He has clearly outlived his usefulness to the community. GONE. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Suncor Website

Resolved

 – no admin action required, discuss on talk page Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following paragraph about a large Benzene spill from the Suncor refinery in Commerce City, CO in the Fall of 2011 - in fact it is ongoing (May 2012) The paragraph was deleted by Peter McKenzie-Brown (Pmbcomm) "a free lance artist specializing in crude oil who has worked in the corporate, consulting and academic worlds" I suspect this editor is a paid contributor, since he should have no reason to polish the Suncor website. The below paragraph is based on facts readily available.

Benzene Spill Commerce City, Colorado

November 28, 2011 The United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA was notified by a fisherman of a gasoline-like substance leaking into Sand Creek in Commerce City, CO. Benzene levels in the Sand Creek was measured as high as 720 parts per billion (ppb) January 9, 2012[18] at the confluence with the adjoining South Platte River. In the South Platte River levels have been measured above 300 ppb several times in April 2012[19]. These levels continue to be monitored. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined benzene as a toxin with multiple adverse health effects, many potentially lethal[20]. Despite mitigation efforts that have included building a trench, pumping and treating contaminated groundwater and aerating soil and water to release benzene. The source of the leak is still undetermined. An underground plume containing benzene, measured as high as 10000 ppb, and other chemicals is spreading underground under the adjacent Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant and nearly reaching the South Platte River upriver from the confluence with Sandy Creek. April 2, 2012 Suncor was fined $2.2 million by Colorado Department of Public Health for pollution violations[21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssomme (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't warrant any administrative notification. You should discuss it on the Talk page. For what it's worth, I agree with the other editor that your new section is overkill (too much detail). It also needs some, uh, cleaning up. Finally, there is no basis for you to accuse the editor of being a "paid contributor". You also failed to notify him, as per the instructions on this board, which I have done for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Agreeing with Bbb23. Looks like a good faith edit to me (please read WP:AGF). In my opinion the paragraph you are trying to insert is too much detail about a single incident, in the context of the entire company's history. (FWIW I've never met an oil refinery that didn't have groundwater contamination, with benzene being one of the commonest contaminants.) I'd suggest working it out on the talk page; don't edit-war your text back in, and see WP:BRD. Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

List of anime conventions

Is there any way to protect this page for the long term? I had asked a month or so ago for protection for the article but it was only done for 2 months, the issue being that there are tons of edits made by anon and new editors that do not follow the notice that states: "This list is subject to the WP:LISTCOMPANY guideline. Please familiarize yourself with it before editing this list. In addition, note that any new entry must have an adequately sourced Wikipedia article. Before adding a convention to this list, write the article first if the convention passes the inclusion critiera for a stand-alone article. Any convention which does not have articles will be removed. Do not add multi-genre conventions, which are outside the scope of this list." There is a big yellow box in place when you goto edit the page and in addition a hidden notice up at the very top and still editors add conventions without making the article first and non-notable conventions. I would love to hope these edits are done in good faith but im not sure if some are done by vandalism and this has been an ongoing problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• They aren't vandalism, even if they are bothersome and inappropriate, as the faith of the editors seems ok. The place to go for page protection requests is WP:RPP rather than here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

La Costa

Some page history seems to be missing at La Costa, which was formerly at LaCosta Tucker — everything from before I pagemoved it a while back is missing. Can someone figure out where the history went? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Five pages are intertwined due to a series of pagemoves:

• La Costa
• La Costa Resort and Spa
• La Costa (disambiguation)
• LaCosta
• LaCosta Tucker

Have you checked all of those without finding the missing revisions? What's surely complicating matters is that we have at least one copy/paste move in the La Costa page history. While none of the other pages have been deleted, La Costa has been deleted three times and restored once, leaving seven currently-deleted edits, as follows:

• IP creates page, September 2005
• Same IP edits page, a few minutes later
• A different IP tags it as a copyvio three months later. The page was soon deleted by Sherool, who "restored 11 revisions" a few minutes later; I'm not sure which ones those are.
• Tewapack moves it to La Costa Resort and Spa, January 2008.
• You tag the redirect with db-move to allow you to move the singer article over the redirect, August 2010. The page was soon deleted by PeterSymonds.
• You move the page to La Costa (disambiguation), a few hours ago
• You tag the redirect with db-move to allow you to move the singer article over the redirect, a few seconds later.

All this is to say that I'm not sure where the revisions are, but I'd like to be sure that you've looked in all of these places first. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha, found it. The history is currently at La Costa (disambiguation). Can you move every edit there from this backwards onto La Costa please? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

About to start; everyone else, please stay away to avoid deletion conflicts :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Please look over the page histories again to make sure that everything is where it should be. Note that there are some repairs of double redirects currently in the history of La Costa; please check to see if there are any misplaced edits that could be related to those. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

LocalSettings.php

I would to create the article from [[14]]. UA31 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the Spanish Wikipedia, but that file fails the notability requirement. It's documented in English on MediaWiki.org.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Right here.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect to MediaWiki. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects backog (nothing a non-admin-bot could do)

Could an admin please clean these up?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for second opinion

I've been largely inactive for the last five months, but I came back today briefly to check up on a company that called back and while here swung past USS Iowa (BB-61) since shes in the news again. In light of the fact that the battleship is making headlines for her recent donation, and owing to the article's current Featured Article status I made a decision to implement semi-protection for the article so that milhist and OMT members do not have to spend the next three weeks constantly reverting changes made the public as they arrive here looking for information on the battleship, however as I have noted above being largely absent for the last five months or so means being out of the loop concerning new policy and guideline material, and I would like a second opinion on this matter so as to ensure that I haven't overstepped my authority here. Apologies on advance for the request, but I would rather have someone check my actions here now and call me for screwing up rather than be dragged before the board such as it were later for over exceeding my authority on the matter. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe standard practice is not to preemptively protect. Wait until there actually is vandalism and then block for the period of the events that brought attention and vandalism to the article.--v/r - TP 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Essay lying about content of guidelines

A small group of editors - one IP and User:Rossami - at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary seem determined to state false information about guidelines in an essay. In particular, they want to treat Wikiproject guidelines about the length of plot summaries as if said guidelines do not state that there's exceptions. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHow_to_write_a_plot_summary&diff=492363554&oldid=492278944

I don't think we should lie to people. Truth matters. Simple, factual corrections should not require one to attain consensus at a talk page where the only person opposing this particular change (I agree the other change could use more discussion, though I do think it's at least a questionable interpretation of policy, that should be reworded) is a constantly-changing IP, and noone else has even discussed it. 86.** IP (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikiproject guidelines quoted unambiguously say what the change says they do, and not what the other text implies. 86.** IP (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)