Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276

User:Owxbyktav

Done by The Anome. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This user is already indeffed, but given this, I suggest that his/her talk page access also be revoked. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Note: New essay about arbitration accountability

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

---

Please see: WP:ARBACCT — Ched :  ?  05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that should be interesting as Arbcom handles cases which the community seems to be unable to resolve by itself through consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So is it a good thing that a ruling body is above reproach? — Ched :  ?  06:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of "Arbcom is incompetent" variations posted on a regular basis I don't think anyone can say Arbcom isn't reproached. But I don't see how you can say "arbitrators should be expected to act within the consensus of the community" when the community can't decide what that consensus is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was expecting to see a new user account, but instead I'm seeing no context. Might I suggest if you're going to advertise a half-written essay that you give it, and the section advertising it, a meaningful title. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the header to something more meaningful. I have to agree with Neil otherwise; if an issue has worked its way up to arbitration it's almost a given that there is no community consensus about that issue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. Arbcom cases are pretty much by definition situations where there is no community consensus. For example, if 95% of the community likes red fireplugs, that would never go to Arbcom. But if 50% like red fireplugs and 50% prefer yellow, that could go to Arbcom and whatever Arbcom decides will be against half the community. Arbcom decisions are essentially always controversial, but that isn't a bad thing--it's why Arbcom exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Conceptually, based on what ARBCOM does, this essay proposes an impossibility. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably this means, if the community reached consensus on a matter it had previously been divided on, that an ArbCom decision could be reversed. But if you believe that ArbCom would ever allow itself to be overruled, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Reyk _YO! 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk pages of the main and evidence pages of WP:ARBAE2 will provide context. NE Ent 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom rarely (if ever) takes on content disputes. They deal with editor(s) conduct issues. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I guessed that (agree with most of your evidence, BTW). The cutting of the Workshop phase seems really ill-advised. You've got editors yelling at you to fix your screwup and you don't want them to suggest how to go about doing that and perhaps realizing that "fixing" may not be that easy or straightforward? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies if it is a poor idea. I've always felt that those who we elect to serve our project should be accountable to we who elect them. The concept isn't meant to address a single arb, or even an individual case. WP:ADMINACCT is entrenched in our policies, (and referenced frequently); I believe that it is a concept which should carry over to higher levels. There are many here who are far better than I at hashing out an idea into words. I appreciate everyone's time and feedback here. But hey, if I'm wrong in my thinking, then feel free to delete this, and I'll move on. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• In any system in which representative are elected, the ultimate accountability insurance is to not re-elect them if they run again. Admins, on the other hand, are lifetime appointments, so strict accountability requirements make sense, as they are what desysoping is based on. BMK (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ADMINACCT deals with actions by admins. Is your essay designed to deal with arbitrator actions or how they participate and !vote in arbcom cases? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good question, I'll have to think on that. — Ched :  ?  18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Not "how they vote" though. Everyone "(!)votes" as their conscience dictates. — Ched :  ?  18:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -- This seems like more harassment, threats based on innuendos of "don't rule a certain way, or the mob will hold you accountable". If nothing else, it's a POINTY attempt to send a message. I am disappointed. Dave Dial (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you (or anyone) would see it that way Dave. It certainly wasn't my intent. Feel free to CSD, AfD, MfD, or any XfD you think is right. I won't even register an oppose there. — Ched :  ?  20:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not going to get involved on whether the essay should stay or not. I just wanted to register my disappointment. I've not posted on the case page since it was accepted, nor do I plan to. I've been disappointed there too(ArbCom), waiting for the adults to make the right decisions. It might be too much to ask of volunteers, from the WMF and the community. The site has grown, as has the internet. Dave Dial (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely nothing in Ched's background indicates he would stoop to harassment. I do think the arbs are at a crossroads and the decisions they must make at this point will not be easy or obvious, but they must in my opinion deal with the people who elected them and they are accountable to the community. The community does not help by harassing them, and some of the comments I've seen are vicious. I do believe that when one is in the throes of difficult situations and decision making a reminder of what the fundamental principles are can be invaluable and a breath of fresh air. This is what Ched is offering.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC))
• I went ahead and tagged it for WP:CSD as {{db-self}}. Apparently there isn't much desire for this. Sorry to have troubled you folks with a poor idea. Thanks for your time. — Ched :  ?  21:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea but there is a fair amount of confusion surrounding this case, which may be why there was so little input, so it might be better to post or repost again later once there is order. I suspect that when arbs are pushed back and forth incessantly it can become hard to see the clearest way forward. This reminder of what arbs are responsible for and maybe for what they aren't might be an important feature of progress.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC))

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

Edward Sims Van Zile

Resolved

 – Attributed on En WP, note on the talk pages of both projects, explanation to user who transwikiied the content without requisite attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article Edward Sims Van Zile was created by copy and pasting the article I created in my userspace User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward Sims Van Zile into mainspace by another editor without proper attribution. Can someone merge the edit histories so that I show up with the creation of the article? Then I can delete my userspace version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It was not copied from your sandbox, but from Simple English Wikipedia; it reflects material authored by people other than you, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I will make sure proper attribution to the Simple English Wikipedia is supplied and speak to the user about how this is done. Your sandbox version is not needed, as you are attributed for your contributions on Simple. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a general question about transwikied articles. When I copy sections of one en.wiki article to another one, I always add the "copied" template, which puts up a banner saying that the source article now serves as attribution for the receiving article and should not be deleted. However, we have no authority over other wikis, so we have no way of ensuring that the source article -- in the current case on simple.wiki -- is deleted, which would leave our article unattributed, which I believe is a copyright problem for us. How do we deal with this? BMK (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, I'd never really thought about it. I suppose the edits could be imported if necessary? Jenks24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We can also do a complete list of all authors on the talk page. As long as it's pointed to in edit summary, it meets all requirements for attribution in accordance with our Terms of Use §7(b)(iii). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Moonriddengirl: I think that you are misreading the terms of use. The point you referred to says that attribution may be given "Through a list of all authors". Special:Book (the only place I'm aware of where a list of authors is given in list form) says "Contributors: Moonriddengirl, BG19bot, TDKR Chicago 101 and KasparBot". This list is incomplete (Simple Wikipedia has other contributors), so it is not a list of the kind referred to in the terms of use.

The terms of use lists two alternative ways to provide attribution:

1. "Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed". Text was contributed to two different places (Edward Sims Van Zile and simple:Edward Sims Van Zile), but Special:Book only links to one of those places (the one on English Wikipedia). This method is obviously not used either.
2. "Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website". One could maybe say that Edward Sims Van Zile is an "alternative, stable online copy" of simple:Edward Sims Van Zile. However, it does not seem to "credit the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website" as the credit information is two clicks away (click on "view history" and go through all edit summaries and click on a link in one of the edit summaries). On Simple English Wikipedia, the credit information is only one click away (click on "view history"). It is also debatable whether the "alternative, stable online copy" "confirms with the license".

Attribution is a complex thing and it is easy to make a mistake somewhere. You might have seen this discussion on Commons where an external reuser of a picture got an invoice from a Commons uploader because he had used a thumbnail downloaded from Commons instead of using the original version of the file. EXIF data (which may contain attribution information) is stripped by Mediawiki when thumbnails are generated. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2, I don't believe I am - I believe it pretty clearly permits a list of authors - but I think special book download is problematic in a number of ways, including that it does nothing to accommodate Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, since it does not provide the edit summary that includes attribution. If we rely on attribution from Special:Books, nobody can ever copy substantial content from another Wikipedia page, ever. Only the original contributor could do so. (Unless we link to the source article on the page itself, with a url.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Nope, no chance: for whatever reason that I don't understand, import only works with a few other wikis, and simple: isn't one of them. Perhaps it would simply work to dump a list of authors into the talk page and add a link to it? Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a question asked out of ignorance: is there any way to transclude the simple article's history to our talk page? Or perhaps cutting-and-pasting the history up to the point of the transwiking would be sufficient, even though there would be no links to each contributors edit? BMK (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cutting & pasting works fine. Per my link above, a list of authors is sufficient, even without links to each contributor's edit. Every editor agrees to this when they hit save. :) We used to do this routinely with copyright cleanup, before the days of rev deletion. In the case of this particular article, I did the same thing there that we do on local wiki articles - put a note on the talk page explaining why the history needs to be retained. But this is a cross-article issue, and it would be great if we could do this - and especially if we had some way to automate this. Then we'd never have to worry about deletion anywhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I *could* do an import from the Simple English Wikipedia because I can do importupload on this wiki, but I don't really like doing imports in cases like this, because they mess up people's contributions pages. Graham87 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Graham87: What do you mean with 'messing up people's contributions pages'? In the past, edits could be assigned to the wrong user when the same user name belonged to different users on different projects, but SUL finalisation should have solved this problem when pages are imported from other Wikimedia projects. Is there something else which may be messed up? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: People have edits that they made in one wiki on their contributions page of another. But the size of the Simple English Wikipedia page is very different to that of the English one; was a straight copy really involved? Graham87 08:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

SPA violating BLP

Dewanifacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to exist for the sole purpose of inserting the name of the person totally acquitted of Murder of Anni Dewani into the article as many times as possible. NE Ent 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an absurd allegation made by someone who not only does not know what they are talking about, but on their own admission, does not have the time to read up and check before making such a scurrilous accusation against me. NE Ent posted for the first time today on the Talk page of this article stating "Collect -- rip it all out. Unfortunately I have to go real life and don't have time to do it myself.". It appears that NE Ent spent about 25 seconds analysing my contributions and decided that rather than read up before attacking, he/she would simply make this ridiculous accusation and throw my name in the mud.

If anyone takes the time to read the edits that I have made and the discussions that I have had on the aformentioned Talk Page over the last few months, they will see that far from impinging on the rights of the acquitted person in this case (Shrien Dewani), I have been a staunch defender of that person's right to a fair and just representation here on Wikipedia in line with WP:BLP. I have abided by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia and have endeavoured to engage in constructive, collaborative debate to script a better Article. I expect that if you asked for the view of senior respected editors such as Robert McClenon they will attest to the fact that these allegations are unfair and not based in reality and that I have made valid and helpful contributions.

Quite aside from everything mentioned above, There are two rather cogent facts that NE Ent seems to have ignored. (i). The far majority of the mentions of Shrien Dewani's name have been added by other people - not me. (ii) I actually am in agreement with those who suggest that his name is mentioned too much and that lots of mentions can and should be excised from the article as they are no longer relevant. I have proposed discussion to this effect on the Talk page of the article (See this for yourself on the Talk page - section 34. "Suggestions to improve neutrality of the article")

All up - a thoroughly meritless accusation. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you are an admitted "staunch defender of that person's right to a fair and just representation here on Wikipedia", it makes sense to examine your contributions to see if they cross the boundary of POV editing and to determine if you are a single-purpose account with a possible conflict of interest (as hinted at by your account name). When you set out on the quest you have given yourself, you should not be surprised when such questions are raised. BMK (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution list, there's no doubt whatsoever that you are a SPA, since you have not edited any article or talk page other than Murder of Anni Dewani and its talk page, to which you have 214 combined edits, out of your total of 278. [1]. As for "abid[ing] by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia", well, I'm the last person to look down on someone who's been blocked for edit warring, but in fact you have been blocked twice for just that in the 2 months you've been editing, so your claim is not really accurate.

In general, Wikipedia is not improved by editors with your profile, who instead attempt to put a bias in place, so it's perfectly acceptable for NE Ent to bring you up as a subject for scrutiny. BMK (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Given their extremely tight editing focus, I think it would be a good idea for Dewanifacts to say, in this thread, whether they have any conflict of interest with regard to Shrien Dewani. Are they in any way connected to this person or their family (in which case the restrictions in the COI policy should come into effect), or are they being paid for their editing (in which case they also need to comply with the requirements of WP:TOU regarding paid editing). BMK (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Background, history, comments

Executive Summary: Dismiss this thread as a bad filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I mostly agree with User:Dewanifacts and completely disagree with User:NE Ent, whose hasty entry here is very un-ent-like. (For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Lord of the Rings, ents are large, patient, long-lived humanoids, part tree but sentient, slow to anger, who dislike the “hastiness” of mortals.) NE Ent’s characterization of User:Dewanifacts as a single purpose account is correct, but his assessment of the role of Dewanifacts in the dispute over Murder of Anni Dewani is very far off the mark. Dewanifacts is what I will call a Truth and Justice Warrior, not at all the same as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW). SJWs seek to impose a POV on Wikipedia to advance a particular concept of social justice. Dewanifacts is an SPA who is very committed to neutral point of view and to establishing verified facts from reliable sources in a particular case that has been a terrible miscarriage of justice until recently (until the acquittal of Shrien Dewani).

My experience with this case began on 14 August 2015 when a dispute was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard and I agreed to act as volunteer moderator (informal mediator). At the time, the article was page-protected for the first time. The stated issue was whether a particular source was biased and should be discounted or removed. However, the alleged bias was basically a criticism of the case against Shrien Dewani. (That is, the criticism was consistent with the fact that the case against him collapsed as being based on the testimony of lying criminals.) One editor was pushing strongly for the removal of material implying that the case against Shrien Dewani was bad, because they were insisting that it was a proved fact that the murder was a murder-for-hire. (It is true that previous court findings had referred to murder for hire, but that finding was based on false pleas.) It was very much a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY dispute. The editor who was the “one” was not Dewanifacts. Dewanifacts was one of the editors who was trying to clean up the article to reflect the collapse of the murder-for-hire view. (The other editor, who was pushing the anti-Shrien-Dewani agenda, has not edited in the past ten days or so.) I was trying to work with the parties to develop an RFC, the only way that I saw to resolve the sourcing dispute. I had asked the parties to mediation not to edit the article after it came off page protect. However, as soon as the article came off page protection, parties began edit-warring again, and I had to fail the mediation. My subsequent involvement has been one of trying to maintain WP:NPOV, including the fact that a particular living person has been formally acquitted (because the case was based on lies by criminals). Although User:Dewanifacts is an SPA, they are the rare case of an SPA who is working to improve the encyclopedia.

On 17 September User:Collect, not one of the previous editors, made massive cuts to the article, basically eliminating the entire description of the trial of Shrien Dewani except for one clause in the lede. (By removing all description of the trial from the body of the article, this left the lede making a statement not substantiated by the body, contrary to proper article structure.) This was reverted, and the article was then page-protected a second time, on 17 September, and came off page-protection on 17 October. While I agree that the description of the proceedings against Shrien Dewani were far too long, I disagreed with eliminating the entire account. The case is notable not so much because a tourist was murdered in South Africa, but because it was a massive miscarriage of justice by the South African police and government.

I disagree with the complaint by User:NE Ent against Dewanifacts, who is an SPA but who is an SPA for accuracy in a specific case where there has been injustice. The interpretation of the biographies of living persons policy by User:Collect (who has a long history of inconsistent application of BLP, sometimes very loose, sometimes absurdly rigid) that the acquittal of an individual should be treated as if the trial never happened is extreme and eccentric.

I think that every editor agrees that the number of mentions of Shrien Dewani in the long text of the article was excessive, and that it needed drastic trimming. The problem is that the complete excision of all mention of the trial and acquittal, which is much of why the case is notable, is inappropriate. A much shorter description of the trial, concluding that the case was dismissed as based on lies, is not only appropriate but necessary. The current shortened version is not so much a whitewash of Shrien Dewani, who needs no whitewashing because he is innocent, as a whitewash of a miscarriage of justice.

Since this thread appears to be a request for administrative action against Dewanifacts, by an editor User:NE Ent who is acting hastily and in accordance with an eccentric interpretation of BLP, I suggest that this thread be closed. There is a Request for Comments pending at Murder of Anni Dewani, a better way to resolve a content dispute (whether or not the RFC is neutrally worded).

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Dewanifacts is, as you admit, clearly a SPA, I think it's imperative that we get a statement from them dealing with the questions I asked above: do they have a conflict of interest, and are they a paid editor? BMK (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon for taking the time to explain all that. Hi BMK, there is already a section on the Talk page of the article (Section 24: "COI Tag") where I have declared my position and this has all been discussed, however you are right in saying that should have made it clear in my response to this allegation. I can catagorically state that I have no link whatsoever to the Dewani or Hindocha families, nor anyone who knows or represents the Dewanis or Hindocha families, nor am I paid by anyone for my interest or online representations in this case. I represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani. We have no agenda other than seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani. This agenda is clearly stated on our website - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/our-agenda/. Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. Since you "represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani", I am going to insist that you cease editing the article directly, and, per the requirements of WP:COI, make suggestions on the talk page which will be put in effect by non-conflicted editors if they agree with them. No person can serve two masters, and you cannot serve the WP:NPOV requirements of Wikipedia while at the same time "seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani". Wikipedia does not deal with "truth", per se, we deal only with what can be verified through the use of reliable sources. Given your statement, I am telling you here that I, a totally uninvolved editor, will delete any future edit you make directly to the article, but will (of course) not stand in the way of other editore putting your suggested edits into effect. BMK (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK I have read through WP:COI and I cannot see anything that gives you the power to "insist" on me not editing the article. In fact it seems like you are acting contradictory to the Wikipedia "assume good faith" doctrine. Who or what gives you the authority to ban me from editing the article? Please can you clarify this so that this is 100% transparent and I am satisfied that you have the power to make such a directive. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think your rash judgement is helpful, given you haven't even read the article in the first place, as you state here. Being ignorant about a situation and uninvolved are not the same thing. One of those two clearly does not help in building an encyclopedia. I would suggest exercising caution and carefully examining the facts before declaring an intention to edit-war. Samsara 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The above comment is (I assume) addressed toward BMK and I concur with the sentiment expressed by Samsara. Were I to be editing in a disruptive manner, I would understand a hard line approach such as the one displayed by BMK, however I think that good faith should be assumed unless and until there is cause for concern. The Talk page of the article is testament to the fact that I am committed to the collaborative process and have been a strong advocate for discussing changes on the Talk page and only making edits once consensus has been reached, or no opposition voiced. In practice, I don't have that much of an issue with not making edits, however I don't like bullies and people on power trips and I would like BMKto either show who gave him the power to make such a directive, or retract it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 October 2015

Dewanifacts (talk · contribs) is an SPI with a user name that conveys their agenda, and they have a website dedicated to fighting the good fight, and now they are at Wikipedia to make sure the world is told the truth. Those are very large facts which BMK correctly identifies as red flags needing attention—if you have studied the topic, and Dewanifacts' edits, and the dewanifacts website, you might help by explaining how Dewanifacts is assisting. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, can you clarify your last sentence please. I'm not quite sure who you are suggesting should be doing the explaining..... Dewanifacts (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you, Dewanifacts. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to explain. As Johnuniq points out, I am a SPA and I have never pretended to be anything else. I chose a name that made this bleedingly obvious. I am exceptionally well studied in the facts and nuances of this complicated saga and am in a good position to help guide the article. If you look at my edits you will see that they are neutral, avoid conjecture and only present neutral, reliably sourced facts that can be substantiated in their entirety. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. I see you know how to spread jargon to obscure the fact that you are using Wikipedia as part of your campaign. Perhaps you are a great editor, but someone with such a blatant agenda needs to take a more cautious approach—stop trying to brush off very reasonable concerns with jargon; instead, restrict your activities to infrequent suggestions on the article talk page to highlight any perceived problems. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How is a self-admitted SPA who only focuses on the Anni Dewani issue even allowed to operate under the handle "Dewanifacts"? Doc talk 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

More to the point; why would I not be "allowed" to? What rule have I broken? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question - and note that I here object to being accused of somehow being inconsistent on WP:BLP - my position is consistent as best I am able, and I have never argued for using any "loose" requirements on BLPs. Period. I find that a person who has a specific POV on the case at hand, as the two editors clearly do represent, should not be the ones editing the material. Once the request to re-open the inquest was denied, I suggest the playing field had changed substantially. The material which I just removed was not the "major edit" I am accused of - and I invite those who make or iterate that accusation to recant. [2]. With warm regards, and trusting that those who accuse me of doing what I damn well do not do will note that fact. BTW, I find the net effect of the material with its more than three dozen iterations of Dewani's full name does more to confuse readers about his "guilt" than my edits which used the word "husband" and left material containing the name fully visible in the footnotes. Collect (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You made the major edit on 17th September, after which it was reversed alongside pleas to discuss all changes on the Talk page. The article was locked for a month and Darouet then made a similar major edit on 22nd October, with you finishing his handiwork a few hours later by excising every single mention of Shrien Dewani's name from the article, under the false guise that its inclusion was a BLP violation. As mentioned elsewhere, the number of name mentions is irrelevant. What matters is the context. Amanda Knox's name is mentioned six dozen times in the article on Meredith Kercher's murder, so if your numbers game has any relevance then Dewani is actually mentioned comparatively much fewer times and your outrage should be directed toward other Wikipedia crime articles such as the one I've just mentioned.Dewanifacts (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The progression of the discussion on this noticeboard is somewhat alarming. It began with a wholly unfounded allegation against me, which has been shown to be misguided and unfair. That should be the end of the matter. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case largely because it was misreported and misrepresented in the media, and set up a wordpress site in conjunction with a few others, to put the facts forward in a neutral non biased fashion. I am aware of what Wikipedia is and is not here to achieve and I do my damndest to stay within the guidelines and to participate in the true spirit of Wikipedia. I will declare again that I have no issue with discussing edits on the Talk page first and I don't really care whether it is me or someone else who enacts the agreed edits, however I won't be bullied by wikipedia editors on power trips who think they can talk down to me and give directives and declare their intent to edit war with me. Dewanifacts (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, excessive length in any article where the "possible guilt" of a living person is clearly discussed often leaves readers with "there was smoke so there must be a fire" as the implication. In cases if miscarriages, Wikipedia generally deals with the issues in a far more concise manner (vide Richard Jewell where the total amount in any presenting any negative inference about the person is zero, and the praise section is large, and the bombing article is only 13K total, with less than half being about Jewell - leaving no room for any "smoke = fire" misapprehensions by readers) rather than having 30K+ characters about material many would find to support such inferences, and possibly find such to be actually implied by the article. Indeed, the entire article on the murder had reached 71K with about half of the entire article being about Shrien Dewani and his trial - and almost none of that half was about the actual exoneration. So much for me being wrong about WP:BLP - if a person sees one paragraph abut the exoneration, and 6,000 words about the person maybe being guilty, that is UNDUE by any measure. When we have one short paragraph about the exoneration and three dozen mentions of his name - I find that against WP:BLP in esse.

(The lead has all of "Dewani was exonerated, with the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations."

while the lead also has "In his plea bargain agreement, Zola Tongo said that Anni's husband, British national Shrien Dewani of Bristol, had offered R15,000 to have his wife killed.[9][10] Following an application by South African authorities, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in August 2011 that Shrien Dewani could be extradited to face charges in relation to the murder. The extradition order was approved by Home Secretary Theresa May on 28 September 2011. A High Court ruling of 30 March 2012 put the extradition on hold, based on expert witness opinion of Shrien Dewani's mental health and prospects for recovery.[11] Shrien Dewani continued to state his innocence, and his family described the allegations of Tongo as "totally ludicrous".[12] Following a long legal battle, in January 2014, the English High Court of Justice rejected Shrien Dewani's plea against extradition to South Africa,[13] and he was extradited to South Africa on 7 April 2014 and taken to court on 8 April 2014.[14] The cost of the extradition to British taxpayers was £250,000.[15] Shrien Dewani's trial began on 6 October 2014. On 24 November 2014, after the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for Shrien Dewani argued for the trial to be halted and charges dismissed pursuant to Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking Mr Dewani to the crime."

which suggests to me inescapable conclusion that the person named did, indeed, commit the crime. Do you see the difference in space given to a short sentence about exoneration compared to the entire rest of the lead? Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. The lede needs some serious paring down. Everything in bold should go.

In his plea bargain agreement, Zola Tongo said that Anni's husband, British national Shrien Dewani of Bristol, had offered R15,000 to have his wife killed.[9][10] Following an application by South African authorities, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in August 2011 that Shrien Dewani could be extradited to face charges in relation to the murder. The extradition order was approved by Home Secretary Theresa May on 28 September 2011. A High Court ruling of 30 March 2012 put the extradition on hold, based on expert witness opinion of Shrien Dewani's mental health and prospects for recovery.[11] Shrien Dewani continued to state his innocence, and his family described the allegations of Tongo as "totally ludicrous".[12] Following a long legal battle, in January 2014, the English High Court of Justice rejected Shrien Dewani's plea against extradition to South Africa,[13] and he was extradited to South Africa on 7 April 2014 and taken to court on 8 April 2014.[14] The cost of the extradition to British taxpayers was £250,000.[15]

You will get no arguments from be about removing that information. Save for a single mention, everything else in the article regarding the extradition process should be scrapped. The itemising of Dewani's and Tongo's versions of events should be scrapped (I Added all of that stuff but I now agree that its irrelevant information). The "trial of Shrien Dewani" section should be reinstated to what it was on September 17th, but with the removal of the stuff about his sexuality in the opening paragraph. The rest of that section is probably the most important part of the whole article as it ties everything together and summarises the court's findings in exonerating Dewani and showing up his accusers as a bunch of lying criminals who made up the "murder for hire" story to gain leverage and obtain sentence reductions for giving evidence implicating the innocent Shrien Dewani. Here is the article version as at 17th September - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&diff=681484174&oldid=681481459 Dewanifacts (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly -- the rhetorical trick of repeatedly mentioning the "innocent" to imply guilt is as old as Shakespeare: "For Brutus is an honourable man;" NE Ent 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

More comments: Summary of content and conduct issues

The discussion here is now a combination of content issues and conduct issues. This is a conduct noticeboard, so I will try to identify some of the issues that either should be taken to a content forum, dealt with here, or taken to another conduct forum

First, the discussion of how much of the original material in the lede and in the body about the trial of Shrien Dewani is appropriate is a content issue. Take that to the article talk page, or, with a different set of editors who are all trying to comply with the biography of living persons policy, request a new thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or, with a different set of editors, take it to requests for formal mediation. I will not mediate at either mediation forum, because I am no longer neutral.

Second, there has been edit-warring between the too-long and too-short versions of the article and the lede. Stop edit-warring and discuss. Someone should write a much-shortened version, rather than edit-warring and arguing for and against the weird interpretation of WP:BLP taken by User:Collect (who has a long history of inconsistent interpretations of BLP anyway). Edit-warriors should be dealt by draconian application of discretionary sanctions.

Third, Dewanifacts is an SPA. That isn’t a dispute, but there is no rule against being an SPA, and Dewanifacts is an SPA who is committed to a reasonable version of WP:NPOV in a case where there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Fourth, User:Dewanifacts may have a user name requiring administrative attention. Take it there.

Fifth, User:Dewanifacts has been asked whether they have a conflict of interest. I suggest that be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

I don’t see any need to continue this fragmented discussion here. Can some uninvolved admin close it, noting that there are other venues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, the solution to a "fragmented discussion" in one venue is not to parcel it out to numerous other venues. I suggest it stay here, where all the factors concerning Dewanifacts' bias, COI, SPA-ness, and inappropriate name can be discussed. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put neutral pointers to this discussion on WP:COIN, WP:BLPN and WT:Username policy. BMK (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You iterate an inaccurate "fact" about me - I do my damndest to be absolutely consistent with regard to WP:BLP which includes my frequently stated opinion that Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group. I trust this disabuses you of a "fact" which has no actual basis in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect, most of us have been around long enough to realize that's bullshit.  Quoting from the Arbitration Committee's finding of fact regarding you - "Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view... add(ing) poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons while removing reliably sourced material from other BLPs".  The only consistency about your application of BLPs is that it is governed by whether or not you agree politically with the subject.  Cheers, 2600:1000:B017:4A5F:66DC:B0D3:50F:3D95 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry

I've been going through Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry looking for pages which may or may not need to still be indefinitely protected. While some clearly do, others are likely not necessary. For example, I have found several pages which had protections dating back up to 9 years ago, for mostly minor vandalism. Permanent protection is to be used sparingly, and only when the target page is likely to be a target for vandalism in perpetuity (for example, 4chan rightly is permanently semi-protected; one would expect it to attract a lot of vandals). However, many of these look like they were permanently protected or semi-protected so long ago, and are NOT general vandalism targets, so it's hard to justify keeping them protected forever. Since the default should be everyone can edit, except in cases where we have evidence they cannot; it seems hard to justify having over 3000 unexpiring protections, were some of them (maybe even most) clearly aren't needed. For example, 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series was indefinitely semi-protected WAY back in 2009. After 6 years, it is unlikely this article will receive enough heavy, drive-by vandalism necessary to maintain indefinite protection. I've been going through each page in the category, looking through the history, and trying to see if indefinite protection is still needed. It's a long task however, and requires a little good judgement and experience. If any other admins wish to help out, reviewing these articles and deciding how much is still really needed, feel free to pitch in and help. --Jayron32 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at you go, upholding an ideal and stuff.

I'll poke through a few. Keegan (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

When going through the category do note that not all pages that are showing up are protected indefinitely. I'm not sure what's causing this, but for example Labour hire in Namibia is listed and yet the page is clearly only protected for six months. Keegan (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

After looking at a random sample of ten or so pages, it looks like a lot of them have PC turned on, rather than semi. Is there maybe a more specifci cat for indef semi protection? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing about this category, Jayron32. There is also an enormous category (over 40K userpages) in Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy (and there are other large username categories) where accounts that are not currently blocked need to be removed from this category. That is a lot to take on so maybe I'll look over your old protected pages when I'm not busy with arbitration business. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds something that should not require a page-by-page review. A bot or script should be able to tell who is blocked and who isn't, and to remove those who are not from the category. Let me see if we can scare up a bot operator for that... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Filed a request] at WP:BOTREQ. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. I know of similar rote edits that need to be made and I hadn't considered seeing if a bot could handle them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the pages to unprotect go via WP:RFPP with a ping to the protecting admin (if still around). Right now, RFPP is usually not backlogged, and we can handle such requests reasonably quickly.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A category does exist for semi-protected pages, see Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. A few months ago, I started evaluating articles, and Gilliam unprotected quite a few. I'd be happy to pick this back up, if the admin corps was willing to evaluate them on a mass scale, instead of having to post every one to WP:RfPP. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding fake heights

Please are preventing of adding fake heights to iranian actors and actress such this and sabotage by Erfan 1375World Cup 2010 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

same problem by some IPsWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the named account indefinitely as they have been warned repeatedly over the course of several months and have completely ignored it, never once having edited any kind of talk page. If you could identify the IPs causing similar problems that can be looked into as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

also some IPs that are shown in my contributions page possibley could belong to this user because handwrtting the same only adding fake heights please check them. 5.236.162.181 , 5.236.129.0 , 5.236.175.31

I undo all of them World Cup 2010 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the main point is these are unsourced heights. Getting into fake or not is a level of engagement that's not needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK I'm more than willing to believe those three IPs are the same user who is now blocked. However, they have not used any of them in several days. If they return and evade the block by editing while logged out, post here again and ask for a WP:RANGEBLOCK. (which i don't know how to do but you can usually find an admin who does by posting here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on your report, everything appears to be in the range from 5.236.128.0 to 5.236.191.255 (5.236.128.0/18); is that correct? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by article count

Hello administrators, List of Wikipedians by article count has stopped updating since past few weeks. Can someone please give this a look? Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? Definitely seems to be updating regularly. — Earwig ^talk 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be (according to the page history log), but it isn't. My count has gone up by about 5 articles in the last few weeks, and I know I've added at least 100 new stubs in that time. Unless some of my other early articles have been deleted (unlikely, as every page I create goes on my watchlist), I think something is broken with the update. I make my count to be at least 300 articles greater than the current total, and I don't include disambig pages I've created from article moves (so it should be even higher). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is some issue with data/dumps going on. Because stats.grok.se is also not updating since Oct. 12th. I'd raise it with WMF engineering. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Earwig, no its not updating anything (although the bot seems to be getting activated everyday). According to the report, I have created 553 pages (including redirects) whereas, as per this, I have created 927 pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955, it is unlikely that someone from WMF will see your question here so I would crosspost this request at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) which gets more traffic from WMF staffers who work on technical matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I second Liz here – the article is definitely not updating properly (I should now be on it, but I'm not), and this problem definitely needs more eyes on it, so a post to WP:VPT sounds like a fine idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Liz and IJBall, I hope this will get resolved soon. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Hi, there was recently a consensus reached about changing the name and merging in the Non-Free content review material.

Can some adiministrators advise on what needs to be done to enable the merge to proceed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge. MER-C 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the consensus but I see pages being moved from FfDeletion to FfDiscussion. I hope any associated links are also addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rev-delundel

I was thinking about the MediaWiki:Rev-delundel interface message, which is the (del/undel) text used for revdel links. I've always found this to be a poor wording choice. The MediaWiki default is now (change visibility), which you can see on the test wiki, for example. A quick survey of other wikis shows many use the "change visibility" version, dewiki uses (+/-), and some others use variants like (show/hide). I prefer all of these to the current one. So, what do we think? If this has been discussed before, I apologise, but I assumed it hadn't since MediaWiki:Rev-delundel has no backlinks. — Earwig ^talk 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A think that wording makes sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say delete it and just use the MediaWiki default unless someone provides a good reason why our project needs to be unique for this. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

At the time the message was overridden, the text was "show/hide". In 2013 it was changed in MediaWiki to "change visibility". I think the latter is better link text for the link. Legoktm (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition, I've gone ahead and changed the message. The relevant actions (if people decide to revert) are 1, 2, and 3. Hope no one gets confused! — Earwig ^talk 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with this change and I think it's an improvement. Thanks for suggesting this Earwig. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Users EEng and Ricky81682

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

---

People might have noticed that there has been a bit of a war going on regarding longevity related articles for quite a while now. Usually the same people (EEng, CommanderLinx, Canadian_Paul and Ricky81682) nominate articles about validated supercentenarians for deletion and then join up to all vote "Delete" to support the subjects of the articles "not being notable enough" because they believe that "longevity does not warrant notability". This has been going on since at least May this year and has resulted in the deletion of numerous longevity related articles. Furthermore, the anti-supercentenarian crew has suggested that there is no need for age validation and that unvalidated data should be mixed with validated data. The terms "validated and verified" stems from the ages of the people in the articles having been deemed reliable by organisations such as the International Database of Longevity (IDL) or the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). The nominators have suggested that neither the IDL or GRG are reliable enough. There have been votes regarding this and the result was that the GRG's Table E was reliable, but not the GRG's Table EE. EEng and Ricky81682 appear to have forgotten what these terms mean as of late since they keep asking what they actually refer to. They nominated several well-sourced articles about people who were the oldest, or close to, living people on earth for deletion suggesting that they are not "notable enough". Recently they have also started disrespecting the subjects of these articles by saying things such as:

"Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal."(EEng),

""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"???" (EEng) and

"Oldest in Louisiana... really? Why not the oldest in Rhode Island? Are we to have fifty simultaneous articles about the oldest person in each US state, and hundreds of others about deceased formerly-oldests? And of course the territories and possessions! What about Wales, Scotland, England? Essex, Surrey, Kent? Bavaria, Tuscany? Each Swiss canton? The states of India? Pedestrian details of an unremarkable, and unremarked, life. NOPAGE. (EEng), "Please don't ask that question. You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." (Ricky81682), "I've performed the anti-jinx ritual." (EEng).

I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned above.

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by EEng:

• "Born-worked-married-died, plus (if you can believe it) "Ray followed, as much as possible, the Boston Red Sox baseball team. After watching baseball games, she often had cake and ice cream. At her 108th birthday celebration, she was greeted with the song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and a cake with the Red Sox symbol on it. Ray continued to buy Red Sox merchandise, and commented that she intended to continue doing so." The followup statement that a completely unrelated old person, Fred Hale, "who lived to be 113 years 354 days old, was also a fan of the team", borders on self-parody.", Source
• "Most of the article recounts the Keystone-cops confusion over who's oldest that year or whatever.", Source
• "Three people mentioned in these articles died while I was reading your long post.", Source
• ""The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time". Definitely the kind of detail our readers want and need. NOPAGE.", Source
• "Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died.", Source
• "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", Source
• "Long article packed with pedestrian life details ('One time she had lunch with the Salvation Army. "I like that, they're friendly," Carroll said.').", Source
• "And the fanboys say we don't have open minds!", Source
• "Apparently nonnotable (I could find no sources other than the single one in the article) and her life was utterly pedestrian i.e. there's nothing worth saying about her in the article, other than that she lived a long time.", Source
• "Born, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, died. WP:NOPAGE, and anyway apparently one source.", Source
• ""the fourth-oldest person in the United States and the seventh-oldest in the world for little over a month" -- imagine, a whole month. "Even as her hearing and vision failed, friends said Shull didn't mind visitors and liked to clutch their hands while she talked" -- oh for Pete's sake.", Source
• ""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"??? Other than born-married-worked-died, the only thing the article actually says about her is, "She was also a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, and the staff of the nursing home where she lived reported her delight at the team winning the 2004 World Series." Fascinating." Source

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by Ricky81682:

• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means)", Source
• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) is not sufficient for notability.", Source
• "You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." , Source
• "Person who was the oldest person ever recorded born in Prince Edward Island, the fourth-oldest person ever born in Canada, and ultimately the oldest American ever (and second oldest in the world) is full of cruft about these "titles", not actually notable and per WP:NOPAGE should be deleted.", Source
• "Now we need a succession box for that.", Source
• "It seems like Sanborn was merely a pretender to the claim of being the oldest living person..", Source
• "This kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary." (Regarding me calling him a troll by nominating an unsourced article about an unverified claimant and then withdrawing the nomination based on the premise that there might be sources.), Source

There are several more examples of this kind of behaviour from both users, but this should be enough to give people the general picture.

Sincerely, 930310 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note this has also been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Users_EEng_and_Ricky81682 which seems a better place for it to be discussed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblock of Billy Hathorn in 2013

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

---

I may be right off track here, but here goes. This is further to a discussion that began at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 August 7 in relation to the article Timothy Dwight Hobart. I've no first-hand knowledge of the history, but, as I understand it:

• A CCI for Billy Hathorn, requested by cmadler, was opened on 27 July 2011; it now has about 4800 articles outstanding, or some 7% of our total backlog of 72,000.
• The user was indeffed for copyright violations and BLP issues by Ironholds on 29 September 2011,
• repeatedly evaded the block by socking,
• and was unblocked by Amalthea on 27 April 2013 with the comment "not effective"; Amalthea later wrote "a bazillion edits that should really have been looked at as part of the CCI are now untrackable for us".

I believe that two questions arise, one small and one large:

1. Is there community consensus that Hathorn should be free to edit here? (please see below for my comment)
2. What, if anything, could or should be done to prevent the sort of abuse that led Amalthea to make that unblock decision? Are we interested in finding ways of dealing better and more robustly with this sort of thing?

To be clear: I'm not criticising, in any way, anyone who tried, or anything that was done, to contain this problem – it seems to have been just a mass of work for a lot of people. I'm merely asking for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hathorn is still violating copyrights and denying that there is a problem – please see my comments here and at Talk:Susan Pamerleau; also this edit. Yes, the copyvio in that article is not very extensive; nor is it negligible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My impression from reading that unblock reason is it happened because the block didn't stop the copyvios, instead causing block evasion that a) negates the effectiveness of the block and b) makes it harder to track the problem edits. Basically, "The block merely makes it harder to track the copyvios since they still happen through sockpuppets, but it doesn't stop them". Imma think on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the unblock is that no one has been monitoring the user, and no one should be expected to have to monitor the user, checking their every edit to make sure it's copyright compliant. This is beyond the scope of what we can expect of our volunteers, even those who are interested in helping with copyright clean-up. If someone is violating the terms of use, which includes a statement that we are obliged to engage in "Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws", then they should be blocked. Perhaps a checkuser could monitor for socks and block them as they appear. Hopefully the editor would quit socking at some point if all their socks were blocked and all their edits were reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question- What proportion of their edits, rough percentage wise, might be considered copy vios? Blackmane (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I had spot-checked his edits in the months after the unblock, but only for a while, of course :/
Considering all circumstances I remain convinced that the unblock was the right move to make, even though the comparison from Talk:Susan Pamerleau shows that the problems and fundamental misconceptions from back then still exist two years later.
If there are questions I should answer I'll do my best.
Amalthea 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm strongly leaning toward reblocking him indefinitely. We shouldn't reward a socker by unblocking him! Sure, unblocking a helpful-but-socking user might occasionally be beneficial, but it would be absurd to say "You're unstoppable with your socking and copyright-infringing, so we give up and unblock you", and I don't see a big difference between that and the reason for unblocking him. Users who repeatedly flout our policies need to be shown the door, and especially in cases of recidivism after the removal of an indefinite block: get indeffed for a good reason, get unblocked, and start up the bad behavior — why should we believe anything you say? Why shouldn't we just revert, block, ignore you? Amalthea, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and that you're right. Would you mind giving us more extensive reasons and trying to convince me that the unblock was the right move to make? Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate very much Justlettersandnumbers trying to drive this towards a solution (we need one), I also feel the need to speak up to explain the situation that Amalthea was dealing with here. :) The unblock was not intended as a reward, I know; it was simply an end-of-the-rope attempt to find a solution when traditional measures demonstrably weren't working. Transparency was chosen in preference to what we were then dealing with. Keeping up with Billy's socks was a massive time-consumer, and as best as I remember I spent quite a bit of time and energy on RBI myself. (I use it heavily when dealing with block evading serial copyright infringers, even now.) I would have much rather Amalthea had produced a magic wand and found a way to stop the issue, but can't fault him for failing to do so. No more could I. :( At the time Billy was unblocked, his socks were not demonstrating the copyvio pattern he had previously shown in the swathe of articles I spot-checked, but it's not possible to say definitely they weren't happening. Unfortunately, it's massively time consuming to check for those, and material may be missed. Additionally, I have no doubt there are many socks that were never identified.

Basically, I think Amalthea's decision - while not the solution one would hope for - was pragmatic. We could not effectively block him, and his edits were likely to escape review. Making them transparent meant the ability to at least review them, while the fragmented accounts and IPs he was using previously were difficult to review at all. Given that years after his initial block, he still doesn't get it - and by his note on Talk:Susan Pamerleau doesn't really seem to even understand the issue - I think Billy remains a problem. But if he is indefinitely blocked again, I think it will require some creativity to enforce it, since it's hard to know how technical measures could be brought to bear here. I don't think one or two people trying to WP:RBI can make a difference. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a look over the SPI page and grasp the enormity of the problem. I'd really like to see what @Billy Hathorn: has to say about this and, if it's not a satisfactory explanation, don't see why a site ban with the application of the nuclear option should not be considered. If one cannot trust all, then one must suspect all. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

with respect to detecting the contributions if he resumes socking, his ordinary choice of subject and manner of writing is highly distinctive. We may not be able to block him no matter what he may turn his hand to, but we can block him in this field at least. The material his socks added was on the customary subject in the customary manner. I'm not ay sure an unblock such as the one in question here is ever justified: I tend to think not, but I don't want to rule out there might be some justified case. If it ever is done in such a case, I think it would warrant prior discussion. For this case, the detectability of the contributions forces me to the conclusion that it was an unblock that should not have been done, even on the basis of the evidence at the time, not just because of the subsequent copyvios. Even the best active admin make errors. But if it is not agreed that an unblock in such circumstances takes great caution and discussion, we will need a policy saying so. MRG? Amalthea? DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's been a couple of years and memory is fallible, but I think it's worth noting that this situation was a bit more complex than "This isn't working; let's just let him disrupt under his main account so we can see it." (Although transparency was a major factor.) Blocking Billy in the first place was the right call. He repeatedly violated various policies related to content and was absolutely unwilling to change his editing behaviors no matter who called him on it or how it was explained. But from a copyright standpoint, Billy was not one of those people who copy-pastes wholesale from sources that I recall; his taking often may not rise to substantial similarity (although only a judge could make that determination). It's more a matter of close paraphrasing brief runs from his sources in a manner that is clearly plagiarism as Wikipedia defines it and as most Western academicans would. This kind of writing does constitute a "copyvio" as a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, because we require that, except for clearly marked quotations, creative content from your sources be written in your own words (oversimplifying, but basically true). However, a spot-check prior to the unblocking had not shown copying issues in his sock contributions, and he was not (as best as I recall) violating BLP anymore by citing himself or unreliable blogs.

Dealing with his socks, especially socks who might otherwise not be violating policy, was disruptive in itself. The nuclear option has collateral damage beyond the time it requires for a user to go through and rollback, especially the longer it takes you to discover the sock. Other contributors waste their time polishing the work of banned editors and are not particularly happy when you roll back an article to an earlier state without at least being able to demonstrate that the content itself was wrong. Demonstrating that the content itself is wrong is essentially compressing the time it takes to do a CCI. (As an aside, Billy's CCI has been edited a grand total of 31 times in the four years it has been opened. Conducting CCIs is hard. Conducting it on an editor like this one? Doubly hard.) Doing this with dozens of socks and IPs - especially where the issues that led to the original block did not then seem to be a factor - was disrupting the project in itself.

After his unblock, both Amalthea and I reviewed Billy's contributions for a time. (See User_talk:Billy_Hathorn/Archive_20#Copyright_issue for one issue found as I was still following him four months after the unblock - it proved to be an old issue reinstated; the next section demonstrates Amalthea's continued engagement as well.) This was not intended to be a throwing in the towel, but another approach to prevent disruption. It wasn't the best solution and quite probably not the right solution. But it was also not a unilateral overthrow of a community ban; it was a single admin choosing to unblock a user, as we do all the time. And it was done with caution.

I don't have much more time right now, but I will note that as I recall there is another potential way to deal with this kind of thing that was not thought of at the time. I can't remember this guy's name at the moment, but we dealt with a person who was copy-pasting content into, I think, sports article where we used a bot to blank or revert his content and place a template asking people who wanted to restore it review it for copy-pasting and annotate their findings on a list. Something like that might be a way to work with cases like this - where the person who is following the trail of a blocked serial copyright infringer doesn't have to manually review and revert each edit and the community can be mobilized in assisting. User:MER-C, do you remember that case? I'll look for it later if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Post family lunch outing, I have remembered: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo, with the considerable assistance of User:Uncle G. This was an extreme case, and I wouldn't really want to use it for every CCI case, but for serial copyright infringing sock puppeteers, it might be the way to go. It also, honestly, might be judiciously used to diminish some of the mounting backlog at WP:CCI. Having a couple of people who whittle away at this monumental task is misusing their time. Perhaps if violations exceed a certain threshold, it's an alternative we should consider. (User:Wizardman, User:Diannaa - thoughts on that idea? Is it crazy, or something we might want to propose more formally?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel the nuclear option is appropriate whenever there is sockpuppetry involved. MER-C 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Knowing all their contribs will be reverted might serve to deter the violator from socking. This is why I typically remove all sock contribs, regardless of their value. Bot removal of edits might be a worthwhile option for the cases that are otherwise unsolvable due to sources not being provided, or the sources being inaccessible and uncheckable. FYI, the backlog currently contains 152 cases and 72,239+ articles, up from 142 cases and 71,258+ articles on this same date a year ago (14 cases were closed, but 24 new cases were added, and at least one case was substantially expanded). -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that the foundation should contract some paid employees to work on copyright clean-up? The current system of expecting volunteers to clean up over 150 CCI cases containing 72,000 articles and hundreds of thousands of diffs is obviously not realistic, as the backlog continues to grow. Some cases have been sitting unexamined for over five years. --Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to know which account to use to answer this, Diannaa. :) This is volunteer mode, and I haven't consulted anyone else about this, but basically my understanding has always been that the Foundation can't do this. There's a critical separation between being an online service provider and a content provider. The laws that govern the former are quite different from those govern the latter, as the former has safe harbors that the latter does not receive. If we lost that safe harbor, it has always been my belief that the entire model of the movement would have to change, as individual editors would no longer be solely legally responsible for laws they violate on our sites. We go well and above legal requirements in addressing copyright concerns on Wikipedia, and obviously I'm for that, since I have spent so much time doing it. :) But I fear that losing OCILLA would of necessity make open-editing obsolete. Again, this is my opinion as a volunteer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Timothy Dwight Hobart article is now a one-paragraph shell. The article was not a copyright violation. Someone claimed there was too much following closely from tshaonline. That material was corrected months ago. Yet the article was gutted to one paragraph will all the references for that paragraph. It began on the board in 2008.

The Susan Pamerleau article was said to have followed too closely from her campaign website. This too was corrected: there were three claims, very minor, all further scrambled. Sheriff Pamerleau's PR person gave permission to lift the copyright from her campaign site, but administrators here said the permission is invalid. At any rate, there is no copyright violation. One should read the article entirely. It was on a temporary page if one can find it. Thank you. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Indef. I believe action(s) executed WRT this situation were made in an honest effort to correctly address the issue. The admin(s) previously involved have my full confidence. Tiderolls 06:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indef. To do otherwise would tell users (especially the sneaky-disruption type, such as massive copyvioes) that if they sock enough, we will unblock them. Enforce, as needed, with rangeblocks, checkuser checks on accounts, and possibly (if applicable) edit filters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indef or ban, whichever has more support per Old Misheu, and the editor's completely unconvincing denial above. BMK (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure about nuking from orbit, though. BMK (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Indef, unquestionably. Unblocking someone because they're using sockpuppets seems like it was a pretty bad idea -- I don't see how it made him easier to catch, since nothing stopped him from using a sock to post all his copyvios while using the original account for normal editing. Additionally, even if keeping up with his socks is a lot of work, it is work that is necessary as long as he's still posting copyvios (and as far as I can tell, he never even agreed to stop.) Banning a sock also makes it easier to remove possible copyvios, because it means that everything he posted with that sock can be summarily reverted as an edit by a banned user, without having to determine exactly what the copyvio is -- it shifts the burden of proof for keeping or reinstating one of his edits on to whoever wants to keep it (or, at least, it requires that an editor in good standing have enough confidence in the edit to be willing to accept responsibility for it), which, I think, is a reasonable thing to do when someone has enough of a history of copyvios to get permanently banned. --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indef: It may well take a lot of time to enforce against socks, but it undoubtedly also takes a lot of time to monitor and correct the significant copyright violations. Given that both paths are time consuming, a block seems preferable as it shows that Wikipedia is actually willing to enforce its own policies. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point, he should not only be banned, but I wonder if there's a way to nuke his edits. He's made so many that it would be very difficult to do and it's not something I would normally condone, but he's been so disruptive for so long that his edits will be impossible to clean up otherwise. I also did a cursory check on the Hobart article mentioned, and if he seriously thinks that wasn't copyvio then an indef block and ban is the only solution. MRG notes above that we've nuked once before, and it may in fact be the only solution. Wizardman 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban and the nuclear option in this case. Miniapolis 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban and nuking per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 10:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know why this is not at ANI. Infinite ban against and usage of Special:Nuke on this user. Repeated, long-time copyright issues.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Müdigkeit, I brought this here rather than to ANI because (a) it isn't an incident but a long-term problem and (b) it's an (un)block review, as mentioned under "Issues appropriate for this page" in the instructions above. If I was wrong I apologise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Müdigkeit, I think it's probably not just about this user but about this kind of issue, which happens to have a specific case at its core. The two are intertwined. I think this is probably the right place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I know. Thanks for the answers.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On another note, ANI is for "incidents". AN is usually for slightly bigger fish frying like site bans, etc. There is some overlap between the two but if you hang out here for a while, you'll see that ANI is a bit more dynamic than AN. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Happy to go for an indef in this case, but are we seriously going to nuke, which means delete every article he's created? Surely a solution like in the Darius Dhlomo case where pages were blanked until they were reviewed would be better. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Jenks24. Nuking his subsequent sock edits is one thing, but the nuke solution now could be quite damaging. For context (this link will expire), he has contributed significantly in his editing career under this account to over 9,000 articles. Since his unblocking, over 4,500. I do not know (as was asked above) what percentage of these will be problems, but I suspect that there will be many which are not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Nuking all of BH's edits would do harm. I have other problems with some of his recent article creations. Namely they being totally sourced via paid newspaper obituaries. Those type of obituaries fail WP:RS when it comes to most details about a person's life and IMHO shouldn't be the only source for establishing someone's notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• The Darius Dhlomo solution is the current plan, and is what I support. Anything substantial added by any new sockpuppets will be removed indiscriminately. MER-C 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ban, automatically delete any new potentially-copyright edits, have human users filter through the user's past edits. We can't nuke all his previous edits, as he may very well have made a non-copyrightable change to a featured article, for example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree with Jenks24. Nuking could create a lot more work for us, imo. Connormah (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Suppport ban. Also support whatever nuclear option gains consensus, whether it be a tactical nuke or something more like Tsar Bomba. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly there are problems here. But to claim that the list of decorations is a copyright infringement is ludicrous. The full list can be found at the USAF web site - and is PD-US as work of the US govt. - and would be otherwise as a bare compilation of facts. If it were not, all the sources that cite them would be in breach too.
• If we cannot explain the (admittedly slightly bizarre) limitations of Wikipedia policy to this editor, then the we need to have someone better at explaining, or a simpler policy.
• I suggest that the editor be shown how to use Earwig's copyvio detector, and we re-asses this in a couple of weeks.
• All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
  
  • I don't know who will admit that our policies are bizarre. Plagiarism and copyright violations have been explained to him often enough, and the subject matter is hardly as complicated as gerrymandering or electoral votes. Of course Billy understands it; he's playing dumb and I think he thinks it's nothing but a bureaucratic impediment to his creation of articles. Why else be so adamant in using the word "scramble", if not to suggest avoiding detection is the only thing that matters?
    What is a bit bizarre is putting all of this, years of serial copyright violations, on one copied source from one article; San Antonio Magazine is certainly not PD-US as work of the US govt. (For the uninitiated, Rich Farmbrough is referring to what was happening at Talk:Susan Pamerleau.) I appreciate your attempt to educate him, but you have more faith than I do. Then again, Billy's been cited more than once for sourcing problems (and now again that pops up in User_talk:Billy_Hathorn#Copyright_problem:_Susan_Pamerleau), so maybe there is a pretty staggering lack of competence here. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban plus nukes from orbit or whatever. Finally. I spent a few months trying to clean up after Billy's habit of creating an article about every person born in Louisiana. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest that the next person to read over this should consider closing it. The discussion has largely died and the consensus is about as unanimous as you can get on Wikipedia. Jenks24 (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Questions arising from the above

(putting this here as it relates directly to the discussion above; if that's wrong, please move it to the foot of the page) Three questions arise from the above closed discussion:

1. In closing and acting on this discussion, Kudpung has intentionally left open the question of how to deal with Hathorn's contributions. He wrote "The question remains whether or not a bot should be written to broadly delete all the user's edits in view of their sheer quantity", which most people have simply called "nuke" and many have favoured. The alternative, which also seems to receive a good deal of support above, is the "Darius Dhlomo" approach, in which a bot would place a scary notice on all his articles (in the CCI, or to date?) in the hope of enlisting some community help. If consensus could be reached on which of these is preferred, we could perhaps move forward with this. I see a third possibility, which is to nuke all the sockpuppet edits without compunction, and put the scary notice on those made under his real username.

2. My second question at the start of this thread was "What, if anything, could or should be done to prevent the sort of abuse that led Amalthea to make that unblock decision? Are we interested in finding ways of dealing better and more robustly with this sort of thing?" Before coming here, I asked Maggie Dennis (WMF) (Moonriddengirl in her official capacity) if there was anything the foundation could do improve ways of dealing with this kind of thing. Her careful and detailed reply included this:

… "how to handle the unblockable" strikes me as a massive community health issue. So I think this conversation is doable. I suspect that getting something like this on the radar would require:
(a) metrics to help define and demonstrate the scale of the problem.
(b) a showing of community support for putting WMF resources (time, money) to address it, and
(c) ideally some preliminary ideas for what addressing it might look like.

So, is there in fact (a) the need and (b) the will to ask the WMF to look at this? And does anyone have any of those "preliminary ideas"?

3. Something clearly has to be done about the CCI backlog. It's just not realistic to imagine that a tiny handful of dedicated (and largely unnoticed and unthanked) editors will be able to plod their way through 72,000 articles; new CCIs are constantly adding to the pile. MRG has indicated reluctance to use the Darius Dhlomo approach on all CCIs; what about using it on a sub-set of them (those that are very large, those that involve sockpuppetry, those that involve paid editing?), possibly with a more discreet notice than the DD one? By not tagging those articles, we run the risk of good-faith editors spending time and effort on improving content that will in any case eventually have to be discarded; and that's a bad use of editor time.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue for this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Now's the time to ask the WMF for better blocking and abuse mitigation tools. MER-C 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this venue is as good as any. I suggest we start by pinging all those who voted above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good thought, thank you, Kudpung. I think those who voted or commented were Jo-Jo Eumerus, Diannaa, Blackmane, Amalthea, Nyttend, Moonriddengirl, DGG, Tide rolls, Od Mishehu, BMK, Aquillion, Champaign Supernova, Wizardman, Müdigkeit, Jenks24, WilliamJE, Connormah, Rich Farmbrough, Drmies and OhNoitsJamie. Hope I didn't miss anyone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I managed to miss editor Miniapolis (sorry!), and also to ping editor BMK instead of BMK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that it's a huge amount of text, but I'm still in favor of nuking all articles created by him and not significantly edited by others. The first step would be bot deletion of all articles never edited by other users, aside from bot edits and human edits that were marked as minor. This done, the bot could give a full list of articles that had fewer than X non-minor edits by humans (I'll suggest five), and admins could go through the list to check for non-minor edits, marking ones that had been checked and cleared. Once these were done, the bot would give us a list of all other articles created by him, and we'd repeat the delete-or-mark process. Splitting up the process would both make it easier to do (simply by making more-but-smaller chunks of work) and make it so that we got the more-likely-to-be-problematic articles first. The time-related problem at CCI is that you're supposed to check each article individually against the potential sources, if I remember rightly. If we're deleting everything that's not gotten significant contributions from other editors (by which I'm meaning major rewrites, not just significant content additions), we don't need to worry about checking contents: a few seconds would suffice to check virtually all articles, and the exceptions would involve checking just a few diffs. I'd suggest that the bot handle all deletions, including ones that had been checked and cleared for deletion. Two process points: (1) Bot uses an edit summary reading something like "Deleting page created by user with an extensive history of copyright infringement. Page may be recreated by any user", because we don't want to discourage people from creating new articles on the same topics. (2) Bot's userspace has a fully protected page on which admins can leave a list of links, and the bot deletes every article that's linked from this page. This would potentially save us a ton of time (you can check twenty pages and copy/paste their names much faster than you can check them and delete them) as well as ensuring a consistent edit summary. Since the deletions requiring human checking would be bot-performed on human instructions, we wouldn't need to worry about WP:CONTEXTBOT. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. We should mention the relevant policy somewhere -- Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors -- in case someone gets annoyed about the deletions. I also suggest copyvio blanking them for a week or two beforehand to give editors a chance to rewrite the content if they desire. MER-C 20:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the CCI? That is the best place to start investigating. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727. Only current until August 2012. MER-C 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend's proposal looks sensible to me too. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

suspicious User

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

---

Hi please check and review User:Sheydai background. I think this account is belong to Category:Sockpuppets of Manimihan

such as Maninimihan this user is also intersted in Hossein Shahabi ‎and his films

World Cup 2010 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a page (Sock Puppet Investigations) for you to report such concerns, which is a better venue for such things. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Follow the directions at Sock Puppet Investigations and create a case there. This is the proper place to report concerns like this. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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

John Witherow Verification

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

---

Hello team,

I have been trying to verify the John Witherow page for a day or so now, with further citations needed (apparently) for it to be made official. I think I've added quite enough - how do i get this verified? Thanks TheoTheoDaviesLewis (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This matter is already being dealt with at WP:BLPN; the OP has also raised the matter at the help desk and my talk page. I'd suggest inadvertent WP:FORUMSHOPPING. GiantSnowman 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections

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

---

I would request that this section be closed by at least one uninvolved admin approximately seven days from now.

I recently started a discussion on my user talk page about low arbcom voter turnout, which became a greater concern to me after stumbling across multiple content editors (including one with over 75k edits to ENWP who was unaware they were eligible to vote.) In privately solicited feedback, there was widespread agreement that the normal banners are slightly obtuse to anyone not already deep inside our administrative side, and leave a lot of the eligible electorate unaware they are eligible - an issue of special concern after 2014's votes were only 60% of those of 2013's.

Therefore, I propose, that immediately after the candidate nomination period has ended, a massmessage be sent out to all editors active in the previous three months who meet all criteria to vote for arbcom. I further suggest that the massmessage be sent from a neutrally named secondary account (which I or anyone else can grant +confirmed and +massmessage to in order to carry out the delivery. My currently suggested text for the massmessage is this:

Hi username, Please note you are eligible to vote in the current ArbCom elections as long as you have not already voted in them on a different account and are not evading a block or ban. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, including the ability to impose bans, topic bans, civility restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. You can review the candidates statements and vote here if you wish to and haven't done so already. <sig here>

(except, with all relevant wikilinks filled in.)

Any thoughts? In a time when we've had greatly declining voter turnout (no other editor metric fell as greatly as arbcom turnout,) it certainly seems in the best interests of the encyclopedia to inform all recently active users who are eligible to vote by the already established voting requirements that they are eligible to vote for arbcom, along with a brief description of what arbcom is (which I stole from one of their pages,) and a brief description of some of the actions arbcom can take. I don't think it's in our best interests to have only a tiny fraction of the eligible electorate be aware they are even eligible to vote (let alone what for,) and know a lot of eligible voters who would take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and vote according to their interests but who are (or were) unaware they were eligible to vote. I've been told that the necessary list should be easily generatable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - as proposer, with reasoning above. This is or something very similar is standard practice among any organization that holds elections with a specified electorate. I am disinclined to go beyond users three months back, because I don't want to wake the long-departed. Chris Troutman's oppose vote seems to miss the fact that arbcom participation has fallen faster than any other editing metric, and that people with editcounts in excess of 50k have been found unaware they were eligible to vote. We declared what our electorate would be, and then declined to let most of the electorate know they were part of it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - I'm at a loss to understand the "oppose" votes, since this might do some good, and is unlikely to have any negative repercussions. BMK (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
3. People can opt out if they don't want to receive voting notifications. This is too important to ignore. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
4. What Ed and BMK and Kevin say. Also, it's free. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support - I can't think of how informing editors that they are eligible to vote is a bad thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   • Liz: See below. Apparently there are still people around who see some kind of danger in having a broad electorate. BMK (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Support - considering how much power ArbCom has over even the average editor, it's important that as many people as possible chime in during votes. A simple "get out the vote" notice is harmless, contrary to the conspiratorial feelings of certain opposers. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support - in favor of more exposure to Arbcom elections.→StaniStani 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support provided the message is (as proposed) sent from a neutral user account - for example from one of the Election Commissioners. A one-off message notifying people of their eligibility to vote is unlikely to be that annoying, and is worth it if it lifts turnout. Some participants here have also highlighted talk of people running tickets to skew the election results in favour of specific viewpoints - a larger pool of voters reduces the success of this tactic, and will help ensure Arbcom is as representative as possible of the entire editor base. And along with more voters we need more candidates. To all those who've contributed to Arbcom process discussions or supported/opposed particular case outcomes this year - time to put your money where your mouth is by putting your name forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support. Only seeing potential upside in this very sound and logical proposal by Kevin Gorman. Strongly Support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Support per BMK, and in particular per many of the replies to the opposition. It simply doesn't make sense not to advertise this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
11. If, and only if we can target such messages to only go to people who are entitled to vote then I would be OK with this. ϢereSpielChequers 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Support. This seems reasonable. HiDrNick! 13:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
13. Support I'm from a country with compulsory citizen voting & don't get the (mainly) US/UK cringe on increasing Wikipedia voter numbers. (Should add: I'd like to see compulsory ArbCom voting a requirement of being a bureaucrat/admin/clerk/etc.) AnonNep (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
14. Support - This is a very sensible proposal, consistent with the principles expressed in WP:SOP. The banner site notices are useful, but can be easily overlooked among the other clutter. I agree with Euryalus that the notification should come from the Electoral Commission. While most of the oppose votes below have me wondering what the benefit of carving out a narrower electorate would be, I find that Carrite's comments stand out as unnecessarily accusatory (and inflammatory). - MrX 14:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
15. Support in concept but I think a few of the opposers make a fair point when they say this should have been raised during the RfC for this year's election, which has ended. It is a little late to propose this for the upcoming election. Neutron (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Support: I don't see any problems. Canvassing concerns don't sound convincing to me. Spam concerns either: it is not like ArbCom is constituted every week. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
17. Support. More participation in elections makes for a healthier community, online or offline. As long as the notifications are delivered neutrally and ecumenically to all eligible voters, this can only be a plus.--Pharos (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
18. Support. Being also from a nation with compulsory voting, despite the obvious contradiction to what others perceive as Democracy, I am often confused how citizens from other democracies are satisfied with a barely sufficient majority of the voting population choosing their governments. Arbcom, which has the largest reach of any body on Wikipedia, is usually elected by not even anything remotely resembling a majority of editors and those who do vote are usually those familiar with the back end of WP, the policies, politics, etc. This sets a dangerous precedent of a very powerful body being elected by a minority. If you want to see how such a body is reflected in democratic society I suggest looking at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, which isn't a democracy in any way but does have this odd election system. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
19. Support—I see no possible harm from additional communication. My experience is that you need to overcommunicate by a factor of at least ten to make people aware of processes. Arbcom is sufficiently important enough that we should aim to maximize potential voter awareness of the elections. –Grondemar 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
20. Support More voter participation sheds more light on the process. More eyes need to be on Arbcom. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
21. Support As a resident of and registered voter in the United States, I am embarrassed by the turnout in elections. As a registered voter, I just received in the mail a sample ballot for the elections coming up next Tuesday. Is it spam? Is it canvassing? No to both. It's a reminder that gives me details of my option to participate and my potential choices on Election Day. Community participation in Arbcom voting is even more atrocious. Registered Wikipedia editors are registered Arbcom voters, and reaching out to inform these editors on a systematic basic to inform them of their right to vote is something we should be doing as a matter of course. We don't mandate voting, but we should at least be providing a formal nudge to solicit much greater scope in the electoral base. The argument that informing every prospective voter constitutes canvassing borders on the ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
22. Support 1) It is good to let eligible people know about elections; and 2) should anyone complain about a message appearing on a User talk page, remind them that: you know, that's where we leave messages for them; there is plenty of room on it, it's not like it is taking up valuable space; the page is not just theirs; and ignore/delete is the way to deal with any such imposition, minor as it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
23. Support Improving voter turnout is always better than the alternative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
24. Support Seems like a harmless idea to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
25. Support - sure, why not? But make it something that respects {{nobots}} please. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
26. Support Increased participation in the ArbCom elections will mean the new ArbCom will represent a larger sample of Wikipedians. Great idea, Kevin! RO^(talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
27. Support - To a point I am a bit concerned with the spam side of things but at the same time feel some people here may have absolutely no idea they can vote, Meh we need as much participation as possible. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
28. Support. The fleeting annoyance of receiving a mass-message is overcome by its utility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
29. Support Enfranchisement is important. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
30. Support Informing people of the elections is the first step in building a larger and more informed electorate. The Interior (Talk) 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
31. Support As a registered voter, I think it is important to solicit feedback from other people. If we send them a mass ping like the one you mentioned above, the turnout would be better instead of editor not being aware of these elections. Editors might not immediately see a general announcement on the other hand. Sam.gov (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
32. Strong support. It's important that voters be a large sample of the general Wikipedia population. Far from being canvassing, this proposal would make it harder to canvass; obviously, a message sent to absolutely everyone is not canvassing (it says so explicitly on WP:CANVASS), but more importantly, the more voters from the electorate as a whole we have, the less impact individual efforts to manipulate the vote by targeting some specific subset of the electorate will have. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
33. Weak support, maybe even weak to the point of damning with faint praise. I agree with the criticisms that AN is the wrong venue for deciding this, but my concern is partly mitigated by the fact that it is listed at CENT, which is how I found it. I also think it's a problem that, because it was raised after the actual RfC, there hasn't really been an adequate discussion about the wording of the message. I think it's poorly written. It sounds like it keeps saying "we have determined that you are eligible to vote, except that we haven't checked whether you already voted or whether you are a sockpuppet, so maybe we are wrong". It also should put a greater emphasis on how voters can, and should, research the candidates before voting. On the other hand, I'm not bothered about the "spam" issue, and I figure that more publicity is the best way to counteract any organized block voting, if that really is being organized. And bottom line, my best guess is that this won't actually change the results of the election. So that's not a ringing endorsement. But I am all in favor of more editors being enfranchised and more editors being engaged in general, and I doubt that this message will do any lasting harm. So I don't object to trying it as an experiment, and next year, we can see whether or not it's worth continuing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Makes the process more robust against skulduggery. Rhoark (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
35. Support More editor participation in a project which requires editor participation is always a good thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
36. Support Down with the cabal that is not a cabal! Brustopher (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
37. Weak support If more editors participate, there's less risk of results being affected by inappropriate canvassing and sock puppetry. Wording of the message could probably be improved; if this proposal succeeds that should be discussed before the message is sent. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
38. Weak support because of everything Tryptofish said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
39. Support - A reasonable idea and one that should have implemented years ago. Opposers are unconvincing. Jusdafax 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
40. Support - Anything we can do to increase the participation rate in and understanding of Wikipedia's internal administrative processes is a self-evident good. The risk of a massive influx of uninformed voters is small. And any marginal annoyance that results from the "spam" message is trivial in comparison to the greater good. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
41. Support — I respectfully disagree that increasing voter turnout can ever be a bad thing when there is no other skulduggery going on (e.g., patently dishonest campaign platforms). If we have anything to fear from uninformed voters, then we should take efforts to inform them. The fact of the matter is these uninformed voters have the right to vote: If having a higher turnout increases the risk of a catastrophic outcome, such as an incompetent person being elected, then the answer is to reform the process to mitigate that already-extant risk. I don't contend that new restrictions on who can run should be undertaken, but if the fear is the election of someone incompetent, then we should have that discussion. Otherwise, the risk is something like the election of someone who might not otherwise have been elected... and that's not catastrophic on its own. I would suggest that others look to BMK's learned response to an opposer below. To summarize: Merely because those proposing a way of increasing voter turnout are hoping to impact the outcome of an election does not make that increased turnout wrongful. So long as the notification is impartial, it is fine. And ArbCom elections are rare and important enough that whatever marginal increase in effort in carrying out the election cannot reasonably be said to outweigh the benefit in credibility that a greater voter turnout would grant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not only is there no evidence to back up the assertion that more voters would benefit the results of Wikipedia's elections, low voter turnout is a sign of voter apathy, not disenfranchisement. Long term editors that are unaware of the politics of Wikipedia should stick to editing and not involve themselves with the drama. I support rule by self-selectors; wrong-headed drives like the foolishness being discussed on Kevin Gorman's talk page are almost always the tool of aggrieved parties attempting to overthrow the status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There are sufficient notices. I think turnout is dictated by whether there are issues or personalities that bring people to vote. A controversial and recent ArbCom action brings out many who would not vote in a quiet year. I suspect also people would be annoyed by an unrequested message.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Chris troutman. Arbcom members should be elected only by those who care about the results, and adding a ton of extra votes in this manner will either produce the same result or cause someone(s) to be elected by people who don't care about the performance of the arbitrator(s) in question, a problem compounded by the chance of a second-tier candidate getting elected when the already-would-have-voted candidates would have known to support someone better. We already publicise the fact that it's time for Arbcom elections, so anyone can vote; it's not like we're doing a registration drive in real life to help people register when they don't what to do to register. Keeping in mind Guy Macon's comment, I'd like to note that a major difference between this and RFA is the manner of voting — the only difference between successful and unsuccessful Arbcom candidacies is the number of votes, without a minimum number being required, so the current election process is successful in electing people; it's not like some real elections (e.g. Bulgarian nuclear power referendum, 2013, to pick one randomly) that fail if the total number of voters is too small. It's very different from RFA, where it can reasonably be argued (correctly or not, I don't know) that adding extra participants will routinely improve an individual's RFA. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose per my comment on Kevin's talkpage. Low participation is a product of people not caring about the result and of people not feeling the effort required is worthwhile (researching candidates is a huge timesink), not a product of unawareness. My personal feeling is that the importance of Arbcom is grossly overstated and most of the missing voters agree and don't care about the result. If one concedes your argument that Arbcom has a genuine discernable effect on the lives of normal editors, then to be frank while I'm sure there will indeed be people who are unaware the elections are on, anyone who manages to miss the glaring watchlist notice which remains in situ for a month, the notification on every significant noticeboard, the discussion on many if not most high-profile talkpages and usertalk pages, and the frantic canvassing efforts by every off-wiki criticism site and mailing list, is someone who is so detached from the day-to-day running of Wikipedia that they shouldn't be involved in decisions. ‑ iridescent 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   • What the cause of low turnout is is really not relevant to the question here, nor the importance or lack of importance of ArbCom. What do you object to about a low-cost method which could possibly get more people to vote? Is it a "mobocracy" thing, or what? I really don't get it. BMK (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   • I'd say the cause is important. Increasing information only makes sense if one of the causes of low participation is lack of information. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Kevin Gorman is one of the moderators of the Gender Gap mailing list (GG-l) hosted by WMF. Membership in this group is carefully controlled, although the public archive is readily visible. He has ALREADY BEEN STIRRING THE POT with a view to getting the couple hundred people of the GG-l organized for bloc voting in the forthcoming ArbCom election. This is clearly a political ploy, an attempt to stack Friendly Spacers onto the committee through selective notification of co-thinkers via official Wikipedia mechanisms. "Vote any way you want (nudge nudge, wink wink)..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   • Carefully controlled? It's an open membership list with open archives. Furthermore, how on earth would a massmessage sent out to all recently active eligible voters be "selective notification"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   See the damning comment you made on Meta on Oct. 21 that I present below. You are organizing for bloc voting to push an ideological faction. Carrite (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   @Carrite: - I would invite you to point out how informing all recently active eligible voters that they are eligible to vote would in any way support bloc voting. I certainly have opinions about the future of ENWP, and am not shy about voicing them in open forums. If I was trying to organize a malicious voting bloc, do you really think I would be doing so by posting on an open mailing list and publicly soliciting feedback about the idea of a universal and neutral mass message to recently active eligible voters, including people I have significant disagreements with - including people I've previously blocked? One of my opinions about the future of ENWP happens to be that eligible voters should know that they are eligible to vote. If I was organizing a malicious voting bloc, do you think I would be doing so via opening a thread on AN openly asking for outside feedback on the appropriateness of the use of my admin tools, when I could've either done so myself without asking anyone (operating on the fairly safe assumption that arbcom is unlikely to desysop someone based off of a use of a neutral massmessage, even one that exceeds the normal number of people massmessaged to,) or simply coordinated a voting bloc via private emails and phonecalls that you wouldn't be able to notice? Please stop with the attacks and stick with reality. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

   If GGTF is trying to pull a Sad Puppies, mass notification would be the best defense. Rhoark (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

   • Wow, and I get accused of ABF!!
     It's not unusual in the RW for one side or the other to benefit more from getting additional people to the polls. In the US, for instance, the Democrats are usually beneficiaries (especially in the urban areas) and work towards getting more voters, while the Republicans, to generalize, do not, and often engage in tactics which are aimed at discouraging people from voting. But that as it may, unless things escalate to signing up dead people to vote -- as happened with the (Democratic) Daley machine in Chicago in 1960, which helped put JFK into office -- having a higher percentage of the eligible voters turn out is an unalloyed good thing. If Kevin believes that his group will benefit from that -- a charge which you bring no evidence to support -- that's a totally ancillary matter, the solution to which is to get people on your side of the issue to vote.
     Similarly, block voting is not a question at issue here. As far as I know it's not Wilki-illegal, and if you're concerned that it may happen, and may bias the election, then I suggest you start doing whatever is necessary to get a consensus to stop it -- but not by discouraging voters from participating, nor by making charges for which you provide no support. BMK (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   WP:CANVASSING is a frowned-upon concept pretty much throughout Wikipedia, although I recognize that this is a bit different since, differently from pretty much everything else, it is actually a vote. LjL (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, the "voter's guides" for ArbCom elections are an institutionalized form of canvassing, don't you think? They seem to be an exception to the general rule, perhaps because of what you say, that it actually is a vote. BMK (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   Funny you should say that, Ken... Kevin Gorman on WikiWomen User Group's page at Meta: "In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, the GG-L list alone has over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom elections, many of whom have not done so before, and I'd expect the same to be true of people involved in the WikiWomen's usergroup. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in." [3] — Everybody be sure to vote just however you want, nudge nudge wink wink! Carrite (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   Regardless of the intentions of KG etc., I fail to see how a mass message mail simply saying that "you can vote" can be canvassing. For instance, I was not even aware of ArbCom elections (though I don't usually vote for anything, even in real life), let alone the fact that I am eligible to vote. Presumably, KG has sent (or are going to send) messages over the GGTF mailing list: people who are the targets for canvassing can be more easily reached that way. The message should of course be neutral and to the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   • I mean, I think it's a bit dubious to rally votes from an offsite mailing list, sure, but isn't that a reason to support this proposal, not to oppose? This proposal is for an alert that would go to absolutely every eligible voter; doing that would reduce the impact of any attempts to rally votes for a specific cause, since it would dilute their votes in a pool of voters more representative of the wiki as a whole. If someone wants to influence the election via organized block voting, they'd prefer to have as few people outside their bloc as possible voting in order to maximize the impact of their bloc -- sending a general message to absolutely everyone is a way of directly limiting their impact. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose, since this would encourage users unfamiliar with ArbCom to vote. They may unintentionally hurt Wikipedia by voting for less competent candidates. sst✈^discuss 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, if they are not well-informed about the arbitration process, it is not more likely that they would vote for less competent candidates. There might be another bias (like voting for the candidates who appear at the top of the roster) but there is no connection between being ill-formed and purposely choosing less qualified candidates. They are just as likely to choose qualified candidates. And, for that matter, I'm not sure there has been agreement in the past about which candidates were competent and which were less competent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   The point is that less-informed would be more random-like. That would increase the randomness of the overall choice. It does not imply any bias, quite the opposite, the assumption is that it does not have enough bias towards the 'good' candidates, thus a random fluctuation could elect a lesser candidate - note that randomness does *not* even out. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Spam is spam, and spam is rude. WP:MMS says "Mass messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to want their attention drawn to the message." The fact that watchlist notices don't attract a lot of voters is a good sign editors are more interested in building the encyclopedia than wiki-politics. Research has shown formal process aren't terribly important to most editors: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal. NE Ent 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

   • So it is your opinion that informing people that they are eligible to vote in an election is "spam" and therefore is a bad thing, but expressing opinions in every corner of Wikipedia space without doing much at all to improve the encyclopedia is a good thing.
     What an interesting world you live in. BMK (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose. People get involved in areas of Wikipedia that interest them, and they should not be spammed regarding areas that don't interest them. There are lots of areas of Wikipedia that get low participation which are more needing of attention than voting in an ArbCom election, and each call on a user's time reduces the effectiveness of the next call, especially when - as in this case - the call is genuinely non-important. ArbCom is for sorting out intractable disputes that the overwhelming majority of users don't encounter and are not interested in. Let those who are familiar with ANI decide who is more appropriate to be on ArbCom, and leave the rest of the editors and gnomes to get on with their work/hobby. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose. While notifying a bunch of people would probably get a few more people to come and vote, it would also just annoy a lot more people, and I don't see how this addresses the fundamental problems with the ArbCom. The ArbCom is simply a broken institution, damaging to the encyclopedia, and it needs either root and branch reform or abolition. Everyking (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• This is essentially a duplicate of D at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC except with the "do we need more participants" question mixed in with one particular method of getting more participants. Our time would be better spent helping that RfC to get a good consensus as to whether we need more participants and later, if D passes, helping the stage two RfC to decide what to do about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You're not wrong as a general case, except that I'd point out that this has to arb electorate, rather than the admin electorate, and that if this passes it can easily be put in to place before the voting for the next tranche of arbcom actually starts. That's not to say I disagree that that RFC is needed and I do intend to participate in it as I have time - but I'd notice that D there is easily passing, and if this passes by a similar measure it'll make a difference regarding the arbcom electorate immediately. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• This is a noticeboard. Please don't hold polls here. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This a noticeboard for issues of interest to administrators which routinely reviews the behavior of administrators either before or after it has been conducted. I'm not suggesting a policy change; I'm asking for opinions about the appropriateness of using my own administrator toolset in a way that I am already capable of doing. AN routinely has polls or straw polls related to the proper conduct of administrators, blocks, unblocks, topic bans, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Legotkm, this isn't the proper place for this sort of discussion, especially if it is already ongoing elsewhere. That said, there's some content editor somewhere out there who would make an excellent arbitrator, if engaged in the process. If some bullshit requested move is important enough to want more eyes on it, then why would we not want more eyes on the arbcom election? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the issue of whether it's the proper place. It's not a duplicate of the thing Guy Macon mentions, because he's linking to a proposal to increase the number of voters at RFA, not Arbcom elections. As I noted above, the difference between Arbcom elections and everything else is the nature of the voting: unlike Arbcom elections, extra votes at RFA, pagemoves, etc. can help by providing extra perspectives, opinions, etc., while Arbcom elections are merely picking an option and throwing your ballot into the box. If we had to fill a single Arbcom seat using the normal elections procedure, and two candidates were running, there would be no difference between a 50-20 result and a 5000-2000 result, unless I'm missing something significant. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This certainly deserves more eyeballs on it than it's gotten so far, but in order to implement logistically for this tranche cannot be a standard RfC, just timewise. While I've been actively thinking about places to draw more attention to this proposal than just this board, most other boards I could post on it on would result in people screaming canvassing. Nyttend: to give you a couple examples of reasons why informing our electorate is a good idea (besides just the fact that it's absolutely standard practice in all groups that *have* electorates) - there are multiple groups of people who are likely to have a direct interest in the outcome and results of arbcom elections who are likely currently unaware that they can vote and are likely to spend the time needed to vote with informed opinions (and for that matter, to make informed questions of candidates.) @Kerry Raymond: is a content editor with far more edits than I have who was unaware that she could vote. @BrianWC: is a professor of law and more or less where the education program got it's inspiration from - and although he does most of his editing anonymously (so his edit count is low,) his grad students are the primary reason why ENWP has mostly comprehensive content about American cyberlaw. @Sarasays: is an employee of the Smithsonian who regularly runs editathons etc and despite her low edit count has a vested interest in the direction arbcom takes, as do many of the people involved in the education program, gender issues (the art+fem editathons etc,) and GLAM issues. Many of these examples include a large cohort of people who are unaware they can vote and who will bring informed new perspectives to arbcom candidate questioning and eventual voting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I've always looked at arbcom elections through the lens of local politics in the US - where every mayor or congressman or whatever got their start by standing at the ballot box thinking about which lever to pull. If one of those 5000 (or even the 2000) realizes that they have the skills and temperment to contribute in some meaningful way to the governance of this project (such as it is), and makes a positive contribution? I'd say it's worth it to pull those people in, even if the other thousands are just tic marks on a tally. It's not necessarily the result of the election that I'm looking at, though that is important as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Precisely. Arbcom has declared their own electorate, and most of that electorate doesn't know they can vote. A massmessage like this would pull in tons of voters whose opinions I disagree with personally, but also tons of voters who have an interest in the direction arbcom goes in, will make informed choices (even if I disagree with them) about candidate selection,) will bring new perspectives to candidate questioning, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
        • What? "Arbcom has declared their own electorate"? That is so far from reality it brings into question everything else you are saying. The community decided who the electorate was, Arbcom had nothing to do with it. The determination of who is qualified to vote has been exceptionally consistent over many years. The acceptable methods for contacting that electorate has been remarkably consistent over the years; there has always been, in every area and every major "event", a strong distaste for unrequested mass messages. Frankly, I think you're making out like Arbcom is far more important than it actually is. I didn't see you proposing this for the WMF Board elections, and they have a lot more to do with the functioning of the site than Arbcom ever will. Risker (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Whether or not the original voting standards were decided by the community or arbcom is largely irrelevant, what's relevant is that most people who can vote don't know it. You are correct that the method that the electorate is contacted has remained largely unchanged, and hasn't worked well, hence the proposal for change. WMF board elections were held in May, correct? If you look at my contribs, you'll notice I barely edited from December until after the board elections. Severe septic shock with six organ system failure in January meant I was not in a state fit to suggest even a minor intervention in the way board elections were held in May (which would've also been a much more technically challenging message to send to the electorate for board elections.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
            • No, Kevin, it is *not* irrelevant who decided the voting standards. It is extremely relevant, because you seem to be bashing Arbcom for something that they have nothing to do with, and refusing to accept community decisions. You have not, incidentally, addressed my point that English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages. Again, I point out that you're giving far, far more importance to Arbcom than it should receive. Arbcom decisions really have very little to do with the running of Wikipedia, and most editors quite justifiably ignore it completely. Risker (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
              • • Bashing Arbcom? I haven't bashed arbcom at all here. I've just pointed out that we don't notify members of arbcom's electorate as is considered good governance in pretty much every group that has an electorate (and yes, that includes conduct-oriented panels.) The fact that we don't directly notify them isn't arbcom's fault, I don't anyone on arbcom thought of it. As I said in my original post, until Kerry suggested something very, very close to the idea as I have presented it, I hadn't had it cross my mind. If arbcom bans EC, do you really think that it won't effect the efforts of anyone working with him on content? Or if (when) a similar content producer gets banned, it won't effect each and every one of their collaborators? When Arbcom banned Neotarf (and I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad ban, I have insufficient info to know,) the Signpost had to find a new volunteer to write the column Neo had been writing. I guess arbcom would have no effect on your editing if you have no interaction with any arb sanctioned editors or topic areas, when ignoring the editors for a minute, those topic areas alone already in existence effect editing articles about areas that literally contain half the people on planet earth, not to mention the general ones dealing with things like gun control, broadly construed, or post-1932 United States politics, broadly construed. I'm not at all saying I disagree with those decisions, but can you, with a straight face, claim that they have little to do with the running of Wikipedia? Kevin Gorman (talk)
              • If English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages, then why is there a clear majority of editors supporting this proposal? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 18:50, 01 November 2015 (UTC)
• Why is a discussion affecting all editors being held on an administrator's noticeboard? The ACE2015 RFC is already closed, and the elections should be conducted per that RFC. NE Ent 01:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Correct. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Because AN is the typical board used to review the actions (past or proposed) of individual administrators. This is an action that I can undertake using my own administrative toolset. The RfC you point to had essentially no participation - significantly less than this section has had so far. Theoretically, I could literally have done this of my own accord with the possibility of being desysopped if someone raised it to arbcom afterwards. Floq's close of the RfC even explicitly raises the issue of lack of any meaningful participation in the RfC as an issue. I've already raised the issue on Jimbo's talk page as per arb policy he still has authority over arb issues; I've not yet raised it elsewhere because I'm nearly positive any other place I could raise it either has the same audience as AN, or would have people accuse me of canvassing. I'm more than open to suggestions as to where else to post it, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016 NE Ent 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    WP:BURO BMK (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

    • This section already has more comments from both sides than the 2015 RFC did, and involves something implementable via my own administrative toolset within this election cycle. You are suggesting that an proposed idea that would be implementable this election cycle using standard administrative tools should be put off an entire cycle because it wasn't brought up during an RfC that had about five comments? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

    • The fact only five folks participated isn't surprising -- we've done arbcom elections for quite a few years and we have converged on a consensus on how to do them, so I'm sure the 2015 is pretty much the same as 2014. NE Ent 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• note: As I have voted in previous elections, I would like to opt-out of any notifications in this particular venue. Regards, — Ched :  ?  11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Noted. I'll be setting up an opt-out page at some point in the near future both for this message and any similar future messages I may propose, and will personally add you to it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this poll not being held in some place like Village pump proposals? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with @Legoktm:. We can separately debate about whether this is the best place to hold polls regarding administrative matters, but this is not an administrative matter. Arguably, it might be appropriate to place a notice here explaining that a discussion and poll is being conducted in a relevant place (maybe VPI). --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see the problem with conducting this RfC here, but if there's a concern that not enough people will know about it, then someone can post notifications at the village pump and ANI. - MrX 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• This should have been part of the ACE 2015 RFC. As for the proposal itself, "meh." I strongly doubt it will change anything. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• comment (moved from weak Oppose). Probably there are lots of editors unaware of the importance of ArbCom and that they can vote for it. Information is good. One message a year is not a big deal of spam. I could very well vote support, but... there was a RfC about the 2015 ArbCom election, it had only 4 proposals and minimal participation. This question and maybe a couple more about how to make the process more attractive to more editors could very well fit there. We shouldn't be discussion on 'random' venues, and starting out from possible unilateral mass mailing decisions. Not-Now, bring it on next year. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and this isn't a random venue - it's the standard place to review past or future admin actions. We shouldn't put off a proposal for a year because I failed to post it during an earlier RfC if it ends up getting closed as supported here. Regardless of the outcome of this section, I don't see how it could be considered "unilateral." A unilateral implementation of this would be me doing it without asking how others felt about it first. Within the first couple days I've posted this here, it's generated significantly more discussion than the ACE 2015 RFC did. Although I agree with you that it could have very well fit within the context of that RFC, since this is not posted on an obscure messageboard dedicated to a niche topic and has already gathered significant both supports and opposes, I'd suggest that by our standards of consensus, it doesn't particularly matter what forum it's posted in as long as it gets sufficient attention, and the forum is one where it's likely to draw excessive pile-ons from one side or the other. I've noticed someone else has already added it to cent, which was the other place I was intending to drop it today (thank you whoever did so,) and more than welcome suggestions for other appropriate venues. (I might drop a pointer at VPP, but as this isn't a policy shift but an administrative action, still feel this is a better board for it's overall review.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but due process is also important, otherwise it would be chaotic (more chaotic... :-). Finding a decent balance is the key. OK, this would be better at the 'proper' RfC, but also this is not one of the cases when someone starts a new tangential discussion mid way through a first one that isn't going their way (and I reeaaly dislike those). If it helps, fine, I won't oppose. Two thoughts for future consideration: One, I hope someone makes this suggestion in next year's RfC; Two, why did this discussion got so much more attention than the Election's RfC? (may be the scent of blood at AN?... "Oooh, a fight, let's see what's going on"...?) - Nabla (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

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

---

• Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has just been proposed for deletion, because apparently editors at the Russian Wikipedia have uncovered it (link in Russian) as a Soviet-era hoax. The Russian article has already been deleted. Could any Russian speakers verify this? We should probably delete the article unless there are enough sources about it being a hoax that we can write an article about the hoax instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a Russian speaker, and I followed the story from the very beginning. The point is that there are sources, mainly in Azerbaijani, some in Russian, which make some claims about Jabrayilov. A group of Russian Wikipedia editors verified these claims, including sending requests to French archives, and found most of them (or all of them) wrong. Apparently, a person with this name existed and participated in World War II (unclear on which side he participated), but he did not do what is ascribed to him (for example, he did not participate in the liberation of Bordeaux, and he does not seem to have any French decorations). On the other hand, there is obviously no reliable source in any language which says Jabrayilov did not do this (though there are RSs saying the article was deleted as a hoax, see e.g. [4]). I weakly support deletion, but I am involved with this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I also took part in that discussion. Also I visited house-museum of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in Shaki, had a discussion with the director of the museum, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the son of Ahmadiyya, made photos of awards, documents, original photos from France and letters to him. Also Javanshir Jabrayilov gave me all scans of the documents and photographs of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. During the research of Wikipedia users we identify some unclear moments in the biography of Jabrayilov. But it doesn't means that all biography of Jabrayilov is "Soviet-era hoax". It is normal that there are many unclear moments in the events of World War II. But during the discussion we confirmed that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov really took part in Resistance. In 1970s he visited France, we can see how really participants of Resistance (Rene Chambar, Louis Lasbareilles etc.) greet him. We can see how they visited memorial for Soviet victims. This visit was also documented in French "Sud Ouest" newspaper, where we can also see a photo of Jabrayilov. We cannot ignore these facts. We also cannot ignore the fact of the presence of French awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum (Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix du combattant etc.). Médaille militaire we can see only in the historical photos, which Jabrayilov brought from France[5][6] (as his son said to me this medal was taken from him in Moscow in 1966, when Jabrayilov was invited to greet Charles de Gaulle). I didn't aggree with the deletion. Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable person as a participant of Resistance. There is a lot of sources claiming that. And nothing which can proof that he is hoax. Only original research of some Wikipedia users. --Interfase (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Now PROD was removed; the article has to go to AfD or stay.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think AfD would be the best venue to discuss this anyway, now that it's clear that the hoax isn't a blatant one. It may very well be that we can salvage the parts of the article which are verifiable, and remove parts that originated from propaganda, but that's not something that we are well equipped to do at AN. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblock of former accounts belonging to Peter Damian

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

---

Hello. I'm bringing this here because I've renounced directly involving myself with the blocking tool.

I'd like to request that someone unblock Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Renamed user 5 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). These two accounts were briefly used by Peter Damian in 2007/8. As is well known, his 2009 ban was decisively overturned on this noticeboard in April this year. However, looking at the contributions for these accounts will show a pink block notice stating that the account is blocked "per Jimbo", and including his current user name. This is obviously no longer true, so the accounts should be unblocked. The user pages and user talk pages were also still fully protected and displaying ban notices, all of which I've removed.

I requested this originally directly of Worm That Turned, as he performed the unblock in April. However, he was reluctant to do this request as, as he "believe[s] that generally accounts created to evade a block should remain blocked even after the main account is unblocked." I believe there is no harm in unblocking these old accounts, and in fact we are required to do it. My logic is:

1. Blocking old accounts does not prevent someone from creating more accounts, so these old blocks serve no current purpose.
2. PD's unblock under the terms of the standard offer are sufficient guarantee against any future use of secondary accounts. I am quite sure that he would be willing to provide an assurance against his doing so if asked for one.
3. Which is academic, as PD now has an account in good standing, so has no reason to use any other account.
4. The block notices on these accounts misrepresent the consensus of the community as determined in April 2015.

Lest this be seen as needless fiddling, the block notices are easily accessed from visible locations. For example, I happened across these accounts from seeing that the "4" account was the creator of Chelsea, London, as will any other user of the XTools gadget and probably other enhancements.

Thank you for your consideration.  — Scott • talk 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow did I really start the article on Chelsea? I can't believe I wrote "the comfortable squares off the King's Road are homes to the English establishment, particularly military, American investment bankers and film stars, and latterly the sexy pop siren Kylie Minogue". Ha. Wikipedia was a very different place in 2003, and has probably changed for the better, despite what I sometimes say. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter, since you have seen the thread, could you pls tell us what you think of the possible unblock of these accounts. For example, if you do not care, I do not think they should be unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK turning to serious matters, I have no intention of using either of these accounts, as is obvious from the renaming, and I would prefer them unblocked. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock these. Renamed user 4 is just Peter Damian's old account - and has his original contribution history going back to 2003. Renamed user 5 is harmless and I can't see any point making a fuss about it. If they edit, they can aways be reblocked. @Peter Damian: - would you like Renamed user 4 renamed to something like "Peter Damian (old account)" so you are better credited for your old edits? WJBscribe (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WJBscribe - especially since I didn't catch that the 4 account was actually PD's original account. I think that renaming it as you suggest would definitely be good to give credit where credit is due.  — Scott • talk 12:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

For good order, I have also unblocked Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs). To avoid confusion with that account, maybe a better new name for Renamed user 4 would be "Peter Damian (original account)" or similar. WJBscribe (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all this. "Peter Damian (old account/original account)" or something like that would be fine, and I will link on my user page as an alt account. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

All done - see Peter Damian (original account) (talk · contribs). WJBscribe (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In the interests of full and complete disclosure, there are quite a few of the post-2009 accounts left. Some have been blocked, some haven't. These were never used abusively, but as part of my continued involvement in the project. See e.g. History of logic, a significant part of which was written by such accounts. Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the block notice from "Peter Damian (Old)" and redirected it to your current user page, along with the accounts I originally posted about. Yes, I see that now about the other accounts - Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian and these ones. I think the best (simplest) thing to do would be to unblock the lot and redirect them to User:Peter Damian. You can answer any queries about them at a later date, should someone have one. I'm happy to do the redirects if someone will do the unblocks.  — Scott • talk 14:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems fairly uncontroversial considering the accounts that have already been unblocked by WJBscribe. I'll start unblocking them in a couple of hours, assuming no one objects in the interim. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Scott: Done, except for two: Peter Damian the Late (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian IX (talk · contribs) have both been globally locked, so I assume to get them unlocked a request will need to be made on Meta. If you could do the redirecting when you get a chance that would be great. Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Thanks very much. Done; with the exception of the accounts remaining in the sockpuppet category. Those two accounts you link to were impostor accounts created by a vandal, and I think the accounts I left alone may also have been - it's hard to say. Anyway, all the accounts that PD used to continue contributing encyclopedic material should now be redirecting to his current account.  — Scott • talk 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the two accounts above were impostors.Peter Damian (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, everything seems sorted then. Jenks24 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Should WP:ARBPIA cover Jews and Palestinians?

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

---

I recently reported two users for reverting each other at Jews, believing both to have violated the 1RR of WP:ARBPIA. Turns out I made a mistake, as the article currently is not covered by WP:ARBPIA. Having watched it for a long time, I think this omission is a mistake. Jews (and to some extent Palestinians see quite intense disputes and these are never about Jewish culture in 17th century Poland or Palestinian culture in 17th century Palestine, but very often about "how was there first" and "from whom do modern Jews/Palestinians originate". These questions are directly linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sides try to up their own claim to the land. Furthermore, the most active editors engaged in these disputes are almost always the same editors engaged in other ARBPIA-covered articles about the conflict. As the disputes at Jews and Palestinians are directly linked to the area covered by WP:ARBPIA, and see much more conflict than many articles currently covered, I suggest ARBPIA be extended to these two articles. Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jeppiz, if you wish to argue that the scope of discretionary sanctions for ARBPIA should be extended, you should post a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment where the arbitration committee can consider your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! I hesitated about the right place to ask about it. Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Clarification and amendments would benefit from more community participation and discussion. As long as you post a neutrally-worded statement regarding your proposal, once you've posted your request, I think you should notify those people and WikiProjects that would be affected by a change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Request related to Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

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

---

Could someone help me please:

• To add a template to the talk page of the article that it is under these sanctions: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2;
• To made user User:Cathry (who was apparently canvassed to come there, judging from her edits) aware of the existence of the sanctions.

After two years being an admin I am still not very good in finding all these templates for sanctions and logging appropriate information. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not "canvassed" to come here. As anybody can see, i have several hundred here in different themes Cathry (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Still, you need to have an arbitration sanctions template at your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think User talk:Ymblanter has some POV according to this and I does not see any relations between Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and my edits. Cathry (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Stopping the Neelix pile-on

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

This matter is at arbitration. Discuss it there. Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix matter is at Arbcom - I'm talking about the general principle of pile-on behaviour by admins and editors at ANI. There are other examples. Again: Where should I raise that question? 81.140.13.150 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Neelix did stupid, harmful, horrible things. He deserves to be de-bitted, and probably some bans and blocks. The arbcom case will handle that. However, the pile on currently happening on ANI is revolting. Several editors and admins are behaving disgracefully. What noticeboard do I go to to start discussion about the general principle of admin pile on of a (possibly temporarily) retired editor? --82.132.223.135 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think in the middle term, Neelix took the right steps (voluntarily stepping down from admin status, and taking a wikibreak) to cause the pile-on to die down. It likely won't happen immediately, though. LjL (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I know personal attacks are redacted but I'm unsure what to do about the comments that basically call for tar and feathering and that complain about admin abuse if Neelix isn't indefinitely banned. Editors should be able to express their opinions but we're into WP:DROPTHESTICK territory now. The clean-up continues, there is an arbitration case, I'm not sure why there is a continuing discussion on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the first admins to get involved at the original ANI thread, sending him a final warning and mass-deleting a bunch of the more recent redirects. I stopped my involvement when mob mentality took over. He's made a mistake; he's taken the appropriate steps in handing in his mop; now just let him be. WP:FLOG definitely applies here. GiantSnowman 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite easy to start talking about "mobs" and "pitchforks" and "coliseums" and "demagoguery" and so on when the concerns expressed at first by a few people spread to a larger number of people – the cry of "mobocracy" is a normal response of the elite to political action by the rank-and-file – but such cliched reactions don't do justice to the obvious fact that the problem has not been resolved by Neelix giving up the bit.

Neelix needed to be desysopped because he had lost the trust of the community, but that loss of trust came primarily from his irresponsible editorial actions, which showed a long-term lack of good judgment, not from the small number of wayward administrative actions that have been uncovered. Because it's his behavior as an editor, and not as an admin, which is in question, his giving up the bit doesn't terminate the concern, nor does taking a Wikibreak do anything much except, one hopes, to give Neelix a chance to ruminate on what he did that was wrong. Giving him a free pass on his editorial misbehavior because he's no longer an admin is not at all an appropriate response to the overall problem.

I do agree that there's little purpose in hassling him at the present time (and indeed I have thanked him on his talk page for voluntarily turning in the bit): let's see what happens when he returns to editing, and if he has taken on board the lessons to be learned from this incident. On the other hand, to the extent that there was concern at the way ArbCom handled the situation, that is still an open issue, but one which may be effected by the upcoming election. We'll see, but I hope that the candidates have taken note of the reaction of the so-called "mob" to what they perceived as an inadequate response to the problem. BMK (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "One reason societies fail is that their elites are insulated from the negative impact of their own actions."[7] Wikipedia, as a virtual society of sorts, will fail if these continued reactionary attempts to stifle discussion and criticism of elites are allowed to continue without question. The "elites" open up the reactionary control valve in any discussion where an editor holding advanced user rights is accused of bad behavior. We, the common users, who neither want nor require advanced permissions, nor have any need to wield power over others, are accused of being part of the torch and pitchfork crowd simply because we demand accountability in a unified voice. That voice is the sound of democracy, and the elites cannot tolerate it any form. They will pay lip service to it by setting up rules they claim apply to everyone equally, but when push comes to shove, the rules only apply to the little people, who are blocked and banned without question on a daily basis. We are told, in targeted rhetoric, that any criticism of authority is a form of mob behavior when two or more people agree. We are accused, in the most aggressive language imaginable, that we are vicious, hateful, unkind, angry, ugly, disgusting, and vile -- simply for speaking truth to power and demanding the rules apply to everyone without exception. Over and over again we see how civil dissent is turned into something criminal and how the community is repeatedly silenced so that authoritarians can continue their iron grip on control. But none of this is true. What is true is that it is perfectly normal, healthy, and psychologically sound for editors to make their views known until some kind of understanding is reached. The problem is that the elites wish to repress these views, and demand that editors keep their opinions to themselves, lest their poor performance as elites is revealed to be a sham like the Wizard of Oz pulling levers behind a curtain. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close this or move this to ANI? This requires no admin action for now. epic genius (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving it to AN/I would be silly: if there's nothing for admins to do here, there'd still be nothing for admins to do there. AN, however, has a slightly different focus than AN/I, which is concerned with incidents which require admin action. As it says here, near the top of the page:

This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. ... Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.

I'd say this discussion meets those criteria. BMK (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See my comment to Viriditas below. epic genius (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't think a discussion about how admins handled the Neelix problem qualifies as a "discussion of administrative methods" or is about an "issue that affects administrators"? BMK (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, because the OP is asking where he should go to talk about the actual issue, which is the "Neelix problem." This is not the discussion of the actual issue. Therefore, I will cease from commenting further. epic genius (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

II made it pretty clear that I'm not talking about Neelix specifically, but about the general principle of admins piling on; and the unpleasant behaviour displayed by admins when piling on. Neelix is mostly irrelevant, except it's the most recent example. There are other admins / editors who display that behaviour. (see eg some of the Arbcom topic bans around big controversies) 81.140.13.150 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm far more concerned with the fact that despite everything, it appears Neelix won't face any blocks or bans. AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not for now, at least. He has resigned as administrator and gone on hiatus, so a block is unnecessary unless he edits again. Also, he is topic-banned from redirect creation. epic genius (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: That's the way a consensus-driven project goes, sometimes the "right thing" gets done, and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think anyone can deny that there was significant community participation in the AN/I thread about Neelix in which various blocks and bans were considered, but, in the end, only one (the topic ban against creating redirects) had sufficient agreement to be put into effect.

Don't forget that the ArbCom case is still open and could result in further sanctions. Of course, it'll take forever to get there at the pace the Committee works at. BMK (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose closure. Per the AN heading, this discussion is relevant and on-topic under the aforementioned category of "discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews". Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

All I see is the OP trolling. He is basically saying, where does he go to start a discussion about how Neelix is unfairly being trampled if he's already facing punishment. I don't think a discussion is necessary if "the arbcom case will handle that." This is not a block review (he isn't blocked), not a discussion of administration proposals (nothing to discuss about how administrators are treating him badly, because as far as I know, he was topic banned reasonably) and ban proposals (nothing of the sort). epic genius (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I made it clear that I'm not talking about Neelix, but about the general principle of pile ons. There are plenty of other examples to use. 81.140.13.150 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is utterly disgraceful he has not been blocked. A non-admin would have been without a shadow of a doubt. AusLondonder (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you that a non-admin would certainly have been blocked, and the arguments to the contrary, even from admins that I respect highly, do not convince me otherwise -- however, the community had the opportunity to indef block him as well, and it, too, failed to take that step. BMK (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. I haven't been following this closely, but was the editor warned of this behavior multiple times in the past?—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

He was blocked for it in 2010, before he was an admin. The "preventitive vs. punitive" argument really doesn't hold water here because of the time scale. If an editor gores off the skids temporarily, but stops when it comes to light and then doesn't do it again, then there's no need for a retroactive block, because it would, indeed, be punitive. But when an editor does the same thing continually, tens of thousands of times over the course of years, then a block would truly be preventative, especially after having been blocked for it before, because it is unlikely that anything but an indef block will cause the editor to change their ways. Remember, indef blocks are not forever, and can be lifted whenever there's a sincere undertaking by the editor that they understand what they did wrong. In this case, although Neelix has apologized for making edits that the community considers to be disruptive (that's a near-quote of what he said), he has shown no indication of understanding what he did that was wrong. BMK (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, unless you are a non-admin like Tryptofish, who was erroneously blocked 38 hours after the fact for something that did not require blocking. How many examples do we need to provide until you admit there is something rotten in the state of Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And how about the punitive block of non-admin DHeyward, whose bad block is discussed up above? How many examples do you need? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect

In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor indefinitely blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked.

On the one hand, in the discussion above, multiple voices are saying things like "Frankly, I'm far more concerned with the fact that despite everything, it appears Neelix won't face any blocks or bans". "It is utterly disgraceful he has not been blocked. A non-admin would have been without a shadow of a doubt", "A non-admin would certainly have been blocked, and the arguments to the contrary, even from admins that I respect highly, do not convince me otherwise". On the other hand, previous discussion did not result in consensus for a block. On the other other hand, the situation has changed since then, and it may be that a significant number of participants in the previous discussion were waiting for an arbcom ruling.

So the question is, should we re-open the narrow question of whether a block is appropriate and whether the Super Mario Effect is in play here? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I really didn't want to talk about Neelix, but about the principle of conduct at ANI. 81.140.13.150 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose re-opening block question. When ordinary Mario makes a wrong turn, he loses one of his lives. When admins do the wrong thing, they lose one of their abilities as well (in this case, it was the ability to get the bit back automatically). No need flogging someone for something that they've already atoned for. epic genius (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Atonement is a personal matter. As BMK has shown up above (and as the request for desysopping illustrates) Neelix has shown no understanding of the problem and because this has happened before, it is likely to happen again. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Given that this is now an arbitration case and the topic ban has been instituted, why are we having this discussion? The "Super Mario" comparison is also poorly-made: please remember that Neelix is a human being, who is doubtless feeling pretty awful at the moment and has more misery to go through as the arbitration case proceeds, and not a video game character. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Mildly, the Arbcom case is likely to be closed on the basis that the desysop has already occurred and the community has already resolved what other sanctions it would like imposed via the earlier ANI thread. Whether the block discussion is reopened is a matter for this discussion or other ones like it, but shouldn't be considered on the basis that Arbcom might also impose that same penalty. By majority vote to close the case, Arbcom is leaving that decision to the community per the usual procedure for a proposed community ban.. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support re-opening block question Yes, I am sure that Neelix is feeling pretty awful at the moment and has more misery to go through, but at least he gets to go through it as Super Mario, knowing that he won't be blocked. If I did the exact same series of edits and got taken to ANI and arbcom for it, I too would feel awful, but that wouldn't prevent me from having to go through it as regular Mario, who is subject to blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Groan Look, literally nobody is defending what Neelix did, not even Neelix. He gave up his admin bits and walked away after pledging never to make the same mistake again. what possible purpose, other than a punitive one, is there to blocking? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Arbcom refuses to act

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

---

Remember to vote. Arbcom protects admins with no respect for gender attacks. Those people don't deserve to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.19 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember also to stand for election. Nominations are still open for a few more days. Anon IP, you self-evidently also have a more regular account that you didn't use for this post. It's great that you have an interest in Arbcom decisions, please consider using your regular account to put your name forward for election. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The anon is right. Arbcom's action on the Neelix case is not just another bad decision in a long line of bad decisions, but will come back to bite in a big way. I will once again be boycotting the arbcom elections as I feel it is now a rogue, illegitimate committee that promotes systemic bias on a multitude of issues. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Up to you, but you won't get change if you don't bother to vote. On the specifics of this case, the committee had regard for the community decisions in the ANI thread. The community has the power to impose topic and site bans, but chose only to impose a topic ban here. The community cannot impose a desysop, but while the committee was considering this issue that decision for made by Neelix himself. -- Euryalus (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's precisely why I'm boycotting. Change comes from members of the community working together, not arbcom. Change is rooted in the personal power of the individual and their relationship with others. The community can of course impose a desysop and anything else it wants to do without the permission of arbcom, but at this time the community is disempowered and disenfranchised, while falsely believing that they lack personal power. Anything arbcom does no longer represents my interests, and I refuse to give my personal power and self-responsibility away to others. It's not you arbcom, it's me. Breaking up is hard to do, but we are better off apart. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

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

---

Added to the list of RfCs to close. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to close with a panel? Kharkiv07 (T) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more correctly, should there be? Kharkiv07 (T) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The only discussions I see are at WT:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#Closing and WP:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: administrator election reform. The WP:AN thread mentioned at the second link got no response. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Now closed by ErrantX. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Close this AfD, please

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

---

Please just close this AfD. Thanks :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

AFD closure?

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bickley (UKIP) has been open now for longer than usual despite an overwhelming consensus to delete. Could a close be considered per WP:SNOW? AusLondonder (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  Done --Errant ^(chat!) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! AusLondonder (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

SjainVentures

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

---

Hello Administrators, article SjainVentures is being recreated repeatedly and has been deleted in the past. I have marked it for CSD. Can you consider SALT? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. For future reference saltings can be requested at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding overlap of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Request to lift indefinite topic ban

Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 from logevity topic related articles, on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. The ban was imposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Being unaware of new settings, I had reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and, as a result, my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in my contributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such as List of Polish supercentenarians, Aleksandra Dranka, List of Czech supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute in this field, for the English Wikipedia, further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at the discussion in which the topic ban was imposed, which can be found here (a link you should have provided in your request). and I must say that I agree that the topic ban was a reasonable response to the behavior that was reported there. It was not "too fast" -- the thread begin on 14 August and the ban was imposed on 16 August -- and you have more than sufficient time to make any claims or counter-claims you wished to make. Therefore I oppose this request. BMK (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry Waenceslaus, however your conduct at the linked discussion shows classic battleground behavior, and believe me, I know a bit about it first hand (see my block log if you doubt it ).I'd say edit elsewhere and show that you can edit well (for at least 6 months or more) than ask again, that doesn't mean you'll get an automatic approval, but it wouldn't hurt either. KoshVorlon 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Procedural Oppose. 2 months for the behavior exhibited in the topic ban discussion is far too early to ask for reconsideration. Follow the advice given by others (go edit other things for 6 months) otherwise you're only reinforcing the viewpoint/opinion that your actions (and those of the associated wikiproject) require the hostile inspection of all policies/content produced by the wikiproject due to the Walled Garden nature. I speak as both an editor who was on the outside of the garden tearing the walls down and a editor on the inside trying to keep the rest of wikipedia from crashing in. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Upon reading the ANI thread, it looks like the topic ban was both necessary and basically inevitable. I don't think a return to the topic area would be beneficial to you or Wikipedia itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Standard Discretionary Sanctions are, I believe, now in place for all pages relating to longevity. If User:Waenceslaus had the topic ban lifted and failed to comply with these quite stringent conditions they would rapidly find themselves receiving escalating blocks.

Since they have not said that they will no longer push the position the WOP should be the arbiter on longevity articles and will no longer make retaliatory requests for sanctions against good faith editors and admins, it seems to me that this is a real risk.

However to some extent that is their funeral. If they can make sufficiently cautious edits to survive the trial by fire, they will benefit the project. If no they will rapidly find themselves leaving the project for good.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose The editor's sole non-WOP edit since the topic ban was this creation which, while a good start to an article, is partially unsourced and contains an entire sentence left in Polish. The lack of any editing elsewhere makes it difficult to see if the problems have been resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image source rescue

Can anyone confirm if the deleted version of this image on Wikipedia has any source information? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FN_Scar_Light.jpg. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it never had any. It was uploaded in February 2005 by User:Rangi, and all the description page ever said was "FN Scar". It should evidently never have been transferred to Commons on that basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The image here never had a license tag, either; I'm curious why someone decided that the image was in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.

Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:( For what it's worth, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Compromised_accounts on suggestions going forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC

Having discussed the matter with a member of the WMF Security team, I've put some options together on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Please can interested parties go there and have a look? Worm^TT(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Phantom Orphans

I've been informed that some images I tagged as Orphaned Non-free were actually in-use, despite the file description page saying otherwise. Letting the adminstrators here know that they may need to do an additional check based on the article name in the NFUR, as well as looking at claimed usage. Not sure why the 'usage' information is inconsistent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Letting the adminstrators here know that they may need to do an additional check; translation "I can't be arsed to clean up the mess I made so I'm telling you to do it". ‑ iridescent 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's uncalled for, I check carefully already. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Iridescent , No personal attakcs, ok? KoshVorlon 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: After I was informed about the issue of 'in-use' images not showing up as such I did a re-check and found a few images that were actually in-use, and detagged. Also found 1 or 2 that could be easily fixed by purges, infobox checks. As a human I can apply that logic, a bot (like some of those currently used for auto identifying Orphan non-free) can't hence the note to the adminstrators that some images might need an additional check so as to avoid angry contributors chasing down admins over a bad-call. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG thanks for the heads up. I wonder if this is related to the issue raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Redirects? Nthep (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG I'm actually supporting your side and asking Iridescent to tone the personal attacks. KoshVorlon 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't be arsed to clean up the mess I made so I'm telling you to do it Among other things, we can assume that the problem isn't limited to images tagged by Sfan00 IMG; admins should check allegedly-orphaned images that other users have tagged, too. Sfan00 IMG knows about the problem, but other users might not. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be related to this bug, where the links tables for newly-uploaded images aren't getting populated. --Carnildo (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, D4iNa4, that was unblocked after indefinate block

user:D4iNa4, who was indefinately blocked for being a sockpuppet [8], was later allowed to edit after a year. However, this has resulted in a campaign of his of blanking entire articles [9][10], refusing to discuss the matter, removing sourced information and blanking entire sections [11][12], and adding unreliable sources. Xtremedood (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments make it sound like the diffs were blatant vandalism, but they were not. Redirecting a bad article to another one, which is what D4iNa4 said he was doing with both "blanking entire articles" diffs, is sometimes a good idea, and deleting entire sections because they're full of original research (third diff) or because they got rejected at talk (final diff) is almost always a good idea. I've not investigated enough to say whether D4iNa4's edit-summary claims are accurate, but the situation's quite different from what you're saying, and you need to provide a lot more evidence if you want to demonstrate that D4iNa4 is being seriously disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The user in question redirected the Battle of Saunshi article twice, to the Maratha Empire page, without discussing it on the talk page [13][14]. It is a well documented battle [15] [16], and he needs to give further reasons as to why he would want to do this. His entire blanking of the Slavery and religion of the Hindu section points to a bias. The original content was not posted by myself, but by user:Terabar as stated here [17]. The statements are referenced and I do not see any indication of original research as user:D4iNa4 states in his edit [18] and you in this section. He keeps on doing this multiple times as proven by his edits on these pages. I would recommend looking further into this, before simply reading edit summaries. Xtremedood (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I've not checked to see whether the edit summaries are accurate and whether the allegations are justified. It's simply that it's a situation with plenty of wiggle room, and you made it sound like vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was never engaged in sock puppetry, it can be confirmed well, because I had never abused two accounts on one page, that was clarified on my unblock request too, before unblock was granted.[19] Now back to the massive disruption that is being caused by @Xtremedood: since he joined wikipedia this year.

• Xtremedood has been subjected to many similar WP:BOOMERANG reports,[20][21] that he opened himself and every time he was admonished for making such malformed and misleading reports.[22][23]

• After he failed to WP:GAME and misrepresent consensus on these articles[24][25] violating WP:BLPCAT, WP:LINKVIO, etc. He went onto WP:WIKIHOUND my edits by making edits where he provided no explanation for revert, and on other edit he asked for "discussion" something he never attempts himself.

• His "documented sources"[26] [27] are snippets. He believes that it is better to misrepresent a snippet, because no one has access to them, however he fails to provide actual sentence of quote. Now recently he got reverted on this article he failed to discuss any of his edits.

• He reverts without even making discussion while himself asking others to discuss, and in place of making discussion with other editors, who have rejected his edits, he went on to open this WP:BOOMERANG report. He didn't even responded to the concerns that I had raised on his talk page.[28] When he is known for never discussing his edits, why he reverts others and enforce them to discuss about some obvious things just happened to contradict his POV?

• His edits can be considered as WP:IDONTLIKE.[29][30] As he fails to provide explanation too, his editing can be particularly described to be having some kind of anti-Indian approach. Including that he also edit warred on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 by disrupting the infobox, about 2-3 ago,[31][32] he claimed that it was Bangladeshi victory and not an Indian victory. He never made any discussion. He also voted on closed RFC.[33]

• Final comment, realizing his failure to understand simple English language and guidelines, him making retaliatory reverts where he labels me as "disruptive editor" on edit summary as his ultimate explanation for reverting,[34][35][36][37], continued edit warring on same article because of which he was blocked,[38] his failure to discuss his misrepresentation of sources and WP:IDONTLIKE-edits, his violation of WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, list of issues is definitely huge. I think that it is best for an uninvolved admin to simply ban him from Indian articles, since they are under WP:AC/DS and not every person has tons of hours a week to discuss his disruption and watch out if these articles are being disrupted or not. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think any sound and rational administrator can see the nonsense here. I have not blanked articles simply because I did not like them. The user has a history of operating as a sockpuppet, this is sadly not an uncommon practice amongst special interest groups in categories pertaining to conflicts between Pakistan and India. He has made several false accusations against me, which are attempts to divert the issue. I have a history of adhering to Wikipedia policies. I have seen first hand the ridiculous attempts used by such special interests to silence editors on Wikipedia, and I hope the administrators do not fall for this game. The sources indicated are academic sources that detail the historicity of the Battle of Saunshi, it is a historical event and just because the Hindu dynasty of the Marathas lost, does not mean that it should be deleted. Also, the majority of voters in the Indo-Pakistani 1971 War have agreed to include Bangladesh in the results section of the article. The user above has accused me of the following: "he claimed that it was Bangladeshi victory and not an Indian victory." However this is incorrect. I was simply asserting the fact that India alone was not the victor on the Eastern front of the conflict. The user above has also made several personal attacks against me calling me by calling me as "anti-Indian" when I have not identified myself as such and for saying " realizing his failure to understand simple English language". The user also denies that he has been a sockpuppet, which is false according to the link provided in the opening paragraph. Xtremedood (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source indicated on the article for the battle [39], it is on page 916. Clearly the Battle of Saunshi is real. Xtremedood (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting consensus and making false allegations without providing diffs is your another trait and further proves my point. I don't see anything[40] notable at all though, you are pushing two liners about an incident that are still not enough for creating separate article, you can instead mention it on the main article. 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4iNa4 (talk • contribs)

• Comments: For one thing, if filing on this board rather than ANI, the blocking and unblocking admin, Callanecc, should be notified. For another, the username D4iNa4 seems to be a spoof or near-spoof of Diannaa; too close for comfort for me at least. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I concur with the concerns raised about deleting information which seems to contradict D4iNa4's POV without prior discussion and, when restored, repeating the same behavior on a different pretext without engaging in talk page discussion, and not refraining from the reverting behavior until a consensus is reached or objections have desisted. This appears to be pure POV pushing and aggressive determination to have the last say on what info articles and their talk pages contain that the previous 1-year block should have calmed and restrained -- but has not. FactStraight (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@FactStraight: looks like you are unaware of the reason behind those two edits that you have linked. Read Help:Archiving a talk page, it says that you can archive when talk page "has multiple resolved or stale discussions", there was no discussion on the same page for over three years, that's why I archived.[41] Revert of my archiving was clearly an accidental revert[42] it included no edit summary either. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The user, D4iNa4, has also blanked this article twice [43][44], stating that "(no mention of this battle anywhere)", even though there are two sources. Xtremedood (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Since Callanecc has not responded, this is really a behavioral issue and needs to be on ANI, not here. The article blankings-and-redirects, talk-page deletions, and article-section blankings are clearly against policy. In terms of the Converts to Islam from Hinduism, these are correct removals in that those entries require strict and direct quotations from the individual. But again, all of this needs to go to ANI, not here. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Merging WP:ADMINGUIDE to WP:NAS

See here. The admin guide basically repeats the info at the new admin school, in a less organized way, in my opinion. I'm happy to do the work, just need a rough consensus. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Go for it, and thanks. Miniapolis 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

i want to upload a file named 123.gif

the file is just the numbers 123 but the black list prevented me from uploading it so can you please let me upload it Rigsofrods (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's a free image - not copyrighted by someone else - upload it at Commons. BMK (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Its also block at commons thats why i went here Rigsofrods (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Two questions and a statement. (1) Rigsofrods, why do you want to upload a file which just consists of the numbers 123? (2) If you do have a good reason for uploading such a file, why is it so vital to give it the file name "123.gif" that you don't just give it another name? (3) Beyond My Ken's suggestion would probably not be a good one even if the title were not blocked on commons. The file would pretty certainly be out of scope for commons, as I can't imagine any use consistent with the purpose of commons for a file consisting of just "123". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perennial request for SPI help

I know that we're all overworked and grossly underpaid, however there are currently 17 open SPI cases wherein Checkuser has already been run and 19 open cases where CU wasn't requested that require admin review. If you would like relief from some of the more mundane mop tasks, please do take a few moments to review the "checked" and "open" cases to see if you can help out. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI#Cases currently listed at SPI All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC).

Block of User:JackTheVicar needs to be reviewed by the community

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

---

Three days ago, User:JackTheVicar was found to be a sock of community site-banned editor User:ColonelHenry, a fact which he refutes, and was blocked by User:Mike V, their only route of appeal being ArbCom. Given that ArbCom have been unresponsive, presumably because they are confident of the accuracy of their (the functionaries') findings; and if we, the community, are to accept their findings; and given that the editor was originally banned by the community; it follows that it is the community who should decide whether the editor is welcome to return under their new handle. It is, in my opinion, unacceptable to delegate the enforcement of community sanctions to a congregation of a select few privileged individuals who operate in complete secrecy, and who have, historically, proven to be completely out of touch with reality. It is the community who should hear appeals to bans we impose; and, more to the point, it is the community who should decide whether the CU findings, in this particular instance, are significant, so as to merit the blocking of a productive editor and the erasure of all of their contributions, with few exceptions. Alakzi (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack is categorically denying he's ColonelHenry. So what's the point of reviewing ColonelHenry's ban? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that ArbCom won't budge, and considering that, in accordance with galactic law, ArbCom has the final say on CU blocks and that we cannot overrule ArbCom on this matter, our only remaining options appear to be either (a) to consider whether the ban should remain in place, or (b) whether, at the very least, we should make an exception to the banning policy to restore their contributions. Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot review ColonelHenry's ban if the editor says he's not ColonelHenry. We can ask arbcom or other CUs to review the CU evidence but that evidence won't be publicly released for the community to review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we can ask that some general information about the CU be revealed. They can't say the IP was X, but they can certainly tell us if the IPs were identical or within a certain range, and possibly comment on whether the claim of two users living close to each other using the same library WiFi is plausible. They could also tell us if any OS/browser info is from a smartphone (they tend to send identical OS/browser info) as opposed to a Windows machine (they tend to have different OS/browser info) and whether the OS/browser info is common (Windows 10, Windows 7) somewhat rare (Windows 95, BSD) or very rare (Dillo browser). There is a lot that someone with CU can say without compromising the user's privacy. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

While I believe Guy is correct and CU's could disclose some additional information, several of the specific points he cites (like useragent) would bring whatever CU involved directly in to conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, which explicitly applies to checkusers, and would result in them being, well, no longer checkusers. Even if both JtV and CH regularly surf Wikipedia using Windows for Workgroups, disclosing that information would violate a board level policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that saying "the user agents were identical" or even "the user agents were identical but commonly used" or "the user agents were identical and extremely rare" would violate any policy. Or even a mysterious "I reviewed the CU information and for reasons I cannot reveal in my opinion the explanation given is plausible/implausible". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was going for - we can only really receive somewhat mysterious information regarding their findings. The only reason I commented is if they were, for instance, both using BSD or to go with your very rare example, Dillo, disclosing that would be a violation. Actually, even just disclosing that they were both using the same exceptionally rare UA might by itself be a violation. So in large parts we'll have to trust mysterious checkuser statements for the checkuser part of this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Per my comments below, useragent should not be available for ColonelHenry according to the WMF's policies. Admittedly 'as long as necessary' does allow some leeway, but not 18 months of it when it would usually be gone in 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not only that, but JackTheVicar states that ColonelHenry is deceased and that other users have met him in person. If true, it would be provable that JackTheVicar is not ColonelHenry. I would like to know why the BASC has apparently not acknowledged JackTheVicar's emails, although it does seems that the BASC has a 6 week backlog. A simple acknowledgement saying "we got it; we're working on it" could be sent in seconds. - MrX 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It had a six-week backlog in December 2014. Is the BASC currently active? Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I encourage editors to read the following (which is six sections long) before jumping on this bandwagon and commenting [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Having a complete picture regarding the long-term history of ColonelHenry, his socks, and what led to the ban is important. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Given that ColonelHenry last edited in April 2014 (the last sock activity recorded from that time also) and JackTheVicar didnt start editing unti; Jan 2015, while I am not adverse to the idea he may be a sock, what personally identifiable technical information was kept available for 18 months for ColonelHenry in order to be used to run a successful checkuser in the last week? And why? The WMF's data retention policies seem to indicate it shouldnt be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Theoretical example? Maybe they did use an exceptionally weird useragent or otherwise memorable piece of info that a CU would easily retain in his head as standing out. /cue conspiracy theories about CU wiki. From having done abuse for different sites, it's also possible that a CU active on CH would just remember an awful lot of info about CH - I still remember the most common IP blocks I performed as an abuse admin, and if I came across one of them IP-editing Wikipedia, would be able to connect them with no problem given their nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per the WMF's data retention policies (this and this may be of use here) useragent at the point of editing would be one of the pieces of info that should not be kept longer than necessary. There certainly should under no circumstances be a record of it 18 months AFTER the user has stopped editing - absent a damn good reason. IP addresses are kept indef due to thats how edits are logged, but since IP's are regularly re-used, that is why an IP by itself is not an indicator of socking when separated by a significant period of time (in this case 9 months between ColH and Jack). If this was 'IP + behavioural' then it should be clearly stated that is why. This is why SPI exists after all. The current indication from Mike is that technical checks have proved beyond a reasonable doubt they are the same person - so assuming CU's are telling the truth on this one, it indicates to me that the WMF's data retention policies may be being violated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps CUs have access to PRISM.- MrX 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I am less disposed to believing absent evidence 'checkuser says sock' these days since one of them lied about it in order to smear a UK politician. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Do you mean "refute" or "deny"? Sorry to be pedantic, but to me, "refute" means to supply convincing evidence, and I haven't seen that. (That said, I hope it is true it would solve some of the problems).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; I meant "deny", though he does say he's in a position to refute the allegations in private correspondence with ArbCom. Alakzi (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There is only one way that would convince me that Mike V and other CUs are incorrect, and that is if it is true that some admins(or members of ArbCom) have met CH in real life and that he is indeed deceased. Other than that, it's up to those who have access to the tools to decide if an editor is a sock or not. We cannot judge on data we are not privy to. People can list similarities or whatnot, but those would not matter if in fact the original operator of that account has passed away. If there is not proof of that, then we should let ArbCom and the CUs handle the situation. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Dumb question alert Since Colonel Henry's last post was in April 2014, wouldn't any CU of Jack the Vicar be turned away as being stale ? (Yeah, like I said, dumb question). I do agree with Alakzi, the community banned him , the community gets to decide if he gets rope'd , allowed back in or the ban stays. KoshVorlon 17:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @KoshVorlon: There is a (fairly real) chance that there are more recent suspected socks of him that were blocked without being reported to the SPI page or announced to be him (WP:DENY and all that), so this may well be based on that (However, I don't have the CU evidence in front of me, so this is pure speculation). Mdann52 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Whatever the outcome, Lake Neepaulin, Neepaulakating Creek, and West Branch Papakating Creek ought to be restored; they were valuable articles with no problems in and of themselves. While CH seems to have written some hoaxes, I fact-checked virtually every claim in the Neepaulakating Creek article when I did the GA review. I would be willing to rewrite them myself if I must, but I would rather not, as I also have articles of my own to work on. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Based on your statement, @Jakec:, I've restored the Neepaulakating Creek article wholesale. I also restored the article that got brought up at ANI and am in the process of reviewing its sources further myself - and have found impressive sourcing, but no evidence of problems. I am strongly of the opinion that an article brought through GAR, let alone with the statement "I checked virtually every claim myself," is not G5able. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You really reversed a deletion without even contacting the deleting admin? Again? After apologizing for doing it yesterday, you do it again?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the gross misapplication of CSD G5, yes, I chose to restore the article and notify you at the same time. I'm still floored that you threatened to block me for doing so. Please to reread your CSD criteria... Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's a related discussion here: WP:ANI#IAR article restoration against CSD G5? - MrX 19:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've replied to JackTheVicar's email to BASC, letting them know the email(s) were received and are under consideration. Reiterating a point above - there's seems no point in reviewing the ban on ColonelHenry in order to restore JackTheVicar's editing rights, as JackTheVicar denies they are ColonelHenry. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  Is it worth looking into the claim that ColonelHenry is deceased? That sounds like a privacy issue that we should not discuss details about to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• This case raises a number of important issues. As some editors have speculated above, the retention of personal information related to CU appears to be outdated, so one wonders how the accounts were connected based on CU data. If they weren't, then either the procedure wasn't followed, or the decision to connect the users was based on LTA data or some other process. Another issue this raises is the role of Winkelvi. IIRC, the MaranoFan debacle involved false CU claims as well. Not knowing too much about this case, I have to say that Jack's defense sounds a bit strange. However, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what you think you remember, but what you are implying/accusing me of is a pretty strong charge. Either back it up with something solid evidence wise or strike your accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. You know exactly what I'm referring to here, specifically the marathon fishing expedition you engaged in over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive, where you had almost convinced the community that the people you were stalking and goading were socks. You have a habit of doing this. Also, since by your own admission you have a problem dealing with ambiguity, I don't think you should be allowed to participate in CU-related activities. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is straying way off topic. Whatever past... whatever it is you are referring to, Winkelvil does not have access to CU data on this project, and as far as I can tell never has. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said he did. "CU-related activities" means anything having to do with CU, such as filing SPI's, following up after CU results and nominating articles by the suspect for deletion, everything Winkelvi has been doing and in the process making things worse. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• ColonelHenry outed himself earlier. So the privacy issue is not great. If JackTheVicar can send the evidence that that CH is dead (perhaps a newspaper story, say by email to me) I would report back here if it is indeed as he claims. Also if the IP is from a small library as claimed, then the CUs could verify that. (that would explain same browser settings, same IP). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, then this is open and shut. Any admin could review the obituary in question and verify the person is dead. Why hasn't this happened? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If you know where to find it, could someone please provide a diff to the spot where ColonelHenry outed himself? Surely it would make things simpler for the death-verification process. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I think we need people to start speaking up here and for the block on Jack to be lifted immediately. This lends weight to Jack's argument that the Colonel was a notable person. He apparently has his own Wikipedia biography (or did at that time). I'm going to take a wild guess and say it would be very easy to prove Jack's story based on the name of his town and a quick search through his local paper, followed by a search for the bio on Wikipedia. So far, the evidence is in Jack's corner. Lift the block. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I remember ColonelHenry. He claimed to be notable and to have an article, but always in ways that seemed like bragging (with the cloak of anonymity used as the excuse to show off the article in question). JackTheVicar started editing in a way that marks him as an experience Wiki editor. I am not saying I agree it is CH, but the supposed evidence against that presented by JtV has the same sort of feel to it. There is certainly enough question marks to proceed with caution. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Yea, I think we should wait for Eury to get the info from JTV. If it were me, I would send a copy of my drivers licences and post a link to my Facebook page with a msg to ArbCom. Although I don't trust any editor that posts from a public place, VPN or open proxy for all of their edits. That rings alarm bells that say they are trying to avoid scrutiny. And why would anyone want to hide their home IP address from CUs if they are not up to something. So waiting for ArbCom seems like a more prudent course than taken immediate action. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
            • For info BASC has now bene emailed some supporting material, with more on the way. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Viriditas, did you intend to give us that link, or did you pick the wrong one by accident? Incrementing your place among active Wikipedians doesn't lend weight to anything ID-related, as I see it. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
              • DaveDial, I disagree with your assumptions about the use of public IPs. If this is the town I think it is, it would be a miracle if they didn't share IPs. And not everyone has the money for or the access to reliable Internet in small towns like this, which is why they both used the library. Nyttend, the diff was offered to support the existence of notability and a Wikipedia bio, as well as the claim that people here know who the user is and whether he is dead. The more I look at this, the more support I see for Jack's story. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have been presented with evidence that refutes everything I wrote. We seem to be dealing with a (Redacted). I want to apologize to Winkelvi and anyone else, as this is some fucked up shit that I can't begin to process. Jack, I would really like to see evidence of that obituary. Real soon now, I'm sure. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] Could you supply more information? Changing your userpage to reflect moving up on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits doesn't by itself demonstrate anything about notability or having a Wikipedia biography; here's another user making such an edit, for example, but (as I can confirm from knowing him in person) he's just an average person who isn't WP:notable and doesn't have a Wikipedia biography. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Apology accepted, Viriditas, I guess. I seriously have to wonder why you went after me at all. Regardless, I'm glad that the cat named Captain Obvious is finally out of the bag and/or more clear to some. Yes, this is some fucked-up shit. I'm not privy to specifics, but looking at the history of ColonelHenry in addition to my instincts from the first time I encountered the individual in question, I knew something was more than off. And that there was "there" than others were seeing. What a weird couple of days seeing all of this go down and the reactions of several. Lots of fodder for someone interested in a sociological study, for sure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not going to address this anymore. I think there is evidence that this is a good block. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure; just please remember that it was an edit-conflict, as I wrote it before reading your comment. Was the evidence off-wiki or on-wiki? If off-wiki, no more requests; if on-wiki, could you link to it? Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm glad this thread seems to have lit a fire under the butts of people in a position to actually evaluate relevant information, but now that they have it, maybe those who don't have all the relevant information should find something else to do while BASC does its thing? Hinting that you have a secret and it's really juicy but you're not gonna tell is fun and all, but not exactly productive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The block appears to be legit based on all available information. HighInBC 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The information appears to have been shared with Viriditas by Mike V via email. It is unclear to me why Mike thought it proper to reveal the specifics of this case to a non-functionary, but not to the community at large. And it's not OK to call other people ... whatever your conception of the situation. Alakzi (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
        • There appears to be some kind of larger game being played here. I have not received any email from Mike, even though he seems to have placed a YGM message on my talk page 10 minutes after I made my initial comment up above. You could probably ask someone with the appropriate user rights to check the mail logs as well. Either he sent the message or he didn't. In any case, I never received an email from him. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, thank you for clearing that up. Alakzi (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just so you hear it from me, I haven't provided any information to non-functionaries. @Viriditas: I've sent the email again. Could you check your junk folder or if you use gmail, your social tab? Sometimes Wikimedia emails end up there for some reason. Mike V • Talk 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have received a drivers license photo from JackTheVicar by email. This is a different person from who I believe ColonelHenry was. I am still awaiting the story / obituary about the death of the RL ColonelHenry. Another technique to use is to compare the writings of the two users to see if they are the same style or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• How does anyone know for sure that a drivers license photo proves that an editor submitting that photo actually is that real world person? There are neighborhood bars where many sad and sick people would allow their drivers license to be photographed for the cost of two or three shots of bourbon. As for comparing the writing styles, there are people who are convinced based on this type of analysis that Bill Ayers is the ghostwriter for Barack Obama. Great caution is in order here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed Cullen, someone else could conceivably be induced to pose with their (legible) driver's license, which is why I'm not pushing for him to be unblocked based on what I've received so far (he's in contact with a couple of non-functionary people, including myself and Graeme.) That said, there are other measures that can be taken to establish either that he is who he says he is, or that CH is deceased and thus he can't be a sockpupppet of CH. From talking to him, I'm relatively certain this will be resolved entirely within 72 hours, and almost certainly in JtV's favor. Please remember when reading this that I was the previous blocking admin on all of JtV's blocks. I'd also point out something significant - and a difference between this and CH's socks which is part of why I think the truth is worth figuring out - no one has been able to find deliberately falsified material in any articles JtV wrote, and at least a few of his articles were pretty frigging good. Saving the rest of his content if he's not CH and not inherently untrustworthy is a worthwhile expenditure of time. I'll tell you one thing - whoever is he, he's good at sourcing obscure facts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm Fake credentials on Wikimedia? Never! Just don't, Graeme. It's time we all walk away. Keegan (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• That's why I said the holder, I do not know if JackTheVicar really has this driver's license ID or not. I could try to contact the owner of the license, but that is not worth the effort. I am just presenting what I have received. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we pls close this thread as the community is not in a position to evaluate the CU findings. We have ArbCom for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Awaiting statement

Well, there is the issue of how such a long dormant account could be checkusered to a current one, given WMFs stated data retention policies; Mike V had indicated he would be making a statement, I'd like to see that before dropping the matter entirely. NE Ent 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

+1. And if it transpires that the CheckUser tool was not used to draw a connection, the CheckUser block is invalid. But as with any other CU/ArbCom dealing, this one too is shrouded in mystery, using privacy as an excuse - as if we'd asked them to reveal any of the editors' personal information.

In their closure above, Euryalus states that there's no "utility" to discuss an unblock of ColonelHenry as a way of restoring JackTheVicar's editing rights, which is how they mean to place us in a bureaucratic deadlock. It is the implication that the burden of proof lies both with the accuser and the accused at the same time. Alakzi (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow; to my mind, Euryalus' comment makes sense. JackTheVicar claims he's not ColonelHenry, so an unblock of ColonelHenry would have no bearing on JackTheVicar. (Either JackTheVicar is lying, in which case he should stay blocked for being deceptive, or he's telling the truth, in which case the two situations are orthogonal). More to the point, ColonelHenry isn't getting unblocked. There are serious real-life concerns of which I will assume you're unaware. Given those issues, as well as ColonelHenry's prior prolific sockpuppetry, it would not surprise me if some checkuser data were retained in this case to aid with identification of future sockpuppets (although I have no firsthand knowledge of the details of this particular sockpuppet investigation). MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been told in the past by a checkuser that data for particularly disruptive editors with a history of socking, and who are therefore likely to pop up again, is kept around for a longer period than normal editing data. This is perfectly consistent with the WMF privacy policy. I have no inside information on this particular incident, and don't want to, but, like MastCell, I wouldn't be surprised if ColonelHenry fell into the extended-retention category.

Also, I don't agree with Alakzi, Euryalus' comment was perfectly sensible. Alakzi, however, might like to take note of this from the Privacy Policy:

For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites.

BMK (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input; valuable as always. Alakzi (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BMK, that snippet from the privacy policy puts it all in perspective. HighInBC 16:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome to November everyone. For those of you newer users, aloow me to explain: What is known as the "holiday season" in the United States has somehow become the "silly season" on Wikipedia. So just sit back and relax as trolls come out of the woodwork and naive users here rush to defend them without being in full possession of the facts or having a logical basis for their proposal. It's a hell of a toboggan ride! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• I've posted some on-wiki evidence to the SPI page to help give the community an idea of the basis for the block. As I've noted on the SPI page, there is additional evidence that involves non-public data/information. Mike V • Talk 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Mike V's SPI statement references "ColonelHenry's data on the checkuser wiki." Colonel Henry's last edit was April 2014. WMF data retention policy regarding Personal Information, including IPs and user-agent: "After at most 90 days, it will be deleted, aggregated, or anonymized." Could a representative of the en-Wikipedia checkuser community explain what I'm missing here? NE Ent 11:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • NE Ent; The privacy policy says: "Once we receive personal information from you, we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable U.S. law.". I agree what you reference is inconsistent with that (and should be fixed) but it is absolutely standard, and expected IMO, that it is okay to keep identifying information for reasonable purposes, such as long term abuse. This case is an example of how that is a valid use case. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem is it doesnt explicitly say that anywhere on any policy page here or on Meta (which as WMF is the data controller, holds precedence regardless of what practice is on EN-WP anyway). But as a statement 'long term abuse' is nebulous. I think everyone would agree the difference between ColonelHenry and Grawp are huge. The other problems (not in order of severity) are: Who decides how long individual records are kept? What guidance are they following? What checks are made to certify they understand the principles of data protection? What data protection training (if any) have they had? What oversight processes are in place to check that decisions made are correct and to revisit previous decisions? (Although this last one I would have suspected would be covered under AUSC, but given their actual output, I doubt anyone on AUSC is trained well enough to know what sort of questions need to be asked). Recently a member of WMUK with advanced permissions ran checkuser against a user that had not edited in three years and the original offence was nowhere near to being long term abuse under any definition. I didnt get clear answers then either over what data was still being kept for that length of time and AUSC gave it an all-clear, which leads me to believe that current practice is neither comprehensively documented, compliant with the WMF's stated data rentention policy or even following a basic best practice. I am scheduled to have a chat with Courcells when he returns on the 13th about this subject, so I would suggest dropping it until then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
        • As an update because there's interest, BASC has/is reviewing the evidence from the SPI, and some responses to it from JackTheVicar, and will hopefully resolve the appeal shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 8 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 17 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And with nine seats open, there is absolutely no reason not to stand. There's also no reason for the traditional shyness about nominating before the final day. If you think you have the time, the interest and the experience for the job, then go for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course there are reasons not to stand. Such as not enough time, thinking that you won't be able to do it...--Müdigkeit (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Or not wanting to have to learn another bureaucracy. Beyond My Ken, I think it's time you got off your butt and filed your application. Yngvadottir, you too. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What did these two editors do to piss you off so much, Drmies? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly consider voting for both of these nominees. I'll leave it to them to decide if that's an endorsement or a form of revenge. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, aside from the problem that I am not an admin and there's never been a non-admin arbitrator, that I'm as likely to be elected as Vladamir Putin is to be appointed head of the National Security Agency, that I don't have the sort of personality that deals well with the kind of work ArbCom has to do or the way they have to do it, and that I totally, utterly, and adamantly don't want to do it, I can't see any really substantial objections to my standing for the job. BMK (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"Can't see any really substantial objections." Perfect. I'll take that as a yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll appeal to the highest court! BMK (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a number. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• How about you, Euryalus? Drmies (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies:Volvitur Euryalus leto, pulchrosque per artus it cruor, inque umeros cervix conlapsa recumbit: purpureus veluti cum flos succisus aratro languescit moriens lassove papavera collo demisere caput, pluvia cum forte gravantur. (Or words to that effect). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Our article on poppies really should do a better job at indicating the tradition. Is there much scholarship on the poppy as a trope, Euryalus? At least I'm glad you died quickly--your poor friend had to watch you die. I assume ArbCom is a very different experience. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• A great deal, depending on where you're from. And it's ironically more the other way around - I watch the surviving Arbs be weighed down with paperwork, BASC appeals and obscure debates until like the crimson flower they droop and die before the plough. Or perhaps, like Kirill Lokshin, Nisus and possibly NYB, they spring with fierce cries from the undergrowth and lay waste to Arbcom doubters. Take your pick of allegories. But I suspect we are off topic for this thread.-- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't it your turn, Drmies? The field so far does not have a lot to offer in actual viable candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well, according to a certain website, which I think is concerned with fairness and the fight against sexism and all that, I'm fat and ugly. That makes me pretty much unelectable. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Viable candidates? I can count them on the fingers of one finger. BMK (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, 100% improvement - now 2 viable candidates!BMK (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I know of a excellent candidate. Takes no nonsense and she handles things quickly.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to see @Newyorkbrad: back on the committee - surely he's had enough time to recover? BMK (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. I was only on it for a year and I'm not sure I've recovered from it yet... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My near 10-yrs as a Wikipedian, would've made possible a bid, but my block-log disqualifies me. Just aswell, as I don't like the disclosure of identity requirement, if elected. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The access to nonpublic information policy has been changed, so that real-world identity information is not required, only a signed statement that one will follow the policy. I do not know if this change is reflected in the "rules", but since the WMF is no longer accepting the documentation, it would seem to me that it ought to be reflected in the requirements. I will note, however, that the formal change in the process occurred either during or just after the RFC for this election, and the topic was never raised as far as I can see in the RFC. Risker (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if @Dennis Brown: has every thought about running? If not, he should. BMK (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's a thread on my talk page and other places, the short version is that it isn't going to happen. Real life is the main reason, plus I'm just not motivated to accept the responsibility. I'm sure we will find more suitable candidates that the community are more likely to support, but it was kind of you to consider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Too bad, I think you would've done a good job. BMK (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

AC/DS block appeal

Copied from [51] NE Ent 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DHeyward (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the administrators' noticeboard. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." DHeyward (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the mens rea consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --DHeyward (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, substituting blocking administrator with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the [[mens rea]] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@HighInBC: Gamaliel had already addressed it as an AE case and said "No action" if I didn't repost the material. How Mitchell, who has already had a block of mine overturned at AE became aware of deleted edits, related them to a noticeboard ban regarding another editor and took action without reviewing that it had already been dealt with by the admin that imposed the topic ban deserves scrutiny. Why me, why then, why a deleted edit, and why after the sanction implmenting admin declined action deserves scrutiny. AE 1 ArbCom case clearly states that admin closures with no admin action are AE actions. Mitchell undid this and acted out of process by blocking after the original admin dealt with it. It's an out of process block and Mitchell is once again absent to address this, just as he was absent in his first block which was overturned at AN. I don't care to know why he unblocked MarkBernstein out of process by undoing Kww's block or why he hsa found it necessary to block me with specious reasons for hte second time. He just needs a new hobby. Also, someone needs to review the reasoning for deleting my edits under BLP grounds. Nothing I said was false nor was a living person identifiable unless they were twitter fans of that person (which makes them involved but still not a BLP violation as they know the tweets occurred.). --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

End material copied from DHeyward's talk. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I do not consider my reaction of "I don't want to deal with this, I'm on my way to work soon" to be an "admin closure" that is binding on HJ Mitchell or anyone else. Since I communicated with DHeyward via email, no other admin had any way of knowing about our communication.
• HJ Mitchell is allowed to have a life outside of the encyclopedia.
• The edits I rev-deleted did not name an individual but contained more than enough information to clearly identify the specific person.
• DHeyward has violated this topic ban several times without being sanctioned and has a history of boundary pushing in this area. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of block

• I have reviewed the deleted edits. This is not a BLP violation (no individual is named in any way) and it is not a violation of the discretionary sanctions. This is, unfortunately, a hazard when the same administrators work too much in a given topic area; they start to assume things that aren't really written. Recommend unblock and reversion of the deletions. Risker (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel the same way. It's all too cryptic. That doesn't make it a helpful comment, but "unhelpful" is not a valid block reason. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I know DHeyward as well as anyone on this site and am well versed in his editing and this issue and damned if I could figure out what made this a BLP violation and or a breech of an arbcom sanction. This matter is one reason something needs to be done about AE as well as the first mover advantage in an AE decision. Alas, I am but a lowly defrocked admin so what do I know.--MONGO 06:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thus far I've refrained from commenting about the contents of the edit, but it seems I will have to. The rev-deletion may have been overly cautious on my part, but I did it because the edit contained allegations of off-site wrongdoing. DHeyward is topic banned from discussing Mark Bernstein and the edit clearly references him. DHeyward mentions being "threatened" by a PhD; Bernstein is the only person with a PhD involved in editing Gamergate, and this is well known by everyone involved. (In a previous topic ban violation, if I recall correctly, DHeyward alluded to Bernstein's undergraduate alma mater, so it's clear DHeyward is familiar with Bernstein's academic pedigree.) To make the matter unambiguous, DHeyward made a second edit to add the word "Shameless", the name of Bernstein's anti-Gamergate blog post which was heavily quoted by The Guardian and other news coverage of the GG Arbcom decision. This is not an obscure reference for experienced GG-editors and admins; the title of the post is frequently mentioned on-wiki, including by Bernstein himself - so much so that other editors have accused him of self-promotion. This is merely the latest in a series of digs at Bernstein where DHeyward has pushed the boundaries of his topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is confusing to some folks. The topic ban is for DHeyward to avoid interacting with, filing complaints about or discussing Bernstein. So, if he received a short-term block for violating his topic ban, it's pretty clear what he did...he referred to Bernstein in his edits. This wasn't a BLP violation, it was a violation of his interaction ban. And for anyone who has ever edited a Gamergate-related article or read GG discussions on wiki or at off-wiki sites, it's clear who DHeyward was referring to in his remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So, no issue that the other guy ho is not bound by the same finding can send an email to an admin who had a previous block made against the same editor overturned now have the opportunity to rectify that situation by placing a new block for "short duration" eight hours after the "obvious" posts were deleted. Sounds punitive, vindictive and just plain wrong to me...--MONGO 19:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward is able to email whoever he wants, as he has done frequently with this matter. There is no restriction on either party in regards to private communications, nor do I think we can regulate such things. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree: not a BLP vio, not a DS vio. I read the entire thread (time I'll never get back) and still can't figure out who the "specific person" is. We don't block by Kremlinology nor by assumption because the user has violated his topic ban before (if he has; apparently not in a way to be blocked for it, so perhaps not). Unblock and undelete. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
• Unblock, undelete per Bishonen. While intentions may be good, I think we are collectively getting too quick on the trigger with Arb related sanctions as of late. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• I apologise for being absent. I remained online for a reasonable period of time after making the block and heard nothing, but I can't be online all the time; I have two jobs, a social life, and various other commitments, and this appeal was launched in the very early hours of the morning my time. It seems clear to me, not least from DHeyward's arrival in the thread shortly after MarkBernstein's comment that this is a continuation of those two editor's interpersonal dispute. The two of them have been subtly needling each other, and accusing each other of doing so, for months, to the extent that Gamaliel banned each from discussing the other. When this comment came to my attention, my first instinct was to quietly remind DH that he should be keeping his distance from MB so went to WP:DSLOG to check Gamaliel's exact wording only to see that Gamaliel had logged a warning to DH for a previous violation of the restriction, so I felt that a short block was the appropriate response to enforce the restriction and prevent yet further violations. I chose 48 hours as a short duration in recognition of DH's mostly clean block log and to avoid the sanction seeming overly punitive while being long enough that it would not go completely unnoticed. Essentially, my position is that editors who are in dispute should leave each other alone, and should not disrupt the project by exporting their dispute to other areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not reasonable to expect any editor to be online 24/7. Given HJ has responded with ~24 hours of the block he has clearly satisfied WP:ADMINACCT. NE Ent 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • At WP:DSLOG it states "MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:DHeyward and User: Thargor Orlando and restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to those users without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)"....but you responded to an email notification about this from Mark Bernstein....so is email exempt?--MONGO 19:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's pretty clear that the only two people who believe that the deletion and block were appropriate are the deleting and blocking admins. Based on the consensus of the review, I will unblock and undelete. Risker (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Risker: Removing the block and the rev-deletion are one thing, but do you really think it's appropriate to restore a comment where one editor calls another one a "low-life"? I'm going to remove (but not rev-delete) the comment again unless someone presents a policy-based reason why it should remain contrary to WP:NPA. Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• • @Risker: First, I don't think that's true. Others have commented and stated that there was a topic ban violation. Secondly, why I don't object to a 'time served' unblock, your restoration of the edit that was removed is totally inappropriate. If you do not know that edit is DH obviously needling Bernstein and violating his topic ban, then you need to step back from this and re-read what has transpired between the two editors. Now, I will admit that both need to stay away from each other, but that can be difficult when one of them is directing innuendos and posts toward the other on the same pages. That is why there wasn't an interaction ban, so they could edit the same articles, but just not discuss each other. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Risker: It seems that 9 editors in the approx 16 hours you left this open commented- yourself, Mongo, NE Ent, HJ Mitchell, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, Liz, Gamaliel, and Drmies. Of these nine people, four disagreed with the sanctions put in place. I don't believe four out of nine is a clear consensus, nor do I believe that 16 hours is a very long time to leave it open. You disagreed with it on the grounds that it wasn't a BLP violation, but unfortunately the deletion and blocking weren't related to BLP at all. I urge you to reconsider what seems to be an attempt at bypassing due process in an unblock review. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not say it was a good block, and I agree with the unblock. NE Ent 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope you'll be charitable enough to agree with this proposition: you hadn't agreed with the proposed unblock here, to be included in this consensus, before that comment just then. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear that the only two people who believe that the deletion and block were appropriate are the deleting and blocking admins. This is not true at all, Risker, for some reason you think this is a BLP violation when it is the violation of a clearly stated topic ban, one that applies to three different editors. They are not supposed to talk about each other. I don't understand how you can't see this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Risker said it wasn't a BLP; it was Gamaliel who brought up BLP when he rev-del'd the edit [52]. NE Ent 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm not going to remove it myself, though I strongly urge the editors and admins here to remove this personal attack. I'm going to step away from this, as I no longer wish to be the intermediary between these two camps. It's clear there is some dissatisfaction with the way HJ Mitchell and I handled this situation, so I have removed the restrictions which prevent these editors from opening new enforcement requests so other administrators can bring a fresh perspective to their dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Responses: First, note that my comment explicitly addresses the discretionary sanctions, not just BLP issues. Secondly, this is not just an unblock request, it is a review of administrator actions because of the block being an AE block; thus, the comments (appreciated as they are) from the two administrators involved don't count toward the consensus. The 48-hour block was itself more than half-way expired, thus the limited period of review; if it had been a week- or month-long block, of course a longer review period would be expected. That DHeyward had a belief that any concerns about the edits had been addressed is perhaps a minor point here; we all know that just because Admin A doesn't block doesn't mean Admin B can't, especially when none of the discussion of sanction takes place onwiki. Finally, talking about being outed on Twitter, without any mention of activity onwiki, is getting far too precious; but if reading between the lines is what it takes to justify the block (and it is very much reading between the lines) then the same can be said of some of MB's edits on the very same page. Nobody's suggesting sanctioning him (myself included). I'm fine with someone reverting the edit.

  As a last response, Liz, I am sorry that I did not explicitly reference your position on this review. You did indeed indicate that you believed it was an appropriate AE sanction. Risker (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Surendra Srivastava

• Surendra Srivastava has been deleted and recreated twice. I have again marked it for CSD for copyvio. Can you please consider WP:SALT for this page name? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done for 1 year. The article was one deleted as an expired PROD and twice speedy as copyvio, so that there is a (small) chance a reasonable article can be created under this name.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

hi their i have complaining

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

on this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash i wrote that the compactflash was the first flash memory card and i even gave a source "The first Flash memory card format, Compact Flash I The application which triggered the rise of NAND Flash was digital photography incorporated NOR Flash at its inception in 1994" https://books.google.co.il/books?id=vaq11vKwo_kC&pg=PA10&dq=The+first+Flash+memory+card+format,+Compact+Flash+I+incorporated+NOR+flash&hl=iw&sa=X&authuser=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=he%20first%20Flash%20memory%20card%20format%2C%20Compact%20Flash%20I%20The%20application%20which%20triggered%20the%20rise%20of%20NAND%20Flash%20was%20digital%20photography%20incorporated%20NOR%20Flash%20at%20its%20inception%20in%201994&f=false i even wrote the source right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CompactFlash#source_provide_compact_flash_was_the_first_flash_memory_card it is not ok that people undo me after i already give a source especially when they got no source that making my source not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.164.29 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Our IP friend is | edit warring to include the phrase " and was the first flash memory card." PCMCIA predated compact flash, making that claim untrue, more troubling is the fact that the source he's using doesn't actually say it was the first flash card, per se, it says it was the first NAND flash card, there were prior flash cards using NOR prior to that. KoshVorlon 12:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP one year for block evasion. This is Ronkaufman and he has been at that IP for six months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 functionary changes

The CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui (talk · contribs) are removed, without prejudice against his requesting reinstatement in the future. We thank him for his service.

For the Arbitration Committee;

LFaraone 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cross-post. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Swastika formula

Hello all.

Right now, i removed a chemical reaction with formulas forming swastikas (Hakenkreuz) in perfekt manner. As a german i may urge the english wikipedia-community to not accept such things and eventually have a look for similar appearances. For not so chemistry-experienced people: there is no reason for chosing exactly the swastika-shape, as the corresponding Pentaerythritol-article demonstrates. --Itu (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

We will not abide your request. Please stop before you find yourself blocked from English Wikipedia (and for the love of God please stay away from Swastika; you might take offence to the legitimate non-Nazism uses of the symbol). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the boomerang poke for Jéské? --82.132.223.135 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

and I've reverted, Comparing both formulas it looks like it's the correct way despite it's appearance, No reason to remove or even replace it. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User won't seem to let it drop, I still maintain it's nothing at all to do with swastikas but fuck it I'm off to bed before I find myself blocked!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• The OP is correct, actually. This design is a choice by the image creator (and its format is deprecated and unused anywhere else); it is just as valid (and more traditionally represented) with the straightforward representation that has since been inserted into the article. This is not about censorship, it's about not allowing ourselves to be fooled into thinking that it's acceptable to choose the most offensive representation of something when there is a much less offensive way of representing the same thing. Incidentally, the "synthesis" section of the article duplicates the "production" section above. A more appropriate (and more traditionally drawn) version of the visual representation is at File:Nitropenta synthesis.svg, which is used at dewiki; the majority of articles on this subject in other languages don't bother with the symbolic representation at all. Risker (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's a suitable graphical representation, please insert it in the article. If you're going to scrap the stand-alone §Synthesis because the concepts are already coverered in another section, that other seciton should contain "everything that both sections contained" (remaining section has no image) rather than just scrapping the latter/more-controversial one altogether ("merge, possibly with alternate image" not "delete", in AFD parlance). DMacks (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Itu (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note, original insertion of this image is from a large sock drawer. No objection to removal of the content on its face while considering how to use any of its ideas (see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2015#Compromise on "remove content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear"?). DMacks (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The current representation of the reaction is clumsier than the "swastika" version. If there are really users who find the swastika shape offensive in that context, it could easily be modified to make the limbs bend counterclockwise instead of clockwise. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Risker and Itu here; the formula could be represented in hundreds of different ways; there is no need to include a symbol likely to cause distress to some of our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

There are many ways to represent the chemical. Most have a perpendicular cross at the centre, and an angle between 120 and 135, and the arms follow each other whether clockwise or anti-clockwise. I would choose one of those unless a chemist advises that the butterfly representation is better. I really think this is a storm in a tea-cup though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Pluralizing "(group)-Americans"

I need help on implementing the closed discussion whose consensus agreed to pluralize articles about ethnic groups in the US in general. However, what to do about previous failed requests, like one in Talk:African American? --George Ho (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved African American and Tamil American and will move more if you give me the list (or any other hint).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There are mostmore listed at Talk:Tamil Americans. This list here looks too broad. You can go through a more narrow list at Category:United States ethnic group templates. --George Ho (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone almost forgot Malaysian Americans and Thai Americans. --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone got back home yesterday at 9pm after a completely busy afternoon/evening, is now having breakfast in front of the laptop, and will be leaving after breakfast back to work, which will start with four hours teaching and continue (without a break) with a three-hour committee meeting (hopefully, lunch will be served).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to run an intitle search for exactly something, as opposed to just a title that includes the specified chunk of text? We can use wildcards (a search for fr*nc* returns everything from Francisco Franco to San Francisco, as well as France), but (1) I don't know if there's a parallel way to specify "any word" instead of "any character", and (2) I don't know if there's a way to exclude pages that have 2+ words before and/or 1+ words after the one we specify, e.g. finding African American while excluding New York American and An American in Paris, respectively. We'd still have some false positives, e.g. Great American, but my suggestion would severely reduce them, if it could be implemented. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are talking about article titles, they all should be in the category linked above (an also linked from the templates which are in the category). If we are talking about the text, then, indeed, search is needed, but it is not mandatory since redirects are still there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

I propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring,[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title [58] [59] [60] and adding disputed material [61]), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say [62] [63] [64], and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used [65] [66]. On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [67] [68], made false allegations of sock puppetry [69], actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics [70] [71] [72] [73] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of Harassment [74] [75]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc).

Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, at this second GAN he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial discussion

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN specific sanctions

As per the discussion above involving User:Nyttend and User:Snowded, this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for Heathenry (new religious movement). It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

• Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded ^TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Update as of 18 November: A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ad hominem attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry here, including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to Odinism and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

ThorLives' response

If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations.

I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (talk) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. )

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, [76] made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person.

For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --ThorLives (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--ThorLives (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.

As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".

All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, every edit that I ever made to Heathenry (new religious movement) was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article?

If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.

Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Several new points (before I leave.)

This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.)

After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on Odinism. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists.

Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.

Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one

Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing?

As for the "65-year old [sic] male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation.

I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent.

Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia.

Cheers! --ThorLives (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Wikipedia and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were demonstrably not true because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing here at Wikipedia so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

BASC reform motion proposed

An arbitration motion proposing a major overhaul of the current BASC system has been proposed. Comments are welcome at that location. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC Reform)

Motion to disband BASC proposed

A second arbitration motion has been proposed which would disband the BASC. Comments from the community are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC disbanded)

Admin behaviour at ANI

Sometimes an admin or an editor does something wrong. Sometimes that might be very wrong indeed. Without reference to any particular examples - sometimes the reaction on ANI is an unseemly pile on. Where can I go to discuss that pile-on behaviour? Because I'm talking about the general principles (like, 5 pillars stuff) this discussion doesn't fit in those ANI discussions. We see above where I made the mistake of mentioning one recent example (but please ignore that, because this isn't about that editor) and the discussion got side-tracked. If I had the energy I'd gather diffs and present an AN / ANI / Village Pump / ??? discussion. But that makes it feel like I'm selecting a few admins / editors for attention, when actually the problem is larger than that.

What can be done to make admins / editors behave more calmly at ANI? 81.140.13.150 (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What you absurdly call "pile-on behavior", normal people call "communicating". Please stop trying to shutdown discussion because you don't agree with it. Criticizing bad behavior and expressing displeasure with the failure to stop it is normal and healthy while your attempt to get people to repress their feelings is abnormal. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Check yourself before you wreck yourself"? 81.140.13.150 has expressed a reasonable concern, even if you disagree with their premise, and doesn't deserve to get ridiculous responses like that. In response to their question, it sounds like a Village Pump discussion to have and if you actually intended to effect any sort of change you'd need to get a consensus via RfC. I wouldn't be that optimistic that anything will come of it though, check out some of these redirects to ANI and how long they've existed for – this is not a recent problem. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

84.140 dot whatever is a meta-toll who had the same thread (right above this one) shut down. His premise is nonsense. There is no "pile-on behavior", that's a lame meme used to shutdown legitimate discussion. Their "premise" is nonexistent. Please try to pay attention. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to believe that 81.140 is an established editor who has decided to start a thread anonymously to state an opinion they feel needs to be said without having personal attacks machine-gunned at them for having the utter audacity to express it. I will say that the "peanut gallery" element of ANI is something I have sporadically complained about myself, and the principal aim for that noticeboard should be to resolve incidents and close threads down as quickly as possible while satisfying all parties. It's not Speaker's Corner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mob mentality at ANI is especially destructive when an editor proposes an indefinite block or topic block for another editor and, seriously, if 8 people support the suggestion and no one opposes, it used to not be unusual to see the sanction applied...based on the opinion of a few editors who chose to participate in the discussion. Voting among editors who oppose another editor is not a sound basis for applying a block, especially of indeterminate length, and should not be considered "consensus" as often the voting takes place over a short time (sometimes a decision is made after just a few hours).

I don't see this occurring as much now as several years ago but ANI can be a free-for-all. The only solution I can see is for admins to be more proactive in closing discussions which seem to be out-of-control and contain nothing but bickering or complaining with little discussion about the conduct that needs to be addressed and what solutions might be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is, what you have described is not an example of "mob mentality" or pile-on behavior, which I will continue to claim (unless shown otherwise) is a red herring and doesn't exist. What you have described is a good example of bad closing by an admin, based on not allowing the discussion to run longer, and improperly closing the discussion based on a failure to look at the substantiating evidence. So once again we see admins responsible for a problem blamed on non-admins. Why am I not the least surprised? Everything referred to as "mob mentality" and pile-on behavior is, contrary to what is claimed, normal, mundane discussion. That you folks are allowed to continually distract us from bad admin decisions by blaming editors who are discussing an issue in a normal manner is par for the course. I hereby declare the fake meme known as "mob mentality" dead in the water. It simply doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that editors who drive by and shoot an opinion, without looking at the facts or presenting evidence (diffs), are a problem. The solution is to have more administrators willing to watch this page, even though it is frequently a cesspit, and clerk the threads. Editors can help too. If you see somebody going off the deep end, go to their talk page and point out which remark is inappropriate and ask them to fix it. If you see a discussion that has no purpose, that is just going in circles, suggest that it be closed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. The real problem is admins who hastily close discussions and prevent the community from coming to an understanding of the problem and sweep everything under the rug. Your comment describes the problem perfectly. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• I too agree that drive by pile-ons are unhelpful and indeed I followed up the participants in one several years ago, the best response was "Oh I just believed the OP, I'm striking my !vote" that was one of about 10, most simply ignored the follow up, some deleted the follow up.

So I'm not sure that your solutions are solutions, but they are certainly better than nothing.

(On the flip side we get some very "understated" complaints, a style I approve of, which aren't always treated as seriously as they might need.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Trans-Pacific Partnership

The page Trans-Pacific Partnership has seen a number of conflicting edits the last several days. At least several users (User:45.46.201.136 User:CFredkin, User:Phoenix7777, User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq) make changes claiming that an agreement has been reached while there is no such agreement. Most of these accounts seem to have been made specifically to control the public opinion (probably paid editing).

Here are some of the edits: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Martinkunev (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend filing an SPI based on past problems with related accounts.[84] Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix Arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above

This case was opened to address the behavior of Neelix (talk · contribs), a long-time editor and administrator. Neelix has subsequently resigned as an administrator and acknowledged that he may not regain administrator status without a new, successful request for adminship.[85]. In addition, an extensive community discussion on the incidents noticeboard has resulted in a one-year topic ban from Neelix's creating redirects.

Under these circumstances, this case is closed without further action. The restriction already imposed at ANI remains in force. Neelix is strongly counseled to take the concerns expressed by the community into account in his future editing, and cautioned that he may be subject to additional sanctions if problems recur.

Discuss This

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Amortias: I don't see an area to discuss that at that link. Can you clarify? Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, it looks like it went into the archives here, No idea if it was an auto archive or manual. with this edit — Ched :  ?  05:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris attacks

Upwards of 100 people have been killed in Paris [86]; Paris is already under pending changes but additional review and monitoring would be in order. NE Ent 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is our article about the attacks. LjL (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, it is now at 2015 Paris attacks and semi-protected for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As usual, our article is more comprehensive than any news source out there. Nice work, to those who contributed. I am very sorry for everyone affected by these events. Jehochman ^Talk 09:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, it's been moved back, and 2015 Paris attacks is now a disambig page. ansh666 04:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qibli Chapel is part of ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement?

Hi. I have added {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} to Al-Qibli Chapel (similar to what I saw on Al-Aqsa Mosque). As that is not usually my field, I ask someone to confirm if it is OK or to revert if it is not. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the same person who starts a RfC, close it, (with the conclusion he wants)?

I´m not sure where discuss this..but here is the issue: Bender235 (talk · contribs) opens a RfC (here), about "Should we convert existing Google and Internet Archive links to HTTPS"?

The RfC was archived by a bot, after it was archived, Bender235 added "In conclusion, there is near-unanimous support for converting the mentioned links to a secure HTTPS connection" at the top, and have since proceeded to change all http to https. However, I see several objections in that RfC to the practise. See also discussion at User_talk:Bender235#archive.org.

My question is; is it normal, or good practise for an editor who started a RfC also to close it? Especially when it is with the conclusion he wanted all along? (I see this IP (not me!) already raised the question) Huldra (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it pretty ridiculous that Huldra is trying to discredit the outcome of this RfC simply because I added the summary. It is more than obvious that the outcome of the discussion was in favor of what was proposed. This is a waste of everyone's time. I mean, seriously, are you accusing me of writing a summary that is factually wrong? If not, then what is the purpose of this? How should it have been phrased differently? --bender235 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved.[87] There was nothing wrong with the close, but as long as I just carefully read the RfC to make sure that Bender235's summary was correct (it was) I figured "why not just put my name on my conclusions?" Note to Bender235: if this is a problem for you feel free to revert and we will deal with this some other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

While Bender235 should not have been the one to close the RfC he started, the consensus there is crystal clear, and supports the way he closed it. How about we stop wasting time with wikilawyering and get on with building an encyclopedia? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder who caused the time waste... - Nabla (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the proximate cause or the ultimate cause? The proximate cause of the time sink was Huldra, who brought the problem here, but the ultimate cause was Bender, who should have known better than to close an RfC he opened, regardless of whether he accurately summed up the consensus. Guy Macon gets a barnstar for appropriating Bender's close as his own, thus alleviating the problem, and I get a trout for pedantry. BMK (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"stop wasting time with wikilawyering and get on with building an encyclopedia": Agreed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ideally, an RfC should certainly be summarised and closed by an uninvolved editor. This is however not a policy. In the case of a large, absolutey clear and unambiguous consensus, and where there has been no new movement for several days, it might, just might, be appropriate to IAR and for the proposer to close it him/herself. I did it once myself but as an admin I took a lot of flak for my action (because the peanut gallery just loves a chance to have a go at an admin) and the RfC was held open for several more weeks only to close still without a further vote or change in consensus. I won't do it again, and unless one has a very thick skin, I wouldn't recommend it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, there are formal policies, and then there are informal "policies", which amount to normal standard practice, which, while they may simply be de facto, are as real as the formal ones. You experienced the result of violating one of those informal policies, and learned why it's generally a bad idea to do so, unless you've got an iron constitution and a hell of a good IAR argument. BMK (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was (and am) really wondering who and why, I was not trying to point at anyone. Both opinions are OK by me. I guess I've closed some XfD where I previously voted but I am sure I do not do it 99.9 plus percent of the time, exactly because you need to be honest *and* look honest - Nabla (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• An admin closing a discussion in which they are involved is open to more scrutiny due to concerns over abuse. A non-admin doing so ideally should be OK in obvious closes, but yes, there will always be editors who are sticklers for formality. My motto is to do the right thing, and ask for forgiveness later, but others would prefer process be followed. Still, others might consider it taunting or a waste of time for asking a formal, independent close of a fairly clear, if not obvious, consensus. Such is life.—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• PS: Yes the solution here was just perfect, thanks to the prompt intervention of Guy Macon. Someone objects to a not-uninvolved close, then the case gets reopened and reclosed by a uninvolved editor. All is fine, I suppose that is the real rule - Nabla (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I accept Guy Macon conclusion, of course. I saw some objections, but I am personally not "technical" enough to know wether those objections were relevant, or not. I gather Guy Macon is ( "technical" enough, that is), and again, I accept his conclusion.
• Having said that; I will not deny that I am not very happy with it. For reading the https-adresses you need a relatively new computer. There are many, many people on this planet who are delighted having even a 10-year old computer; for them editing Wikipedia is in effect no longer possible, but they can at least still read it. With the change to https-adresses in sources, these sources are also -in effect- no longer available. Yes: I accept that security is our main concern, but lets face it: that concern is dealt with in way which is detrimental to the poorest of us. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that the accuracy of the close was in question, and the issue should not be re-litigated here. BMK (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Huldra How can they read it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration motion to disband the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

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

1. With immediate effect, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is disbanded. The associated mailing list is to be shut and associated Wikipedia pages marked {{historical}}.
2. Any ban appeals of whatever nature open at the time of the passing of this motion will be handled by the Arbitration Committee until the appeal has run its course.
3. The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions.

For the Arbitration committee, Miniapolis 15:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

BASC reform motion

The motion to reform the Ban Appeals Subcommittee has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#BASC reform motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

An RfC has been opened to discuss if non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. Mike V • Talk 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

AfDs for possible early closure

There are some AfDs some of which may need to be monitored for the opportunity of early closure, per likely WP:SNOW and because they were nominated in a batch due to a dispute about that one particular article (which was itself speedy kept). These articles include:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the war in Donbass

LjL (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the whole story though, is it? A number of editors (not including myself) have disputed the notability, concept and existence of these articles. AusLondonder (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Then they can express their opinion on the AfD pages; I believe the relevant discussions, as well, have been linked above, so it's transparent to anyone reading this.

However, I still find this WP:POINTY since it happened after one article from that "concept" category was speedy kept, and for now, those article have a stable trickle of "keep" votes. LjL (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you AusLondoner: there is no rush, and not everyone thinks these articles have an encyclopedic purpose. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Title moving

The user Inaayaimranaslam is constantly vandalising the page Imran Aslam (entertainer). The page had been move a numerous times with a wrong title variation. Look at these links, [88], [89]. Despite of these i'd warned her. Please look at the user and matter. D'SuperHero (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like what they are trying to do is make one the "main" article and the others redirects but is going about it all wrong as the bot keeps moving it back. Blackmane (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been one move by Inaayaimranaslam and another by D'SuperHero. I've requested a move to Imran Aslam (actor). It doesn't look like vandalism. The page (or one about an actor with this name) has been speedily deleted on more than one occasion, but the current article mentions awards, which indicate significance. Peter James (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigs case closed

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

1. General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.
2. Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.
3. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
4. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
5. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
6. Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
7. QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.
8. CFCF (talk · contribs) is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#E-cigs case closed

Articles related proto-Bulgars

Hello,

I am writing you to inform you that the user Crovata in the past few months have done controversial edits on many articles concerning proto-Bulgars( Bulgars, Dulo, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and others). In a nutshell he is foisting the minority point of view of two authors against multiple mainstream authors. For example in his last edit of the article "Sandilch" he has deleted 31 books with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandilch&oldid=691120744 Following the same style he has deleted a whole section from the article Huns(supported by multiple sources) with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huns&oldid=683505893 and many others.

He was covered by his friend administrator Bbb23.

Thank you 93.152.143.113 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

93.152.143.113, what is the purpose of citing a source when adding text? It's to enable readers to verify information, rather than forcing them to trust us. Placing thirty-one citations for a sentence makes it absolutely impossible to verify; does the statement "Sandilch (Σάνδιλ, Σάνδιλχος; Turkic-Mamluk "boat"), was the chieftain of the Utigur Bulgar Huns in the 6th century" come from #1, #2, #3...#29, #30, or #31? If one source provides all of that information, cite it alone. If one source gives the names, and the rest specifies his chieftainship, cite the first after the names and the second after the chieftainship. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jerome501

User:Jerome501's edit history is filled with country data template creations. Many of them for copyrighted flags. I don't know what warnings this user should receive, or how this situation should be handled. 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, why don't you ask them on their talk page what they're doing? Drmies (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I know they're making a massive copyright infringement, but I don't want to be the guy to make a massive deletion request. 117Avenue (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Jerome501's user pages should be looked through, as they may not meet appropriate guidelines. 117Avenue (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue. There's no need for a massive deletion request. Freely licensed images can be used in templates, but non-free content cannot and should be removed per WP:NFCC#9. Many editors just mistakenly assume that all images on Wikipedia are free, and are not familiar with WP:NFCC. I left a note on their user talk explaining why the non-free flags cannot be used in such a way and about the four that I removed. Let's give them a chance to fix the rest on their own. If they don't, then the remaining images can simply be removed by me, you or any other editor per NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry about all this. I didn't understand about CC, really. From now on I will check all image licensing before I create a template. That is a promise. You see, my ultimate goal is to have widespread flag template usage across the wiki, and hopefully implement them in many lists. However, I'm not trying to get Wikipedia sued, so that ends that.

Speaking of which, do you need to have any specific templates created? Jerome501 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jerome501, are you aware of MOS:FLAG? What could be the use of a template inserting the flag for Fernie, British Columbia, a city of almost 5000 inhabitants? Drmies (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-aware, User:Drmies. I haven't particularly given it much thought, but they are a bit useless, I guess. Since the other Canadian cities have copyrighted flag images, there isn't a particular use for it anymore. It would look awkward and shabby if only one city had a flag on a whole list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome501 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC+9)

That's OK Jerome501. Are you using some kind of bot to create these templates or are you doing it all manually? It looks like you've created a couple hundred just within the past day or so, sometimes only a minute or two apart. Are you just creating these for the sake of creating them or are they actually being used in articles? Mass production might seem like a good idea, but I've found 25 more templates using non-free flags, and my guess is that there are quite a few more left to be found. Cleaning up after this kind of thing is a bit of a hassle so continuing to do as you've been doing might be seen as disruptive by some. So, I think it might be a good idea for you to slow the pace down a bit and only create a template where there's an actual encyclopedic need for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Marchjuly) I've already slowed down my pace, really. I'm kind of done with it. Actually, I did it all manually. I'm just fast with this kind of thing. Yes, I do plan to put them into articles when the weekend comes around; I have a list in my head of said lists. Jerome501 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In the past, I've done large groups of edits manually: I'll work on stuff offline and then take advantage of tabbed browsing by copy/pasting the new contents of each page into a separate tab, and hitting save for each one in short succession doesn't take long. See [90], for example. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request from Againstdisinformation

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

---

Againstdisinformation (talk · contribs)

After consulting with Drmies, I decided to post here the unblock request that was sent by Againstdisinformation via UTRS. Since this is a very complicated case, I want other admins to comment on the possibility of un-blocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked at 09:32, 6 October 2015?by JzG for reinstating 2 pictures of a public figure he removed from my talk page. I recognize now that my reaction was ill-advised and I should have asked an explanation before. My only defense is that the pictures were placed on my talk page by another user: "I love the contrast between what she really looks like, and what she looks like in the Wikipedia infobox photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)" I left the pictures on my talk page because I found them funny and I had no idea that it was againstWP:BLP since in over a month no one visiting my talk page (including administrators) ever complained. After reading carefully WP:BLP, I now realize that I should have removed them instantly. My violation was not willful and, if you unblock me, I can guarantee that, in the future, I will be very vigilant in ensuring that I am not in violation of WP:BLP, nor of any other WP policy for that matter. JzG also mentioned that my username was objectionable, and I agree to change it as soon as I am unblocked.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Science, ancient Greece, current affairs

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

I am currently blocked for a violation of WP:BLP, which I fully recognize, but was not aware of at the time (2 pictures of a public figure on my talk page). My sense of humor and derision has also earned me a bad name. JzG visited my talk page to warn me after I made the comment "I won't accuse him of working for the CIA. Even though their standards of recruitment are not very high, I don't think they have sunken so low as to hire any paranoid crackpot who has fallen prey to conspiracy theories." in response to Trappedinburnley who had written: "your previous posts have made me think you likely work (directly or indirectly) for RT". I recognize this is beyond the pale and I will not do it again. I tend to be sarcastic when I am under attack, a behavior I will try to rein in. Againstdisinformation, originally in UTRS appeal #14446

• @JzG: who should be notified.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• My involvement was to ask JzG if he opposed reinstating TPA to allow an on-wiki appeal (which is always preferable to the behind-closed-doors UTRS system), and his reply was "Allow talk page access by all means, and feel free to do whatever you think best in respect of the block. I tend to stand back where block appeals are concerned, I feel it is best not to risk one's personal pride standing in the way of respectful handling of a request". JzG has not been around for a few weeks so I think that we should simply proceed with examining the block appeal without waiting for or expecting additionnal comment from the blocking admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm somewhat involved, having bantered around with the editor and his opponents a bit, and having agreed with them on a content matter. In all honesty, I think Againstdisinformation (typically abbreviated AD) has a POV, but I don't think it's out of control. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Have you seen indications of AD's POV in their editing, or only in their commentary? BMK (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gotta do the ping again, cause I screwed it up @Drmies: BMK (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. Well, I can give you an answer you can't do anything with: in the case of the birthday debate, their edits and comments were clearly POV-driven (in my opinion), but they were also right. In my opinion. I remember now I also looked at some edits in that TV network article, but I can't remember if I sided with AD, or his opponents, or with both. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, it's in Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 6. At issue was a. a qualification for one of the people frequently appearing on RT (TV network) and b. a list of guests that appeared on that station. Yes, I am convinced that AD's edits in those articles was POV driven, and, at the same time, in keeping with policy. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I checked this link and was surprised by the title (Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department) that was chosen by Againstdisinformation to start the thread. Why State Department? He did not explain. Is it somehow related to the worker from the State Department used as a target for his jokes, which has been the reason for his block by JzG? My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hey admins, come on now. ArbCom is exciting, I know, but we need a few of you to weigh in here. Don't make me post a Help Me template, or start pinging you in groups of ten, organized alphabetically. Againstdisinformation deserves their day in court, and they got it, but no one showed up for work. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

...or they read it at some point but weren't compelled to act. He has been writing responses with Iryna Harpy which may come into play. No one from the community has given either a Support unblock or Keep blocked to start us off.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know some of those lazy bones need more prodding, which is why I'm going to start tweeting out doctored passport photos of all admins. Yes, Berean, no response usually means no unblock, but I wish someone would just look over the edits and the issues and confirm one way or another, explicitly. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If any admins are interested in my opinion, I have a truly appalling talent for opining until the cows come home. Given that relatively sane people find non-specific walls of text to be counterproductive, I'd prefer to wait until some more admins drop by and ask specific questions directly relevant to the unblock request. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you pointed out some behavioral things that I really haven't gotten into, and that's useful. I hope AD will take that to heart--that would be helpful for admins considering making a decision here. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll start it off. Looked at the block log, looked through the edit history, and (sigh) I'm willing to unblock on a very short leash. That photo thing was atrocious, but I'm in an AGF and all that kind of mood right now, so what the heck. If AD steps over the line again, however, I'll indef him myself. Katie^talk 05:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think JzG's summary still seems to apply. Leashes can open up a can of worms, but if you are willing to supervise it, then I'd be open to an unblock. If you aren't I'd recommend against. Prodego ^talk 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to unblock, Againstdisinformation should know if starting a discussion like that one ("a mouthpiece") would be regarded as disruption and result in block. That is what he usually does. This may not be outright forbidden by policies, but result in enormous waste of time for others. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am telling this because main problem of Againstdisinformation is not their POV or BLP, but ability to fuel long, unproductive and highly divisive discussions. That is what makes him/her "net negative" for the project. I am not telling he/she does it on purpose, but it does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Katie, I appreciate your good mood. I don't know if it would be helpful if AD is kept on for instance a 1R restriction; I don't think edit warring was ever the real problem. If I had to guess, I'd say that it's the lengthy talk page discussions that test editors' patience. (OK, I think I guessed that pretty good.) At the same time, AD gets a fair bit of flak from other editors, so I don't think we should muzzle AD. Still, some sort of "make doubly sure that you're not turning the talk page into a forum", coupled with an injunction to be less verbose (don't know how to quantify or legislate that...), that might make for a workable situation. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• The incident with the younger/older pictures should be carefully examined. Basically, any human being is prone to be older in real life than on her passport photo. This is another argument about infoboxes: the choice of an unique picture is often misleading. Nevertheless, comparing a best choice for the younger picture with a not so random choice of the older one can hardly be described as flat neutral. Moreover Againstdisinformation should have perceived that such comparison will appear as heavy loaded in the context (the target is not an anonymous passerby, but a high ranking person in the US). The next time such a bait is posted by someone else on her talkpage, we can assume that Againstdisinformation (may be renamed as CallMeAnynameYouWant) will defer the incident to some dramaboard as yet another bullying attempt, instead of taking the bait. Pldx1 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pldx1: No, AD was not baited, and the post by the original editor was within a relevant context (i.e., AD was pushing contentious descriptions of another famous person in an article that simply wasn't warranted; that is, AD's description was WP:WEASEL). Please see my comment on AD's talk page here, and note the original context in which it was presented along with discussions here. Compare this to what AD redacted it to for weeks here. You've jumped into a discussion about an editor who is better characterised as being a 'baiter', not a 'baitee'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Horses are jumping. But there are so many horses. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that, in this discussion, I have jumped from reading to writing. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC). Follow up, answering a "thanks" ping from User:Iryna Harpy. I parse your comment as saying that posting the two pictures comparison was legitimate and "within the relevant context" while receiving the same two pictures comparison was a blattant violation of human decency (and of our policies towards Living Persons). My comment was only: there are horses that are surprised. Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing all opinions given here and at User talk:Againstdisinformation, and relevant diffs, I'm leaning toward unblocking. Seams that the main reason AD was blocked is not his main space edits, but the way he interacts with other editors (which is quite irritating, I agree). On the other hand, I don't see any such large issue that deserves indefinite block without trying a longer (week, month) block first (he had three previous blocks, the longest of which was 48 hours). Of course, I don't think he should be unblocked unconditionally. The issues that were given as reason for his block are real and important, but I would like to give him the second chance to edit without those issues. If he continues with such behavior, he should be blocked again. I am going to unblock him soon unless somebody has some specific reason against unblocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How do you intend to ensure these "long, unproductive, and highly divisive discussions" that My very best wishes mentions do not continue? I have seen no comments from Againstdisinformation that suggests they will stop. Prodego ^talk 05:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to offer him unblock, but under condition that he stops such behavior. If he continues, it is easy to block him again. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the thing. If at least one person comes to this noticeboard and tells: "I was able to positively collaborate with Againstdisinformation on subject X and ask to unblock him to continue this collaboration", then it would be a serious argument to unblock. But I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

MVBW makes a valid point on this issue. AD has pre-baited so many genuinely AGF editors (many of whom probably don't know that this unblock is under consideration) that it's undoubtedly going to set up immediate tensions. Honestly, AD's exhaust tactics drove at least one editor to behave uncharacteristically and nearly get blocked himself. As regards mentoring, I don't think Kate has any idea of what she's volunteering herself for. I haven't come across an editor who agrees that they were doing the wrong thing and will never do it again, only to start the same disruptive behavioural patterns simultaneously on another talk page. Any gains in allowing AD to edit again will be negated by the number of editors who will step away from editing the same articles as AD or run the risk of having themselves blocked/sanctioned simply because they had enough of the tl;dr and exhaust they encountered before he was blocked. You can't undo a reputation... particularly as it is still so fresh in everyone's memory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I can support the unblock and work with Vanjagenije to supervise AD, but I can't do all the supervision myself right now. I'm still here on an intermittent basis for the next couple of weeks due to real life and I just can't predict when I'll be able to show up. I want to be clear that two of my conditions for unblock are absolutely no BLP violations and a username change. The discussions have to stop too, but I'll leave it to Vanjagenije to outline those conditions. Katie^talk 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation asked me to post his comment on AN, so I am giving the diff. This does not seem to be consistent with his edit summary here in response to notice by JzG. [91]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Since there is no admin explicitly opposing unblock, I decided to offer him a conditional unblock. I am willing to supervise his edits for some time after unblocking, and KrakatoaKatie can help. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE USERNAME? How is it okay to say that username is inappropriate? How is it wrong to have a POV? Please cite any relevant guidelines. This sounds like McCarthyism. Very unhealthy for Wikipedia. Not ok. SageRad (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comment refers to the line in AgainstDisinformation's request for unblocking where they wrote, "JzG also mentioned that my username was objectionable, and I agree to change it as soon as I am unblocked." This is what i am questioning. Behavior questions are behavior questions, but how is it wrong to have a username that professes to be "against disinformation"? SageRad (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed with another admin (Jehochman) and should not be a problem given that Againstdisinformation said himself about the username: "that was a mistake I have almost immediately regretted. I made that unfortunate choice because I was outraged..." (see discussion here). So, why did he object so strongly to changing his username right now, and why he is doing this? My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, i do not think that AgainstDisinformation did object so strongly to changing their username right now, from what i see at the two links you provided. I see the user actually willing to change their username, but wishing to be able to choose something they like, and the second choice was declined. I even commented on the user's talk page after seeing that, and seeing a misreading of the situation. I think it's really important to be accurate and to treat people with respect, and to respect that this user is a certain type of editor who appears to be standing up for representing reality on Wikipedia. What i read here about the username issue is quite telling to me:

I chose my username, an admittedly ill-advised choice, to make my purpose clear: free Wikipedia from dubious assertions that one can read in the media but which have no place in an encyclopedia. I never sought to “right great wrongs”. Instead, I have always strived to preserve Wikipedia’s neutrality and reliability. I have to stress that in all edits I made; my “POV” finally prevailed. I edited Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without encountering much opposition. However, I ran into trouble as soon as I started editing articles related to either Russia or Ukraine. I faced fierce opposition when I removed from Yulia Tymoshenko the false statement that the ECHR had recognized that she had been tortured. No one now disputes that I was right. Then in another article’s talk page (which I am not allowed to mention), I contended that we cannot use the fact that a journalist has been murdered on the birthday of a country’s ruler to insinuate that either he ordered the murder or it was a present for him. I was then accused for the first time to be paid by that country for editing. I admit that, after that, my comments were rather sarcastic and it resulted in a ban from the topic. However Drmies agreed with me and the innuendo is now removed. The last edit I made which ultimately resulted in my indefinite block was about RT (TV network). I edited away the assertion, made in a list of RT’s guests, that Nigel Farage was a “Putin’s admirer”. This started an enormous controversy on the article’s talk page which eventually led to my indefinite block. I have strictly no feeling about either Farage or Putin and it should be observed that, here too, my “POV” prevailed and “Putin’s admirer” has been removed. Drmies could confirm, having participated to the discussions about the last two articles I mention.

... and so on. This is a particular sort of user that i can identify with, and whom i think is valuable at Wikipedia but who runs up against a lot of friction from a certain other sort of Wikipedia user. In my last 8 months, i have experienced situations quite a bit like AgainstDisinformation is seeing right now, all the way up to and including an ArbCom case. It's not been fun, but i have learned a lot. There is a concept of counterwill which explains an innate resistance to a feeling of being coerced, and not wanting to submit just for submission's sake. That is the problem i have when someone uses that overused phrase here "drop the stick" -- because (1) i'm not a dog, and (2) if i were a dog, i'm not your dog. I understand reasonable requests and am 100% willing to discuss any point at length, but the exercise of control of an authority nature is not automatically to be obeyed. This is useful in human society, as it is a natural immune response to prevent rise of authoritarianism in any domain. So i am asking us to all take a few steps back, and think about this a bit differently. Hopefully my experience can ease another editor's experience. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a point, Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK has nothing to do with dogs, it has to do with beating a dead horse with the stick. -- GB fan 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad. Proudly telling that "my POV prevailed" (as a proof that "I was right") is a terrible thing. What had actually happened? Some contributors, including myself simply run away from all pages where Againstdisinformation fueled such divisive and extremely unproductive discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice the quotes around "POV" in the editor's comment. It sounds like the editor was actually removing POV bias and innuendo in the articles in question. I've not checked it out myself, to verify, but the editor's use of quotes around "POV" makes the difference. It sounds like the editor was doing some good quality fact-checking and in the end, other editors agreed the article was made better. It does not seem like the mark of a POV pusher who disregards facts, but more of an editor who has a point of view that leads them to check out some content that seem suspect, and to actually remove POV that was pushed there by others. However, i respect what you report about your experience, as well. I will look at some of the dialogue in question when i get some time. SageRad (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that he removed well-sourced and significant POVs and facts on several pages. However, he was never blocked for doing this, contrary to his statement quoted by you above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that I don't believe AD actually understands what he was blocked for, therefore why should he be unblocked as if he'd learnt some sort of behavioural problem lesson when he doesn't know what his behavioural problem is? All of his tl;dr discussions since he's been given access to his own talk page for this review are reiterations of how he's been 'vindicated'; why didn't someone tell him that the use of the images on his own talk page was inappropriate (as if it's the central focus of the block); why is everyone still persecuting me; etc. continues. I'm convinced that his brand of WP:NOTGETTINGIT is a WP:COMPETENCE problem, and that he's completely immersed in righting great wrongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, out of curiosity, i went to the Yulia Tymoshenko article and looked in the history. I found seven edits by the former "AgainstDisinformation" who is now Γνῶθι σεαυτόν : [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] and this talk page section, this one, and this one where the editor in question has commented.

I found nothing bad in the edit summaries. I find very friendly tone generally in the talk page. I find former AgainstDisinformation in this article to have behaved well, as far as i can tell. Now i only took 20 minutes to look, so i could be wrong or missing something, and the issues with this editor might be in other articles that i didn't look at, but from this brief inquiry, i have seen the editor appears to be working hard, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and actually very impressive to me for a new user. I don't see why the negative talk about them must continue. SageRad (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I must add, however, that don't know the topic area at all, so there may be subtleties i might have missed, or otherwise not see what the problem was. I was looking more at tone and manner, and whether the editor appeared to be cooperatively editing or contentious. SageRad (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Now i've again gotten curious -- what was it about this editor formerly known as "AgainstDisinformation" that so many people seem to have it out for them? I looked at this ANI case in which the user was really treated badly. Holy crap, what the hell is going on there? It looks like the user brought an issue to ANI that was really valid, and ended up getting railroaded and brought under a ban for bringing it up. The level of kangaroo court sort of stuff going on there is astounding. The user, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, brought up a serious issue about an article that had a problem of unsourced innuendo against a whole country essentially and they ended up being banned? This sounds disturbing. It's like "we'll take care of the problem" sort of language. So i go and look at the article Anna Politkovskaya and see the talk page discussion about the death and Putin's birthday and i see former AgainstDisinformation being really civil to begin with. There's an obvious problem with the article and the editor explains it well. There is this exchange:

Does anyone realize that this is libel pure and simple and that, in the extremely unlikely case Mr Putin decided to sue Wikimedia, he would very probably win in court? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this. Back to the book by Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, they mentioned this "coincidence" also in the introduction to the book as highly significant. But it probably belongs to another page, Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You see the disconnect here? AgainstDisinformation was saying -- obviously, to me -- that including this innuendo in the article is libel against Putin and then then MVBW responds by implying that AgainstDisinformation was making a legal threat against Wikipedia editors and says "One can be blocked for doing this"... the very gaping disconnect of meanings here is astounding. AgainstDisinformation then pings MVBW and explains the disconnect of understanding and asks a question to which MVBW never replies:

@My very best wishes: Where do you see a legal threat on my part? Do you think I am Mr. Putin? I am just saying that in a court of law this would be considered libel, I am not threatening any one with legal action, since I have nothing to do with the case and it would be quite impossible for me to sue (in fact, you know all this perfectly well). Now, is it honest to allege an imaginary violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats on my part in order to justify your threat of blocking me? With regard to Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, you also know that their reputation as historians is questionable as is their objectivity. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And then thankfully, Drmies comes along and applies the same common sense as AgainstDisinformation was doing, to remove the content that is conspiracy theory innuendo, and writes:

My very best wishes, I'm going to remove the phrase from this article; not from the longer one since I haven't looked at it. Any editor who wants to restore it needs to do so with an expansion of some sort in the text that explains why it is relevant. It will probably require a hell of a lot of text, so my suggestion is not to mess with it. Libel, maybe not--innuendo, that it is. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank Lute88 makes a troll accusation at AgainstDisinformation:

Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

and then again:

Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...

Anyway, what i see here is that the user formerly known as AgainstDisinformation acted with reasonable manners even when being insulted in various ways, and then appears to have been railroaded into this ban, and then forced to change username and grovel a bit to be unblocked here. That's not a good picture of justice or encouraging good editors to do good work, in my reckoning. I'm troubled by all this. It's not respectful. What's going on here? How did AgainstDisinformation get banned in the first place, and then their nose rubbed in shit as a "disciplining" measure to learn to "correct their behavior" etc... from the two articles i've looked at so far, i see the editor acting fairly well, and getting railroaded and banned. What's going on at Wikipedia? Why does it feel so contentious? I don't think this editor brought the trouble. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Need help addressing patterns of harassment

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

---

I need help addressing patterns of harassment and abuse by a few editors over the past 8 months while i've been editing.

I would like to know how to take action against certain people who have been consistently abusive despite letting them know that their behavior is unacceptable, time after time, over the course of months, and they continue to engage in mocking, name-calling, distortion of dialogue to try to make me appear a fool, and the like sort of thing. Abusive behavior and even verging on gaslighting tactics. Abusive psychological tactics that are attempts to wear down the psyche of the recipient.

How can i bring this to action and get people who show consistent, uncorrectable abusive behavior banned from the editing environment?

Thank you for any help. I have read various recommendations, like posting at their talk page and the like, and trying to explain why i think their behavior is inappropriate, harmful, and not conducive to a good editing environment. It has been of no avail, and the behaviors continue. Thank you for any help on the process of how to address continuing abusive and harassing behaviors by editors. Thank you.

I will be away from the computer for a couple days but i needed to ask this question to get the best advice possible, in general terms. When i see what options there may be, then i would get more specific and take the time to document behaviors.

Thank you.

SageRad 02:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the final authority concerning conduct is ArbCom, not AN. Your case is already pending, almost decided, by ArbCom. I haven't read all of the details, so I don't know to what extent you made the case that certain editors have engaged in the horrible behavior that you identify above. I do know that, of all of the editors who are parties to the current ArbCom case, you are the one who has the strongest consensus that you are being disruptive. Are you posting here to try to get the community to override ArbCom, or are you just engaging in your frequent pattern of raging?

Second, I have seen that you are an extremely combative editor who, at the same time, demands to be treated with great respect, and treats advice as threats, but, at the same time, will not extend the same respect to other editors. I first advised you on 9 June 2015 to pause and reconsider, that your campaign of raging against editors whom you dislike was likely to get you topic-banned or even banned. You referred to advice and warnings as "punches in the face" to you, while being perfectly willing to rage about other editors. It may be that you are right that Wikipedia is a deeply corrupt place, and that everyone else is wrong. If so, it isn't clear what you expect to gain by continuing to antagonize us. You didn't heed the caution that continued battleground editing could get you topic-banned or banned, and you are in the process of being topic-banned.

Third, take this to User talk: Jimbo Wales or to a Bit-bucket.

Fourth, it isn't clear what you are trying to accomplish with this post.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is a legitimate concern (although I have my doubts), some diffs of this alleged harassment would really help. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And if this is related to the GMO case, the thread should be closed down, pronto. BMK (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is related to the GMO case. That is what User:SageRad has been focused on. What else would it be related to? Either he is trying to get the community to intervene to override the ArbCom, or he is just engaging in his usual pattern of raging that everyone who is not with him is acting in bad faith. Even if the community had the power to override the ArbCom (which is does not, because it has delegated ultimate enforcement power to ArbCom), it isn't clear why he expects any community support, when he has alienated much of the community by treating anyone who has tried to caution him as an enemy. Of course it is about the GMO case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Absolutely inappropriate response here. Not the way to help someone who is calling out for help from abusive behaviors. Just wow. Wow. We need an anti bullying task force. This place is being ruled by bullies. SageRad (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Another exact example in kind. There you go. The type of behavior that needs to lead to sanctions. There is a huge problem on Wikipedia of bad dialogue and behavior. We effectively need a revolution here. We need a revolution of integrity. This is a very bad environment in which to discuss the world's knowledge and that's a serious problem. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sage, but you are not exempted from our behavioural Policy. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm clearly not asking to be exempted from Wikipedia behavioral policies, and i don't see where you get that notion from. I'm asking for Wikipedia behavioral policies to be enforced in a fair and balanced way, without regard to the POV of any particular editor. I am asking for the methods by which an editor who is concerned or affected by bullying behaviors or WP:IDHT or other sorts of bad behavior can seek remedy. Wouldn't you suppose there is a clear answer to this? I've read the guidelines at WP:CIVIL and i've seen the steps recommended for dealing with problem behavior. Can you see that posting a comment that is a link to the Dunning-Kruger effect would be uncivil here? That is a disparaging remark that basically says "You think you know something but you're actually too stupid to know how stupid you are..." isn't it? Otherwise, what is the semiotic import of your comment above? SageRad (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen SageRad's talk page, and he does have a point about editors who keep posting there, telling him what they don't like, even after he has asked them to lighten up. My suggestions, in response to the opening question, would be to just not engage. You can read and delete what they post on your talk page. If someone makes a useful comment, then reply and make use of it. But if it's not useful, delete and move on. And don't go back to their user talk pages. Just steer clear. But if you do need to make a complaint, back it up with diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to brush it off, but i see it being a problem for other editors, including newcomers, who stand up for content based on guidelines, and then get blocked and accused of edit warring and misrepresented and subject to WP:IDHT behavior, and the like, and sometimes it's the same editors who do this time and again, and who continue to do it. I think that we could improve the editing environment if we actually enforced standard of civility. The guidelines re well-written. I wish we would apply them consistently. We need to enforce WP:BULLY. That would help. SageRad (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Me, I'm going to stick around until the ArbCom case closes, and then I'm probably never going to edit anywhere near to GMOs again. It will be someone else's problem, and I'm not optimistic. But, given where you stand in that ArbCom case, my advice would be to focus on your own well-being, rather than on trying to protect new editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Why don't you just ask editors who are antagonizing you that they are not welcome to post on your talk page? If they don't respect your request, they can be warned and might even be blocked if they continue.

Because it's not just about my talk page. It's about bullying behaviors everywhere, especially in article talk pages. SageRad (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally, when I see people talking about me on talk pages and not pinging me, inviting me to participate, I just read what they say and then ignore them. A lot of getting along with people is knowing when to stand up for yourself and when to not take things personally. You have to choose which issues/actions you want to take on and, for me, petty remarks don't rank very high on my list of conduct on Wikipedia to get upset about. I don't like it but I doubt there is a single editor here who doesn't dislike some aspect of editing on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish there to be a friendly editing environment for everyone, everywhere, so that people don't feel excluded from any topic areas. SageRad (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Call for close. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision#SageRad topic banned SageRad is well on his way to a topic ban, and at least one arb thinks a site ban might be a better choice. On the other hand, many (all?) of the individuals SageRad is complaining about are facing major sanctions in the same case, so I would suggest closing this and waiting to see if arbcom solves the problems described. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, certainly not "many" and certainly not "all" editors who are a problem in terms of bullying behavior are under consideration for sanctions in the ArbCom case, but what i am "complaining" about is not individuals, but a behavior that makes for a negative editing environment. SageRad (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sage, you're dealing with people whose skin has turned white from never seeing the sun. And if they could, they would upload their minds on to the Internet without thinking twice. They just don't have the human social skills you expect them to have, and that's why you feel disrespected and attacked. Complaining about this is like yelling about the sun being hot and water being wet. It's even worse with newer generations, as they all but stopped talking and reading. Welcome to the machine, my son. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I just love your welcoming, collaborative attitude. That is what SageRad was looking for, not editors taking potshots at others. I guess you missed his/her point about wanting Wikipedia to be a more friendly environment towards all editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept...a Utopian Wikipedia. Atsme^📞📧 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Puzzlement

I am somewhat puzzled as to what User:SageRad is asking of the community here, unless it is to override the ArbCom (which isn't the way the community and the ArbCom work). If the bullying of which SageRad is complaining has to do with genetically modified organisms, which it probably does, then that was within the scope of the ArbCom case. I just looked at the ArbCom case, and I see that SageRad did not present evidence and did not offer a workshop proposal. SageRad is now on the way to a topic-ban, and one arbitrator has mentioned a site-ban. Having failed to use that forum, maybe SageRad is now forumshopping, or maybe just raging. Wikipedia does have a few editors who habitually complain of bullying. Occasionally there is bullying, but more often there is a perception of bullying by combative editors. In any case, SageRad failed to present the case about bullying at ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My advice to SageRad is to withdraw this thread so as to avoid the boomerang, because if SageRad continues complaining, I will propose a boomerang site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, none of these things are what i am doing here. I was asking for the best advice of the community about how to deal with behaviors that i've seen and also been part of, that the more i think about it feel like bullying. I've seen this around, happening to some other editors, and when i step in for a moment and advocate on behalf of the person who appears to be being bullied, it comes as a good relief to them, and often helps to untie the knot. I would offer that bullying is a complex set of behaviors, and it's rather subjective though there are some strong common themes. It's a sort of intimidation, knocking-down of self-esteem, trying to make the person think they don't know what's right or what's real, or that they don't know how Wikipedia works, and some sorts of veiled threats, chilling language, repeated insertions of non-helpful dialogue that seems only to be meant to mock or denigrate... this sort of thing. It's not a single incident, and often bullies have a talent for making it rather hard to detect by outside people, but only felt by the recipient or very observant outsiders. Similar things happen in abusive relationships with partners. I see some of these dynamics in Wikipedia and i was wondering how it's best dealt with.

I would suggest that i'm not "complaining" (a word you used three times) for that is a loaded word for speaking what i have to say. I would also suggest that the existence of ArbCom or my status there is not relevant to this question here. I am not forum shopping, either. I'm seriously here to ask this question that i asked, and anything else is imputing motives to me that are not here. I would also suggest that mentioning of boomerangs is a chilling sort of thing to say when someone is asking for advice about a sensitive thing. I have the strength to stand through these aspects of your comment, but some might not, if they come asking for help in a case of bullying.

Lastly, i suggest that your comment about "perception of bullying" not being bullying is complex. In one sense, some people could be more sensitive than others. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, or make mild abusive behavior any more allowable. In another sense, bullying is indeed all about perception and that's how some people do intentionally play it out. Some people are very skilled at knowing their victim, and making remarks that they know will cause pain in their victim and yet will be mostly undetected by others who might bring consequences to themselves.

I would like to keep this section active for at least 12 more hours or so and then probably would close it. So far, i think that i have gotten an answer, which is that this noticeboard, at least today, didn't have much to offer in regard to how to deal with editors who are felt to be bullying or abusive in their behavior in subtle but long-term ways. In fact, it led to people saying that i was "complaining" and saying that i was probably wrong and making things up, and even more abusive comments such as that one about Dunning–Kruger effect. That's really the opposite of what i would hope for. It would be better if nobody had answered at all, than the negative things that were said.

I understand that i did not bring any specific case here, because i wanted to ask about general principles and practices. It might be different if there were a specific case, but i hoped that there would be some friendly and helpful advice. Given what i have felt upon asking about general methods and thoughts, do you think i ought to feel comfortable coming here for resolution to any specific cases?

In fact, the more i think about it, you have actually said, in so many words here, that if i don't shut up, you will try to site-ban me, I think that is what i hear.

As this is the Administrator's Noticeboard already, where would i go if i had an issue to resolve about that? SageRad (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure Request

The OP has taken this to Village pump (idea lab), a better place for the discussion. Will an uninvolved administrator please close this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

admin run amok

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

Too many frivolous complaints. IP, please find some other form of amusement besides disrupting Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Deleted Talk:Main Page/Archive 25 some time ago and never restored it. Please block him and remove his rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Or perhaps we could just ask him about it [99]? Not nearly as melodramatic, of course, but likely to resolve the problem. NE Ent 15:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You has no brains. Main Page/Archive 25 was deleted by him legitimately but he also deleted its talk page in the process, showing his sheer incompetence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like when he (correctly) deleted the page he also deleted the talk page. Simple mistake – I restored it for you. Prodego ^talk 15:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: and if ye didnt notice, his talk page is protected. How could i have just asked him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Log into whatever account you are block-evading from. GiantSnowman 15:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ich did not notice, it has has no pp template; another valid point, which I have asked him about. Incidentally, WP:CIR is for editors, WP:NOTPERFECT is the standard for admins. NE Ent 15:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty easy to do. On pages in namespaces other than the user namespace, if you delete the page and it has an existing talk page, you get a big red warning telling you about it. You can see it at MediaWiki:Deletedtext. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

he blocked KawaiiCheese^-^ and said on her talk page that "You have been blocked temporarily" but if you look at block log, you'll find he was blocked permanently, this shows Bradbury as a blatant liar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He used the wrong block template, big whoop, easily done. GiantSnowman 15:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the other hand are not honest mistakes. Please refrain from name calling and unsubstantiated accusations if you want to participate in Wikipedia 103.6.159.75. We also don't think much of axe grinding. HighInBC 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

sorry, i dont believe in wiki-lawyering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Refraining from incivility is called "wiki-lawyering" now? LjL (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And what's with these two streaks of U5 deletions? Given the narrow scope of CSD U5, i doubt if the deletions are really valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.75 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, checking out one of them leads me to think those are likely legit.NE Ent 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Anonymous vandalism in the article Automotive industry in the Soviet Union

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

---

Recently, I improved the article with new and sourced information, new models, higher resolution photos in accordance with WP:CARPIX (most of them are of the highest quality and the cars depicted are in excellent condition, the majority of them being in possession of museums or private collections) and wrote entire paragraphs about the history of automotive industry in Czarist Russia, but some vandal 37.55.206.58 (Pashko), who hasn't contributed anything to the article, is making attempts to remove all the edits, delete all my text and sources as well as a number of models that I have added (including the original export models that were sold in Europe) and change some of the photos to those of battered, dirty or ugly-looking cars (e.g. this high-quality photo of a Riva estate/VAZ-2104 [100] was changed to [101]. Another excellent photo [102] was replaced with a 3D image [103], etc.). As I'm going to improve the article even further and provide more information and sources, I need you to take measures against his anonymous vandalism.

Here is an example of how 37.55.206.58 (Pashko) deleted my entire text with all the references: [104] Eriba-Marduk (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This user Eriba-Marduk simply deleted images and information that I added, used images which do not match the models in the description, refers to unreliable sources and so on [105]. So I hope you will stop this vandalism. Pashko (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2015

Stop lying and repeating my own words to the Administration, it is a futile effort. I referred to articles and books such as Kelly, M. A. Russian Motor Vehicles: The Czarist Period 1784 to 1917. Veloce Publishing, Poundbury, 2009, added information and photos related to the automotive industry of the Russian Empire, yet you have deleted virtually everything without saying a word on the Talk page. That is defined as vandalism here and won't be left unnoticed. All the photos that I have posted are of real cars, mostly export versions, which can be found in museums and private collections alike. Every photo does match the description, most of them are almost completely identical to old Avtoexport Ads & Commercials. For example, this is an export version of the VAZ-2106/Lada-1600 as depicted in an old advertisement: [106] (for other Soviet-era photos of the same car, see: [107]). And this is the photo of the Lada-1600 that I have published in the article and that you've been trying to remove: [108]. Needless to say, the car on my photo is identical to the previous one; it was built in 1978 and hasn't been customised since then. My photo of the VAZ-2110/Lada-110 [109], which you have also removed, shows a Lada-110 being featured at the auto show in Geneva, 2005, right next to official AvtoVAZ representatives, and something is telling me that they knew for sure whether their product matched its own description or not. The GAZ-GL1 was built in 1938 and 1940 as a sports car based on the GAZ-M1 chassis, set a speed record in 1940 and was a notable car both for GAZ and the Soviet automobile industry in general, therefore it should be mentioned in the text. [110].

That said, I urge you not to damage the article anymore. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't konow where can I reply. I need to protect myself from untruthful and arrogant words of this user Eriba-Marduk. Even if you refer to this "reliable" source [111] you can see that only 3 (!) prototypes were produced. In this case anyone can add any prototype produced in the Soviet or post-Soviet time. At the same time you deleted GAZ-61 [112] produced in 1940-1945. Images you added do not match the models in the description. Example this cabrio version of ZiS-110B [113] do not match limousine version [114] and years of production differ. Same with export models of Lada vehicles vs. domestic market models produced in different years. Pashko (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2015

I have already replied to all this on your talk page. Do not modify closed discussions. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:SNOW close request

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

---

We've got an article essentially ready to go for WP:ITN, but it's also got an active AFD, can we get someone to WP:SNOW close the afd so we can proceed with getting it on the main page? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Thanks! --Jayron32 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting review of block on 173.66.63.102

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

---

(moved from ANI)

I'm requesting additional editors to review my block of 173.66.63.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is my second block of the user. After the first block, I tried explaining policies and guidelines. Either I was not clear, or they were incapable of understanding. They eventually asked me to leave their talk page, which I did - with the stipulation that should they continue the disruption I would block them again; although I'll leave it to someone else to notify the IP of this ANI discussion.

At this point, they are claiming I am involved and biased - which is why I'm requesting a review of the current block.

The dispute is related to WP:BLPNAME, WP:CONSENSUS, as well as a liberal dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The user has since blanked their talk page; but the discussion can be found in the history of user talk:173.66.63.102, as well as in the discussion at Talk:Michael Ealy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I notified them. Made no comment on the unblock request but IDIDNTHEARTHAT does seem to apply. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block. Honestly, you guys over at Michael Ealy have been more patient with this IP than I probably would have been. WP:BLPNAME is pretty clear that including the names of minor, non-notable family members should be strongly discouraged, and ignoring both policy and the consensus of about half-a-dozen other editors on this is clearly disruptive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good Block Multiple comments made to this IP editor on his and on article talk-page are correct and explicit. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so sure, Barek refers to consensus on the talk page of Michael Ealy, but there appears to be no consensus on that talk page at all prior to his comment. I'm aware of BLPName, and I'm aware it states that caution should be used when mentioning the names of star's children. Typically, it's been used to keep them out if there's nothing notable about them. I'm also aware it's decided (usually) on a case-by-case basis, that being the case, I don't see a consensus prior to Barke's post, I've checked the page over from beginning to end , and see no archives where a consensus existed, so honestly, the IP's addition should have been discussed, consensus reached, then if the consensus was against him, by all means, block him. KoshVorlon 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the article talk page was started after the IP's sixth edit to the article. Two edits later, they were up to eight attempts to add variations on the same material, the last four of which were within 24 hour period, and all having been reverted by seven different editors. In addition to the article talk page, the edits were also discussed on the IP's talk page and the talk page of some of those who reverted. -- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• A reasonable response to the situation. HighInBC 15:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Block reasonable Admin concerned clear and incisive. Well done! -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hear, hear. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

False, disparaging claims by Admin Kudpung

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

---

In answer to question 7 on his ACE questions page [115] Kudpung has stated that "I'm not especially quick on the trigger and I don't recall being among the dozen or so different admins who have blocked you, for example." This is hardly surprising since I have a clean block log.

I would like an apology (not a simple refactoring) of equal prominence. I am asking for it here as I am unable to communicate directly with @Kudpung:, having been asked some years ago to avoid his talk page. Leaky Caldron 07:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. Sorry, but with so many lies and disparaging comments being made about me in an attempt to completely abuse the purpose of the ACE question page, it was meant for someone else. I'll remove it of course. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudpung:, I asked for an apology of equal prominence. That means apologizing on that page. Please remember, it is not "your" page and amendments to it should follow appropriate guidelines. Thanks. You inference above that I am involved in lies and disparaging comments being made about you in an attempt to completely abuse the purpose of the ACE question page is another work of fiction, otherwise why mention it here in reference to my simple request for you to correct your error? Please do not conflate the pressure you are feeling with your gratuitous lack of research. Leaky Caldron 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I am concerned this section can now be hatted. Leaky Caldron 08:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

For some reason when I scroll past the thread above, I keep reading it as "Adm. [i.e. Admiral] Kudpung". BMK (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not canvassing per the definition, but pretty darn close

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

---

I wanted to bring this to the attention of the admins, [|note the message on the top of the page ]. It's not canvassing per the definition, but it's definetly not neutral and more than suggests how people should vote. I didn't touch it, and won't as I've gotten heat for it in the past, but just thought I'd bring it to the attention of the admins (especially since it concerns the arb elections! ). KoshVorlon 14:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We have candidate guides which tell people how to vote. How is this any different? jps (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost every official ACE page links to a couple of dozen candidate guides that explicitly tell people how they should vote, person by person. Someone choosing to make their userpage in to a statement temporarily seems quite less like canvassing than the tons of guides that we explicitly allow and link from dozens and dozens of pages. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even remotely close to canvassing, actually. I disagree with the sentiment - I think the community is getting the ArbCom it deserves - but TRPOD has the right to express his opinions. And what he has in the header of his talk page is no worse than what you have as the header of your user page. Also, I will notify TRPOD of this discussion, since you ignored the instructions to do so. Resolute 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

.... and I will remove that banner on the top of my page if any requests I do so. KoshVorlon 15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't ask you to do so, but perhaps you could research the difference between "effected" and "affected". Jonathunder (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenge closure on Climate change denial talk page

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

---

[Initially I placed this challenge on WP:ANI instead of WP:AN. User:Softlavender objected that was the wrong venue, so I let it expire on WP:ANI and I copied the thread's posts from the WP:ANI archive to here, as far as the post by Viriditas dated 10:03, 13 November 2015.] Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures. I claim there is a problem with the close by User:Jess of the RFC on the Climate change denial talk page at Redirects to this page. My grounds are: Jess is "inextricably involved". Jess started the RFC here with non-neutral wording about redirecting to denial, and supported redirecting to denial here, and so it's no surprise that Jess closed with the comment "Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial." I discussed this with Jess, see here, here, here, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You are challenging a close of an RfC that had a ratio of two to one. What point would there be undoing the close and then having someone else reclose with the exact same result? I happen to be one of those editors who think "denier" is about as wrong as letting anti-abortion groups call their opponents "anti-life" but a clear consensus is a clear consensus whether or not you and I happen to disagree with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course we're here... Earlier this year, climate change denial was expanded to cover "climate change skepticism" explicitly, and the relevant redirects were fixed. Reverts ensued, and discussion started at Talk:Climate change skeptic and a few other talk pages. Peter apparently wants the redirects pointed to an article which treats the topic more favorably (by not discussing it in detail), see edit summary. Peter refused to engage substantively in discussion (e.g.), but refused to let the redirects be changed ([116]). The dispute went to AE twice ([117], [118]), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly ([119], [120], [121], [122]...), and adjusted the wording based on input ([123]). Pete objected to the RfC, claiming we should instead go back to the stalled discussion he had refused to answer questions in. When the RfC expired, and no new comments had been generated for days, consensus appeared to me to be exceptionally clear, so I implemented the changes and archived the RfC, noting that formal closure was likely not necessary ([124]). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary ([125]). He didn't, and brought it here instead. I'm tired of this... I think enough editor time has been wasted on this nonsense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Note, I will be away from a computer for an EMT exam for at least the next several hours.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do have somewhat of a problem, in that User:Peter Gulutzan seems determined to refuse accept the community consensus and continue to engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. After it was clear consensus was not behind Peter Gulutzan's position at the second CFD in a two days, he subsequently posted to WP:BLPN trying to circumvent the proper community process of category discussion. Now he has forum-shopped to here. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is a proper noticeboard for discussions concerning certain types of categorization of living persons. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not the place to object of the existence of a category because you dispute the outcome of two CFD's. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Peter received a routine CC DS last March.[126] It is unclear to me if he has breached the DS or not, but if he has, he should be blocked. He's been at this for three years now. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Update, based on Jess' comments up above, it looks like a block is needed per DS. Three years of disruption is long enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gobsmacked While there's nothing wrong with an involved editor starting an RfC to resolve a difficult question, is it really acceptable for that editor to close the RfC with her preferred outcome? And then someone who thinks this isn't quite right is threatened with a block? When I went out for a couple hours, did I return to Bizarro-pedia?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you are a neutral admin on this issue, but you do appear to have been at it longer than Peter.[127] Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. Why the snide comments? What do they have to do with anything? Have I called you names?--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a claim upthread that the support had a ratio of "two to one".

I count 20 editors with a bolded position. 12 expressed Support while 8 did not. That is not remotely a 2-1 margin. It means, if as few as two of those expressing support were changed to Oppose, we'd we talking 50-50. I don't know that any of those weighing in were on the fence, I am simply point out that it is closer that " two to one". I also suggested, that one editor who !voted with the simple explanation per WP:ASTONISH should be viewed as an oppose, because I think that point is better evidence for Oppose than for Support. I wouldn't literally do that if I were closing, as I know the editor, and I know their position, but if it were removed, becasue their explanation isn't consistent with their !vote, we'd be much closer to a push, which would mean you ought to have a responsible, experienced closer weighing the arguments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that we count all the editors who didn't !vote as opposing (even though they didn't), and then switch one of the supports to an oppose against that editor's wishes because in your opinion it fits better... and then assess consensus based on vote counting... and if we do all that, we end up with something that's not quite as skewed. If you really think an uninvolved editor would assess consensus that way, I guess you could have requested a formal closure. In reality, the support votes actually do outnumber the oppose votes by 2:1, and this proposal perfectly elucidates why the current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my suggestion. Try rereading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

...current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. On this point, we are in complete agreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I just rechecked my count. 12 support, 6 oppose. Does anyone other than Sphilbrick get a different count? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take the lack of response as a "no". The count is 12 support, 6 oppose -- a 2:1 ratio. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Folks who want to spread tales about me should start their own threads in more appropriate places. I'll only reply to statements that were made about the topic, a challenge of Jess's close. (A) Jess has said that the close was not "formal". I thought that "formal" meant going through the formalities with the templates for marking a closed discussion ("The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" etc.). I'll leave it to an expert to decide whether Jess is right and whether it matters. (B) Jess has said that I should have asked for a close myself rather than challenging. That's impossible since Jess had aleady closed and refused to re-open by self-reverting, and in any case I am not the person who wanted a close, I was happy to let it peter out. (C) There has been no dispute that Jess is an involved editor, and no dispute that that's a criterion for a legitimate challenge according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (D) Discussion of this matter had already taken place on Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages. There was no consensus. Jess decided that wasn't good enough so made this second discussion, "starting fresh". But it's possible a conscientious closer would have realized that it's the same topic and so must be taken into account, which would mean that the policy-related objections there would have been observed. By the way, by counting the editors there as well as the editors on Jess's thread, and counting editors who called for dismissal as well as editors who opposed, I get 14 versus 9 -- but admit that the strongest objector has been topic banned now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't allowed to fabricate pretend votes from another discussion and apply them to an RfC as if they were RfC !votes, any more than Sphilbrick gets to turn clearly labeled support !votes to oppose !votes because he doesn't agree with the rationale. The count is 12 support, 6 oppose. The consensus is support, by a 2:1 ratio, no more, no less. The close is valid, no matter who made the close, because anyone else would have made the exact same call. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

S Philbrick's counting method is more reasonable than Guy Macon's -- editors who said this RFC should be dismissed / is improper are against the RFC's motion, and anyway the exact formal word "opposed" was not one of the options (Jess changed the RFC's wording after those comments had been made). As for my method, I counted as not in favour of changing the redirect: Ssscienccce Markbassett Philbrick Morphh JaykeBird Gulutzan Capitalismojo Connolley Tillman (9), tell me which of these is supposedly fabricated and I will supply a diff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice fantasy world you created; it would be a shame if something might happen to it, such as reality intruding into it for just a bit. Let's see, Tillman was indefinitely banned from the CC topic in August, yet you feel his opinion from before that ban should apply to an RfC held in October. Are you feeling okay? You are way over the edge here. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support climate change topic ban for Peter Gulutzan based on the above nonsense (whether rooted in incompetence or deliberate disruption) that is incompatible with editing Wikipedia. I would support it for Sphilbrick as well but since the community elected him as an admin, he's automatically immune and exempt from all policies that regular editors must follow. Some editors are more equal than others. Oink. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Peter Gulutzan is right, if you start an RFC you should never be the one to close it, that's just common sense. KoshVorlon 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • KoshVorlon, you appear to lack common sense as you are spectacularly wrong in your assessment. As the thread above shows in clear language and with demonstrable diffs, Jess did not "close" the RFC as you claim. It was appropriately closed by Legobot.[128] It was then subsequently archived by Jess since discussion had concluded a week prior to the closing.[129]. Now, it's possible you aren't aware of Peter's continuing disruption in this topic area, but your comment here is not helpful. The problem here is unambiguously Peter, and I suggest you read closer in the future. Jess handled the RFC in the appropriate manner. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Legobot's "close" was standard removal of expired RFC tags by a bot, so that's not closing it. But this edit is making a declaration on the result of the RFC by a person involved, which is still a problem. An uninvolved admin should have asked to review the expired RFC to make a decision what the result was before archiving and claiming the matter was put to rest. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      • There was a clear an unambiguous consensus and Peter was even given the opportunity to request a formal close which he refused to do. This has been going on for years. For you and others to continue to allow editors like Peter to disrupt the topic area is exactly the kind of problem we have to deal with across the board. Admins need to put a stop to this disruption when it occurs, not allow it to fester for years. Peter was given every opportunity to participate in the process and consensus was against him. Jess' so-called "involvement" here is not the problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kosh: Even a 12-6 s/o !vote count, that's nowhere near SNOW territory to enable the starting RFC petitioner to make the decision on its closure (outside of withdrawing it). This is not a judgement of whether it is the correct read, and given a similar issue that has recently been discussed around the category of "climate change deniers"/"climate change skeptics" where there was a significant swing of opinion when outside voices of those involved in climate change articles got involved, there might be need to re-evalute the RFC in that light, which does require an uninvolved admin regardless. Peter seems in the right to bring the issue up. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas Actually, Jess | did close the rfc. Please don't comment on the contributors. KoshVorlon 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The RFC closed automatically when Legobot delisted it. Jess archived it soon after since discussion had died down almost a week before the RFC shutdown. As for summarizing consensus, Jess already addressed this on November 10 (and the diff is located at the beginning of this discussion):

See WP:RfC. To quote: "If...consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable...Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." It is urged not to formally close in most circumstances, and consensus appears to be clear to everyone involved. Do you honestly believe the discussion would have been closed differently by another editor? You can request formal closure if you do, but it would be contrary to our guidelines and a waste of time for everyone involved.

Peter will not accept this close because he is engaging in POV pushing and is attempting to disrupt the climate change topic area. That's why I recommend enforcing DS and removing Peter from this area just like his friend Tillman was removed earlier this year. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are no formal policies or guidelines for closing discussions. Contrary to Masem's comment above, closures do not require an uninvolved admin. If that were the case, I'd be happy to overturn and re-close, but that just seems silly if the reading of the obvious consensus is going to be exactly the same. The relevant information pages that describe the communal consensus tell us that contentious discussions may be closed by any uninvolved editor and should not be closed by someone who is involved. However, they also tell us that formal closures are usually not necessary at all, particularly when the consensus is obvious. The overarching principle of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is always in play as well. It may be procedurally improper to perform an involved closure, but if a consensus is obvious, it should not generate drama or controversy on procedural grounds alone and closes should be challenged when the interpretation of consensus is in dispute, not for mere procedural concerns that do not affect what the community's consensus actually is. Some of the above comments are astonishing to me. The most an involved closure of a stale RfC with an obvious consensus should warrant is a minor trout. This close challenge is frivolous and a waste of time, begging for a boomerang. Swarm ♠ 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that Masem said that in general closures require an uninvolved admin, merely that this one should. I believe the matter is contentious and I do not believe the consensus is obvious to all participants and I believe Jess closed formally or equivalent, as I said in (A) (B) (C) (D) above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Though not actually required , it is in my personal opinion much better practice for contentious afcs, especially in areas as contentious as this, be closed by an uninvolved admin. A sufficiently practical reason is that they are much less likely to be challenged. When a non-admin does it, it opens up another usually unjustified area to continue the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Using the archive templates with a summary on RFC's is what is generally considered formal closure; legobot removing the RFC notice is not a closure because it's just an automated thing that happens after 30 days (the RFC isn't necessarily closed, discussion can and often does continue! It's just 30 days is usually a good number).
• Most RFC's don't need a formal close, this one is in a grey area because of the contentiousness of it. Editors involved in the discussion should be able to agree what the consensus is (after all, that's the point).
• In this case consensus was fairly clear, so the close per-se was not a problem IMO. In this topic area it's definitely worth closing things off with a summary to be on the safe side.
• Similarly disputing the close (by bringing it here) was fine per policy, and it is fine for RFC decisions to be reviewed under the formal process if editors think it needs to be
• In this case; Jess' close is accurate and reflects consensus (although: both sides should consider using sources and policy to back up arguments better in future). I have added an endorsement on the page. Although I recommend to Jess that in future she considers getting an uninvolved close to ensure that there is no dispute.
• There has been a lot of sniping in this thread, especially from Viriditas and S Philbrick. I'm aware that this is a deeply contentious area, and I am not fully aware of your history in the topic sector or together, but it's not been helpful.

Cheers. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We're still at this? Thanks, ErrantX for posting to the article talk page, because it allowed me to work out this conversation was even taking place. Peter didn't notify me he'd copied my posts here, even after he continued discussing me. A couple things: as other editors seem to have worked out, my intention was to archive a stale discussion, not "close" it; half the comment I left explains that. I chose to leave a comment to wrap things up and explain what I was doing, and when Peter objected, I told him I wouldn't stop him from requesting formal closure. Of course, Peter doesn't want anyone else to close it either, because he knows consensus opposes him. He just wants to forum shop until he finds some procedural issue that will give him another chance to kill the redirects, and hide an article he doesn't like. We have wasted SO much time on this, it's mind-boggling. Comments at ANI were clear, but as soon as someone gave Peter the the idea to post about this again somewhere else, now we're all talking about it again. Terrific.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In the future, follow Errant X suggestion, just undo your involved 'close' (it looks like a close and there is no doubt you are involved) and you request an uninvolved close - that would have put this all behind you - done and done. Thanks to Errant X for doing the work - there is little to be gained by arguing about whether an uninvolved close would be different, just get it done in accord with best practice. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I gave advance notice to everyone on the WP:ANI thread, and assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the double-square-bracketed mention of User:Jess at the start of this thread would cause a notification. I'm sorry that wasn't good enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your ping failed here for several reasons explained here. As far as I can tell, you copied and pasted an old ping with an old sig instead of adding a new ping with a new sig, in addition to other problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, thank you. This means that the extra notification failed as well for User:Guy Macon, User:AusLondonder, User:Collect, User:Sphilbrick. The comments from Errant end the challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jess: to be clear I am not suggesting you necessarily realised the impact of putting the archive templates around an RFC. But convention has (for years) been fairly clear on what that means, especially if you add a comment as well. Honestly, given how the topic is in terms of contentiousness.. well, sometimes doing things explicitly by the book is the fastest way to an easy life without dispute. Even if discussions are pointy or out of process or, well, whatever, you are protected by a strict adherence to process (eventually it provides no grounds for these procedural issues you mention). No stance on the alleged forum-shopping; but at AN/I an admin should have just taken a minute to do what I did and put this to rest.... To Peter; you can use Template:Ping to notify users - square brackets does not notify. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:ErrantX, according to Wikipedia:Notifications, using square brackets around a user name triggers a mention notification. Did you receive the one I just sent you? Of course, if you don't sign properly, it won't work. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@ErrantX: I see that I was accused of improper behavior by you, but not notified. Do you consider that acceptable? I'm only here because @Peter Gulutzan: was polite enough to ping me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: I think you should blame me alone for the way notification was mishandled. However, I do think Errant may have misread your remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't you. I do realize you attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact some editors, including me, but User:ErrantX made a charge against me, without informing me. That is exceedingly rude, even if the charge was true, but I dispute the charge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

1. The RfC close is endorsed as the only possible reading of the debate.
2. Jess is slapped with the Wikitrout for closing a contentious RfC as an involved editor, which everybody who has been here more than a week will realise is likely to stir up precisely this kind of shitstorm.

Support

1. As proposer. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Octopus

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

Rescinding unused community sanctions: WP:GS/MMA

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

---

The "mixed martial arts" community discretionary sanctions have not been enforced for nearly three years, the last enforcement action having taken place in January 2013. The last notification was issued on 30 October 2014, more than a year ago. It is quite clear that these sanctions are not needed, and I believe that most in the community would agree that sanctions such as these should only remain in place if they are needed. Therefore, I propose that the authorisation for these sanctions be revoked by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 07:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support with no prejudice to re-imposing if problems resume. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Support; unused sanctions are comparatively easy to misuse for gotcha purposes. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't frequent these pages, but occasionally come across them as a Pending Changes Reviewer, and I've seen enough questionable (i.e. vandalism-type) edits on these kinds of articles that I am somewhat concerned at the idea of rolling back the sanctions. But I'm no expert... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't do anything to combat vandalism or one-off IP edits. They exist to counter disruptive editing by established editors. I do not see how retaining sanctions that have not been enforced since January 2013 will help to combat any kind of vandalism you've noticed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support There was a period when not a week went by that MMA wasn't a topic on ANI. It looks like the threat of discretionary sanctions being handed down quieted things significantly. On a side note, although there are no active sanctions for MMA, I would propose that a caveat be introduced to future discussions about vacating discretionary sanctions in other areas. By community agreement, discretionary sanctions are vacated for X topic area. However, any active sanctions will remain in force until their expiration date or successfully appealed. Alternatively, the community could see fit to repeal all active sanctions if it feels that sufficient time has elapsed. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support We're not using it, therefore we don't need it. Rescind it.KoshVorlon 12:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Admin close out requested

Can we have an admin close this out as suppoprted, there are no opposers and no one else has commented since 11/23/2015. KoshVorlon 14:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

New rangeblock request for 31.176 (blocked last time but now returned)

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

---

After a report (can be seen in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Rangeblock request for 31.176) on 15 October 2015, the IP range 31.176.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses) was blocked. Now the same editor is back with really bad behaviour like this edit adding teams of their choice, which leads to frustrated reverts from different users. For that reason I would like to request a new rangeblock. Qed237 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31.176.128.0/18 for one month.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Community Wishlist Survey: publicity

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

---

Along with the ArbCom elections, another poll is now running. This one is a Wikimedia poll to select areas of work that the WM developers will prioritise. Arguably the outcome of this is more significant to most editors than the ArbCom results, so how about a watchlist notice and an entry on Cent?: Noyster (talk), 09:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sam Walton (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Fixing problems caused by use of sandboxes to make multiple articles

Dear editors: Sometimes a new user writes a draft article in his/her sandbox and submits it at AfC. If it's acceptable, a reviewer will move it to mainspace; if it's a notable topic but needs work, an reviewer will move it to Draft space. In either case, a redirect remains in the sandbox so that the user can find the moved page.

The problem comes when the same user decides to repeat the process and make a new draft in the sandbox, overwriting the redirect. In that case, the redirect by the reviewer is the first edit of the new article. By this process, I am credited by X's "Articles created" tool with having written several articles for which I don't really want credit and have not worked on: Maria Rita Teresa Batalla-Laforteza, Danilo Palomer Santiago, Neuromodulation (journal), Atacama B-Mode Search, Sharmin Ali, Me Myself and I (play), Tim Drevno.

When I first noticed this, I thought that a solution would be appropriate to deleted the first edit containing the redirection in each article, leaving the real draft creator as the first live edit, but that doesn't appear to work: Dayna Steele, Palmetto Education Association, Healey Silverstone and the deleted The Europe List are all credited to me in error.

As well as me being unhappy to be seen as the creator of several of these, there is also the problem that the real creators wouldn't be notified if the pages were ever tagged for deletion. If there's this many just from my list, there must be thousands of these. Is there anything to be done about this, and should I delete the misleading edits when I come across this? Or just let it go?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Twinkle uses the 'live' revisions to determine who is the page creator, so I think we can rest a little assured that at least is people use Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion, the actual creator will get a talk page message (ping This, that and the other to confirm). Regarding X!'s tool, it might be best to discuss this with whoever maintains it these days – there may be a reason why they want to credit the first editor (even if deleted) as the author. Last, am I right in understanding that you are getting notifications for these pages even after you've tidied the history to make the actual 'creator' the first editor? If so, that sounds like a bug in the software and something the devs should fix. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoever moves the draft into main space, if they are not an admin, could tag the draft (now just a redirect) with WP:CSD#G6. And leave a note for the submitter so they are not confused. The user could then start a new draft in the same sandbox and in theory, there would be no overlap. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting redirects left by pagemoves is normally a bad idea, but when the existence of the draft causes problems, I agree that it's time for G6. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If deleting is not a best practice, and the problem is overwriting the redirect in the same sandbox, what about protecting that sandbox page and require the user to use a second sandbox for future drafts? Rgrds. --64.85.216.119 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Curious. This seems to be a misfeature of the use of sandboxes for drafts. I don't see a request for administrative action, but maybe this should be discussed at the Help Desk or at Village pump (technical). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing that *could* be done, would be to request deletion of the redirect from the article history, using a delete and selective restore. (Like a history split, but just leaving the split revision deleted) An admin could do that now, though AFAIK there isn't a policy that either permits or prohibits it. This would allow it to be fixed when a redirect creator requests, but wouldn't require any routine, pro-active work. Monty₈₄₅ 03:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond; I was in a location without secure internet for two days (bluegrass festival).

• About delete and partial restore: Yes, Monty845, this is exactly what I was inquiring about. It would be easy for me to delete the redirect from the history, but is there a consensus that this is a good idea?
• About notifications: Jenks24, I have received several notifications about articles which I've never seen before, because they had redirects in their history of other old drafts; however, the four instances that I have found where someone has taken the time to delete the redirect are live articles, so other than nominating them for deletion I don't know how to find out if I would receive a notification. I just know that they appear on my list of articles created. That in itself is a minor thing, but if the data about article creation is used for any kind of reports or analysis it may cause inaccuracy.
• About sandbox use: EdJohnston, Nyttend, 64.85.216.119, Robert McClenon, deleting the sandbox after a draft article is moved out of it prevents the technical problem. When I move an article, I'm given the choice not to leave a redirect, which should have the same effect. However, this causes another problem because usually it's new users who write articles in the sandbox and without redirects they may think their articles have been deleted. What would be more effective is to strongly discourage editors from writing articles in the sandbox, and suggest using either a named user subpage or page in Draft space instead. This would also save work at AfC, where the reviewers have to make up and type in the article names when they move them to Draft space. Perhaps an edit notice could be added to the sandbox edit screen saying something like "This sandbox is for experimenting. To make a draft article, click in the search box and type User:Usename/Article title". (and, sigh, create a page "User:Username/Article title" that says "Try again, but use your specific user name, and the title of the article you want to create.")—Anne Delong (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• We can always use a different rationale (e.g. "Deleting page to fix a technical problem; you article is at TITLE, and feel free to create this page again"), or we can just create the sandbox as a blank page, or we can leave a note at the user's talk page explaining what happened. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of sandboxes

The real problem, as I see it, is that user sandboxes are being used for two purposes that really should not overlap, and this causes at least two problems. Their primary purpose should be for experimentation. They are also secondarily being used for article creation. The problem that is discussed above is that, when they are used for article creation, and the articles are accepted, they cause weird redirects that confuse the history of articles. The other problem that I see as an Articles for Creation reviewer is that editors who are using the sandbox for test edits then submit the test edit for approval. In most such cases, I don't think that the editor meant to submit the test edit as a draft article. It becomes necessary for the reviewer to decline the submission politely, when it may never have been meant to be a submission. I would suggest that one solution would be to disable the ability to submit sandboxes to AFC. User subpages should still be capable of submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sean Lynch (footballer)

After the speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Lynch (footballer), which I honestly thought was a hoax, an editor claiming to be Sean Lynch has stated at User talk:Seanlynchpin that he wants his article deleted because it's interfering with his efforts to start a new career, post-sport (the article makes no mention of him being retired, so I've tagged it as outdated). I've just raised this at Wikipedia Football but really it's a procedural thing, more than a FOOTY question. This individual has cited WP:BLPDELETE. He's willing to provide proof that he is who he says he is. How can we do this in a way that also protects his privacy? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt he will qualify as a "low-profile" individual, given his career. Either way, he needs to interact off-wiki with WP:OTRS who will help him as best he can. Usually trying to explain it as unlikely the article will be deleted, and nominating it on his behalf if he is determined (had a few of those in my time, non were deleted). Either way not much else we can do for now. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll make sure he knows this. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 closed

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

1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

• Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
• Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
• There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
• Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
• Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles 3 case closed

Please see related discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#WP:ARBPIA3_and_protection --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic category

I think this category is bogus and baseless. Because those persons only share a similar last name not kinship. They're not from a specific clan or family. They're not related to each other. It's similar if we create a "Johnson family" category and then add it to articles of people who have Johnson as a their last name. --Zyma (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Zyma, if you believe a category should be deleted, make a proposal for deletion at Categories for discussion. These kind of cases are discussed there every day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Spam links disguised as references

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

It has come to my attention that an editor from the 219.92.40.0/22 subnet has taken to spamming a specific commercial real estate website disguised as a reference, complete with <REF> tags. This concern has already been raised at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.durianproperty.com.my. There are presently 480 links back to this website at the moment, with new links being inserted or reinserted daily. What is the easiest way to remove these links? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain getting it blacklisted with get them removed. Isn't there a bot that does it? Try WP:BOTREQUESTS perhaps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Add any sites you think are spam here. If they are indeed spam links, a bot can remove existing ones, as Ricky mentions. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting it blacklisted will not by itself get them removed, although of course someone could write a bot (or adjust one) to have that done. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've hardblocked both /24 ranges for one year for ref spamming. The contribs for 2015 out of both ranges were primarily that. These may need to be removed by hand.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The good news (relatively speaking) is that some of the spam is focussed in single articles (several of them in 1 article with 1 edit), and can be easily undone with 1 click. GermanJoe (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean Hunter. As I noted here, I don't dare perform rangeblocks without someone else providing the precise range, lest I block nobody or block half the Internet by accident. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. We've been busy and removed these links. I did see other IPs so we will have to be looking for it until someone adds it to the blacklist. (This search). This is blocked user DurianProperty and I also hardblocked a third range, 219.92.43.0/24 one year.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of the master account dating back to June 2015. I see that all five hundred spam links have been removed and will follow up periodically using the LinkSearch tool until the domain has been added to the blacklist. Thank you Berean Hunter and all others for your assistance. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, sometimes, we all can be so efficient when the damage is of an obvious nature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Domain blacklisted. MER-C 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do a range block

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

---

I pissed off A Pizzon Lamb and the IPs they have been using at Peter Foster by reverting their edits and putting page protection on the article. They went wild on the talk page until it was protected. They've had fun at my talk page, Kelapstick's and Afterwriting's. To make matters worse, they've been reverting edits I've made on other articles, such as Sarah Broadhead. Irony... one of the two links they wanted to add to the Foster article was Anti-social behaviour.

It's entering into the third day and this is getting old. As I'm "slightly" involved, could somebody block Pizzon Lamb and put a range block on? Bgwhite (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The user first socked on their main IP, which is owned by Zero2Infinity, 4100 Smith School Rd, Austin TX 78744. I've left that for the minute as I don't know what collateral is on it. After one block on the ISP, they found some webhosts which I've rangeblocked for six months apiece. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thank you. They have continued to revert edits that I have previously done. These edits I made were CheckWiki fixes, so reverting them just causes an error to reappear. They have been coming in via more Zero2Infinity addresses (103.27.224.x 103.27.225.x 103.27.226.x 103.27.227.x) and 128.90.37.113. I did a range block on these (ie 103.27.224.0/24) for six months. Adjust, remove or whatever as you see fit. I think they are also using 128.90.14.5, but they made only one revert, so I'm not sure. I haven't dealt with this particular form of harassment before... Any suggestions you have? Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Another example of the reverts, see the history for List of Ebola patients. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is someone's sock...see this block log to see CU had this range blocked previously. I've placed some indefinite semi-protections and pending changes protections...indefinite based on BLP policy. I blocked the user as NOT HERE.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Spam

Resolved

 – OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Could an Admin please delete Songspkfull.mobi.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that's all taken care of. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Resolved

 – No remaining live edits, user blocked by NawlinWiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Could an Admin please review the edits made by Zznbzzz (talk · contribs) and block please. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki: Could you please block Zmnbmznz (talk · contribs) for block evading. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ACE2015 MassMessage

Hey all,

I'm planning on sending out the mass-message sometime next week, once the voting for ArbCom has started. IF anyone wants to opt-out, please do so ASAP at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage/OptOut. The message is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage - please let me know if this can be improved at all! For the Election Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions declined as blank or as a test

Most of the pages listed here are (speedy) deletion candidates. These are pages from Category:AfC submissions declined as blank and Category:AfC submissions declined as a test in draft or Wikipedia talk namespace.

• tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+blank&ns[5]=1&ns[118]=1&doit=1
• tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+a+test&ns[5]=1&ns[118]=1&doit=1

103.6.159.83 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They'll come up for G13 in a few months each. There's also a possibility (however small) that the editor returns and revises the page to make it useful. There are times where I've taken an incomprehensible mess and made it into a plausible draft, even based on not much more than the page's title. See User:Linguist111/sandbox for example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix Redirects - expediting closure and deletion

Two points:

1. There are 50,000 redirects listed here [130] with several thousand now in RfD. Various editors are working through the lists only to find many have been nominated already when one clicks on them. Given the consensus that many of these redirects are garbage, a number of admins have been speedy deleting redirects, but can we get some additional help quickly closing RfD's and deleting the redirects (even before the 7 days is up) so they go red on the lists. This way we don't have to spend time checking and rechecking ones that have been nominated and found to be deletion worthy?

2. I want to confirm that redirected talk pages should be speedy deleted. For example: [131]. Cause of that is the case, hundreds of Neelix redirected talk pages can be speedy deleted, which will shorten up the to do list for those of us sifting through his redirects. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is work to be done but the RfDs have to be consulted because often two or three redirects are kept while the rest are deleted. This also might be best if this was posted on WP:AN where it's more likely to be seen by admins who can delete these redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point, which I was trying to make when I said "closing the RfDs". I'll move the post to AN. See also this discussion [132] at RfD Thanks Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am against shoehorning the redirects into CSD categories that don't fit. That way lies a very dangerous precedent. If for these why not for others? Further, WP:RFD#HARMFUL explains, in effect, why we should not use WP:R3 for 6-year-old redirects. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

He is redirect topic banned - can we use G5 creations of a blocked or banned user? Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No - that would only apply to redirects created after the ban was imposed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix wins again!!!!!11112211lol111 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because you don't get everything you want this instant doesn't mean he won. Shrill ranting helps no one. It took him a decade to create this mess, it will take a few weeks to get rid of it and the more we do it systemically and in process, the more likely there won't be objections when we deal with the next editor (and there will be another editor). That said, we should follow process and list them in batches, probably by the page they are directed to. Note that the related changes page (Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Anomie/Neelix_list) tells you what's the issue. I'd suggest splitting the page into smaller subpages of maybe 1000 or so and just culling them systematically. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm goes right over your head, Rick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm used to the World's Oldest people article debates where "lack of notability is not a reason for deletion" is repeatedly somehow a keep vote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There are chunked lists out there and some of us are systematically going through them. I started with the most numerous per target (399!) and worked my way down, but now switched to some more by type of problem. Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok maybe a bot can go through and cut out the red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This batch was a bad decision, deleting some reasonable redirects. They should have been kept. The nom and the only voter don't seem to grasp that Printmaking is not Printing, and that all the well-known Japanese stuff is indeed Woodblock printing in Japan. They should be restored. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite clearly wrong; I've restored all of them. Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining how trashing these is at all resembling facilitating a pagemove, un-shadowing images from Commons, or history merges? Please read Just Chilling's words and act likewise. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I posted a parallel discussion about this at ANI yesterday and it has evolved into a proposal to explicitly state that Neelix-created redirects may be deleted under WP:G6 basically just so that the issue of which criterion to apply can be resolved (the rationale is more eloquent there). If you're following this thread, your eyes on the proposal would be appreciated. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Metrojet Flight 9268

Right now, 1RR is enforced on this article. This affects my ability to correct errors done by other editors. Shall we make this article an exception and then go for 2RR instead? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a clear 4RR drafted up on George Ho as he was reverting against over a dozen other editors. (he does not accept the Russian/UK/US/Irish finding of a bomb). I did not submit it because it looked like he was stopping. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We got Russia's "confirmation" just to "verify" the Western states' hypotheses. Having news media and Wikipedia retell Russia's is bad enough, but that's news for ya. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a policy on edit warring, and this policy makes no exceptions for being right. And that's for a reason because all people are different and they might have different concepts of "rightness", "truth", etc. based on their upbringing, beliefs, perception of reality and what they themselves want to believe, after all. That's why our editing process is based on consensus building among multiple editors through discussion, instead of reverting the heck out of it based on what individual editors like or dislike. Max Semenik (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the Paris attacks a week ago, followed on Tuesday by the Russian investigators' determination that the flight was destroyed by a bomb, we have had a flurry of IP edits wanting to add that to the infobox as a final cause. I edit aviation articles a lot and that isn't usually how it is done; instead normal procedure would be to wait for an uninvolved determination. I am highly INVOLVED in editing that article, (with 131 edits I am the second most prolific editor there) and I skirted 3RR in restoring the uncertainty to the infobox as I believe is proper. We now have a reasonable compromise in the infobox but the unhelpful IP edits have continued. I requested semi-protection but the request has now sat there for a couple of days without action. I see from the archive that a previous request was declined by User:Samsara on the grounds that IPs were making useful edits and that semi-protection would prevent this. I don't see it like this so I just semi-protected the article myself in an IAR moment. I realise that this breaks the letter of WP:INVOLVED so I am raising it here for scrutiny by my peers. If anyone thinks it is better to unprotect the article I won't fight them. Or maybe someone else will take ownership of the protection? On a high-profile article like this the matter may be challenged so it's worth having a discussion maybe. Obviously if anyone thinks my actions demonstrate unfitness for adminship, I suppose we could go over to AN/I and I could tie myself to the whipping post there. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@John: I've looked at that report at least ten times since you made it and each time decided the article should not yet be semi-protected. There's no clear consensus on the talk page and a compromise could have been worked out. I would have semi-protected if there was general consensus and the IPs refused to discuss. I was also going to semi-protect if we had a couple more disruptive edits today but a month's protection seems excessive. I'd be willing to take ownership of a two week semi based on disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my impression is that a compromise has now been worked out and that this would be a good moment to semi-protect. None of the IPs have discussed the matter at all as far as I am aware. Two weeks would be fine with me as a compromise on protection. --John (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A wise move, I think. And also very wise words from Max Semenik. I agree wholly with John about "the final cause". Personally, I think the probability is 99.9%, but that's just a personal view. There is still an internationally-agreed legal process to be observed? So I find the use of that word "confirms" on the front page quite inappropriate, but I can't be bothered to make a fuss at the ITN talk page. At least with this protection we may avoid the flurry of IPs claiming a bomb was planted by Abdelhamid Abaaoud on his way back from Syria (well, possibly). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. The editing pattern looks different now[133] than when the earlier request was made/declined.[134] Samsara 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal about this, but from what I've seen the IPs and most logged in editors have been very constructive. The main problem is George Ho who has been very clear he puts no faith in the Russians. His anti-Russian bias is causing any conflict, and semi-protection only assists him in fighting for his position. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I searched past discussions to prove that I'm not anti-Russian. I am unsure whether this (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2014#.5bPosted.5d Russian financial crisis) helps. I still believe that governments can state dubious things. FBI can say it; so can Russian Federal Secret Service. Re-reading the article, ISIS has claimed responsibilities for many violent incidents, including this one, although some confessions might not be always true. And how and where can they buy and/or use computers to distribute Dabiq? George Ho (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not run on what you believe, it runs on what reliable sources say. (Also, are you aware that ISIL is in control of two large, modern cities - Raqqa and Mosul - and has supporters in other more "civilized" places?) ansh666 22:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - just to clarify- the SCW&ISIL sanctions are relevant for 1RR on reverting registered editors. You can revert IPs as much as you like with no effect.GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Urgent fix needed

Hey all,

Can an awake admin please action Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage#points asap please? I hoped to get the first batch of these rolling this morning! Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly awake, but  Done anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Woodruff

Could I get some more admin eyes on this article, which is about a computer security hacker who has been wheeled out to give opinions on various cyber-attacks here and there. I have a nasty feeling he's crossed swords with über-misogynist Noel Biderman and good old LulzSec, and that sounds like a recipe for disaster (at least on an unprotected BLP). I've put the article up for AfD but I'm fighting a losing battle with IPs either vandalising or removing content for spurious reasons. I've semi-protected the article for 3 days and directed people towards the AfD, and am pretty confident that this and this absolves me from being WP:INVOLVED, but it never hurts to get other people to check over these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How eeeeevil of you. I decided to punish you by unprotecting it and then reprotecting it myself for an appropriate period of time...which happens to be exactly the period of time you picked :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A little bit more research reveals Jamie Woodruff tweeted about the Orangemoody sockfarm - I knew I felt something fishy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Meta Spam

THIS. No doubt I have been missing much by not following dramaz boards the last few day - but I think this is something that en-wp editors should be aware of. If it doesn't belong here? - delete. If it should be at a VP page - cross-post. Whatever - I don't care. Just letting folks know. — Ched :  ?  03:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ched:The page you linked to isn't on Wikipedia - it's on meta; to have it deleted, please read meta's deletion policy and act accordingly. There is nothing here that Wikipedia admins can deal with. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh ... no, I'm sorry User:Od Mishehu. I didn't mean delete the page on meta - but rather delete my post here on AN. My post here was meant as an FYI - and if it was not appropriate, then delete it (my post) from the WP:AN page. — Ched :  ?  04:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better posted at WP:CENT? — Ched :  ?  04:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is Bbb23 the only user with Check User rights? --The Avengers 08:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No. HTH. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Full list is here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Others who are not busy in other areas should help him relieve some burden in SPI. --The Avengers 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly new user (probable sock) attacking admins

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

---

Anyone care to put a stop to this? I would close it myself but it seems more appropriate for an admin to do it in this case. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Informal poll

Comments are welcome at User talk:Tryptofish#Informal advisory poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ban Ritchie333 from unblocking

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

---

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a very clear bias in which he has been showing favoritism to content creators and it has been getting in the way of admins who are attempting to keep a level playing field amongst all of our editors here. He is gaming the system and "evading the spirit of community consensus" with an abuse of process when it comes to unblocking this class of editor. This is editor discrimination and it shouldn't be tolerated. While others have opined for an abuse of tools approach and favoring a desysopping, I would prefer that the community ban Ritchie333 from unblocking anyone except the blocks which he has placed himself. I am unaware of any other forms of abuse so I think this would be the best approach to solving this recurring problem. I do believe that he is still a positive asset both as an editor and an admin.

He knows very well that he shouldn't be doing cowboy unblocks but once he has done them then he replies that someone may file for a desysopping at Arbcom. If the community choses not to place this ban on unblocking then that will be a viable alternative.

09:25, August 17, 2015

• "I have had a look. If both Chillum and Salvio giuliano are happy to unblock Alakzi then I can do the deed, but I can't do it without their approval (or at least not without running the risk of a juicy ANI thread)." (He knows that he should be consulting blocking admins)

22:08, November 23, 2015

• "And I'm honestly not sure if it is necessary to get permission from the blocking admin or not, but I can think of once incident where I was lambasted at ANI for not running an unblock past the other admin..." (Cowboy unblocks revisited is the full thread where I spoke up to help avert this and several admins spoke about consulting the blocking admin)

Apart from the most recent incident which consensus shows as a bad unblocking there is a strong pattern of favoring the content creators and for the wrong reasons while showing his prejudice:

• Recent UTRS request which needs to be categorically denied unless you want him subverting admin blocks behind the scenes to the tune of this favoritism. (My !vote on that is no confidence.)

I propose that Ritchie is restricted from overturning any other admin's block so that we avoid future problems. I find his prejudice is not in keeping with project goals and is interfering with other attempts to keep things fair and even-handed. If not banned or desysopped then I would suggest blocking him for gaming the system the next time that he does it.

• Support ban as proposer.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think I've ever heard of a proposal to ban an admin from using their tools. Beyond the implications, it's not technically feasible. Your concern sounds like one of WP:ADMINCOND and the only real solution there is I think ARBCOM and a request for desysopping and/or admonishment at most. - Ricky81682 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason why it would be outside the purview of the community. That being said if a clear pattern of tool misuse can be demonstrated(not saying it can, I have not yet reviewed the evidence) then arbcom would probably be more appropriate. I don't imagine a situation where the community does not trust an admin with one tool but does trust them with others. HighInBC 18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's unclear from the "Evidence" section above which are just Ritchie commenting and which are explanations/rationales for actual unblocks he's done. Berean Hunter, could you separate out a list of unblocks he's made that you think are bad, or at least controversial? 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've got 3 hours of daylight left to do outside work so not at the moment. I think the prejudice and problems are clear but I'll let others add evidence or comment and try to get back here later.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yeah, the casual ANophile might look at the list of evidence and think "wow, Ritchie's making way too many cowboy unblocks, let's do something about it". But to be clear, none of those are instances of him unblocking someone; they're all instances of him saying in general he thinks blocking established editors is a bad idea. (Also, the diff from May 21st should be removed, as it taken severely out of context (people should click on the links to discover this for themselves, but that doesn't always happen.) The "evidence" is evidence of his sympathies, not his actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, the Alakzi and Drmies diffs above the "evidence" section are also cases where Ritchie didn't unblock anyone. I know he's unblocked more than Sagaciousphil, but right now, that's the only unblock mentioned above. Could all those already voting to ban him from unblocking at least show other problematic unblocks? Did any of the unblocks actually get overturned after discussion, or did they stand? Are you banning him from unblocking solely because of his statements that he doesn't like blocking established editors? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Huh. Well, then, obvious oppose until somebody, perhaps one of the supporters, can be arsed to actually list the unblocks they have a problem with. I can be persuaded to restrict someone's tool use if they're misusing that tool, but I'm sure as hell not going to restrict somebody based on their "sympathies." 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Here is the block log for Ritchi333 going back to May. Please list the actual unblocks that concern you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• JackTheVicar for starters. An unblock of a user whose unblock request is a rant with personal attacks and a "Keep the GAs coming". HighInBC 19:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment That's Wikipedia for you. Where some folks actually think an Admin unblocking too often is more of an issue than Admins blocking too often. Capeo (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is a difference though when it comes to how an editor is unblocked by an admin. Just as it shouldn't be a rush to block, it also goes for unblocking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• So it's your contention that the evidence above shows a blatant misuse of tools? Really? There's only one unblock actually shown and, while it wasn't a great unblock, it most certainly is no reason for this extreme a sanction. Capeo (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock ban There seemingly was a solid consensus that the recent unblock was not in the right, admin are trusted with these tools after all. I agree with the above that I do not see any problem areas in any other aspect of Ritchie as an admin. This ban need not be permanent, it is highly disruptive though when an unblock/appeal process isn't followed through. At the very least a discussion with the blocking admin on their talk-page would also have helped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support with the added caveat that Ritchie undergo review of his admin status. His preferential treatment of a subset of users, generally aligned wit Eric Corbett, who use their self-assigned "content creator" status to justify a range of immature and unacceptable behavior calls his qualifications as an admin into question. --Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Why are you trying to drag me into an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with me? Eric Corbett 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Ritchie333 can discuss with the blocking admin and if he cannot find an agreement and really thinks an unblock is needed he can seek a wider consensus at ANI or AN. This is what any admin should be doing anyway if they think the action may be objected too, and this is the part he seems to be missing. I think an exception would be reversing his own blocks. I also think any community action should not preclude a potential arbcom case. HighInBC 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am temporarily withdrawing my support until the evidence of long term tool misuse can be properly laid out. From my memory this is an ongoing problem but I do want to see the actual specific unblocks at issue to refresh my memory before I commit to this. HighInBC 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Abstain I do hope that Ritchie noticed that their actions were not in line with community expectations. At this point I am willing to let it go, however further repetition of this pattern would be very problematic. HighInBC 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – A much better proposal would be a ban from cowboy blocks by admins who are not here to build the encyclopedia and who show a very clear bias against the content builders who are here to build the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  But that would, of course, force such administrators to come clean about their real agenda. Eric Corbett 19:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Epipelagic you are welcome to propose a change in policy. However you should know that such ideas have been repeatedly rejected by the community in the past. If you can get consensus for it then as an admin I will either follow it or find another website to admin. HighInBC 19:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And you should know that such ideas have not been rejected by the general community. The "consensus" in those proposals is wholly determined by the admin corps together with other users who have a stake in the promotion of admin power (the admin wanabees and the drama board devotees). This is the core source of the central dysfunction on Wikipedia, that the admin corp controls the terms under which it operates. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clone Ritchie333, then tell all the clones to dial back on the cowboyness about 33%, then let them loose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support If he has a strong problem with a block, he can work it out at AN or with the unblocking admin. I'm still a bit surprised he accepted an unblock request from someone I blocked that literallly contained a blockable npa against me in it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Can you point us to which user was blocked/unblocked in the incident you mention? HighInBC 19:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's in this diff. Ritchie was also incredibly wrong in stating I was too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking. My only previous involvement was in mediating a dispute against him and WV. Ironically, I've now been advocating for his unblocking, because he's provided convincing evidence that he's not the sockmaster he was blocked as. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, sooo unblocking when the unblock request was a rant that included personal attacks and then add on "Keep the GAs coming.". This is the sort of evidence that should have been presented from the start. HighInBC 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• And only on Wikipedia do you see an admin come along after recently reversing a bunch of CU blocks without consulting the blocking admin supporting that another admin not be able to unblock. Glass houses and all that.Capeo (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons: one is that much of the evidence appears to just be comments he made. Comments I strongly disagree with, but I don't like the idea of sanctioning someone for one bad decision and a series of "thoughtcrimes". Unless it can be proven that the recent unblock is part of a pattern of bad unblocks this is over kill. The other reason is that I am opposed to the very idea of banning an admin from using one particular tool while retaining all the others. Either we trust a user to be an admin, or we do not. If you can prove a pattern of tool misuse, take it to arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the currently gathered evidence is lacking, but I think mostly for lack of trying. I do remember the recent issue with Phil not being the first time something like this has happened. I would not have supported this if I thought it was an isolated incident, and the attitude an admin presents in regards to their admin tools are relevant to their use of the same tools. Even Ritchie admits that he has a history of controversial unblocks[135]. I do wish that the evidence was gathered before this posting though, when such things are posted late they tend not to influence the discussion as much. HighInBC 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Actually you have convinced me to temporarily hold back my support. My memory is not perfect and I do think it is reasonable that the specific actions be detailed here first. HighInBC 19:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see 54 unblocks according to their admin statistics on their user page. Five are of people who might be considered established users (DaltonCastle, Salvidrim!, Callmemirela, EEng, and Rationalobserver). I think I also see five unblocks of accounts now identified as sockpuppets... if anything that fact is more worrisome to me. Beeblebrox is right. There is no evidence to support a claim of a pattern of abuse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Where does JackTheVicar fit in? HighInBC 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• That is by far the most egregious unblock done by Ritchie. And imho deserves an admonishment at least (and is made extra ridiculous given the CU findings). But honestly it's a bit stale at this point. It fits with the other comment-based evidence, but does not create a pattern. Not sure why that incident wasn't brought up at the time. If it was, what was the outcome? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The blocking rationale was plain false. There was no IBan, voluntary or not. As for what happened after that it doesn't really matter in the scope of the unblock itself. Capeo (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh bullshit Capeo. I'm not going diff diving for you, but statements made by JtV within days before that block indicated he thought he was operating under an iban, and regardless, his behavior was disruptive enough to warrant a block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• You brought it before the community and the community clearly disagreed with that interpretation, didn't they? Capeo (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I believe you want this ANI thread. That was, of course, well before there were CU findings to consider. AFAIK no final judgment has been posting on-wiki regarding the sock claim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the link. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose with given evidence - Can specific examples of biased unblocked be given? I see a lot of comments about their opinion of blocks, but few actual unblocks of the so-called "content creators". (Block/unblock log here). There doesn't seem to be any actual violations. As such, it would seem this is about their comments, not their actions. And we can't remove tools if no abuse has occurred. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add I concur with Beeblebrox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose just for the record. In case my above comments aren't clear enough. There is no evidence of abusing the tools in the evidence given just opinions a bunch of people don't like.Capeo (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: where is the evidence of any bad unblocks? This all looks like a thread for "in-the-know" people, the ones who're likely to "support", leaving others who might oppose wondering what exactly is the crux of the matter, and quite possibly not saying anything for that reason. For that reason alone, I am boldly opposing pending any further evidence evidence at all. LjL (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose one heavily disputed unblock != a pattern of behaviour such that community sanctions ought to be imposed upon the use, even when coupled with general opinions that some dislike. Bencherlite^Talk 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why's this even a thread ? ... I disagree with Ritchie unblocking Phil but what's done is done ... Next best thing for everyone to do is move on!, On another note this is precisely the reason why I never have any intention of ever being an admin here... You make one mistake and it's as if you've just caused a nuclear disaster!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose First, there is lack of evidence for a problem. Second, an admin who is doing his/her job should occasionally make controversial decisions. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not going to support on this present record - although, I would and have personally admonished over the last unblock (with its misleading unblock summary, and apparent encouragement of personal attacks, private evidence, etc.). But obviously if he is ever increasing his involvement in this area, his future acts may well lead to more drama, if he does not even keel himself. No one is blocked for their good content creation - so, it is irrelevant to unblock for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I'm reposting my earlier example from the previous thread: "The concern is whether this is a pattern with Ritchie333 to be flippant with other admin's blocks. I was a third party to another bizarre behavior by Ritchie333 here. On an unblock request, they post "I think we should apologise and unblock this user", which seems then and now improper to not discuss directly with the blocking admin and instead undermining the integrity of the blocking admin by posting on the blocked editors page. Moreover, it was a checkuser block, and WP:CUBL states: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee." After that drama, Ritchie333 did not resolve the unblock request for 9 days, at which point they inexplicably comment out the unblock request instead of outright denying the request. Are these just one-off events, or a pattern? Perhaps others can comment."—Bagumba (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reopening I am undoing SebastianHelm's close of this discussion with their stated rationale: "Voting while evidence is lacking is a waste of everybody's time." First of all, in an edit conflict, I did have more evidence to add, which I want here for the record even if it someone chooses to prompt reclose. Secondly, I think those who have provided evidence would disagree with the subjective description that it is "lacking", and surely we can let this thread run longer than the two hours if was previously given.—Bagumba (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  I realize my closing rationale was not clear enough. What I find a waste of time is having to wade through a whole haystack of a user's statements of opinion. As many others have expressed, a ban should not be for a person's opinion, but for their action. I therefore would have preferred if this had been started as a new topic, leaving out all those opinion references. — Sebastian 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Understood. What I would like to see is more WP:ADMINACCT on Ritchie's part, when the response seems to have been a general "go desysop me" read: "FU". At worst, I'm surprised none of the past closes made a statement addressing some of the concerns, and leave it to AGF that Ritchie would take any closing statement into account.—Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Additional evidence Prior to the recent December 8 unblock discussion where Ritiche333's unblock behavior was generally panned, he had started a talk page thread titled "Cowboy unblocks, revisited" recently on November 23 where he says he "tend[s] to AGF a bit more than some admins when it comes to the block button" and bemoans "when two administrators clash over whether or not to unblock, nothing happens except pages and pages and pages of discussion that bores me to tears, and doesn't do anything about the actual unblock. Is there another way round 'cowboy unblocks', other than just doing them and waiting for it to backfire at ANI". AFAICS, he was advised to tone down and be cautious with "cowboy unblocks", but this most recent unblock drama is deja vu. If nothing else, we need some WP:ADMINACCT on Ritchie333's part in explaining this continued pattern of disregard for blocking admins. It's also a bit unsettling the level of bias in his Dec 7 statement: "I think you all have to realise that I am generally suspicious of people in high levels of authority and always supportive of people on the lower ranks - both here and in real life, and that's a combination of personal views and what life has dealt me. This means I will always give the time of day to newcomers and people who genuinely want help, but I will ignore or belittle admins coming here and trying to pick a fight ..." While his RfA in May 2015 was a 138/3/3 landslide, the arguments of the few neutrals and opposes still ring true today (Disclosure: I did not participate in the RfA).—Bagumba (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I won't reclose, but it should be noted that Bagumba's "additional evidence" has not provided any other examples of unblocks made by Ritchie333. None. All there is in the 3 bullet points above is more complaints about Ritchie's attitude. So we're still voting with a total of two actual examples of unblocks; SagaciousPhil, and JacktheVicar. Neither one of which was reinstated after AN/ANI discussion, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The blocks were likely not reinstated because nobody is interested in making this the Wild West and all of us turning trigger happy. I think most of us accept that admins make an outlier action now and then that is within their discretion. However, AGF dwindles when those actions (and words) become a pattern, as I worry that they have here. I don't think we need cries of punitive reblocks on editors when the larger concern is not that the editor is the biggest problem, but rather the unblocking admin.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
      • The block on JtV wasn't reinstated because consensus was that the unblock was good as can be seen here. I don't see how that unblock even figures into the equation given the community gave its approval. Capeo (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
        • For the record, I have not referred to JtV case in my statements of support. Your comment, though, may be applicable to others.—Bagumba (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Point of order I'm staying out of the merits of this, but I would note that Arb has been given the authority to issue sanction for admin abuse, not the community, and it has always been reserved for them. No admin has ever had their tools limited by Arb, at least that I'm aware of. ie: If you want to remove some of his tools, you have to remove all of them, and Arb is where you file. We tried to pass admin sanction policies before (I wrote one of them, WP:RAS) but the community has soundly rejected the idea in the past. So my take is, even if it were to pass here, it has no authority because the community has already rejecting giving itself that authority in the past, many times. So, vote your hearts out, but it isn't enforceable until it goes to Arb.Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not quite the whole truth Dennis. After one of his foot-in-mouth episodes Jimmy Wales promised never again to use his block button, and so far as I know he hasn't since then. An Arb case would have much too embarrassing. Eric Corbett 22:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  There's been an involuntary restriction on tool use imposed before. --Brustopher (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  I have to disagree Dennis. The community has the authority to ban any editor from any part of Wikipedia. They also have the power to enforce it just like any other ban violation with the block tool. As long as admins can be blocked, and they can, the community can enforce expectations. Consensus can change after all. HighInBC 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Perhaps a discussion or proposal is due, but to change previous consensus simply because it is handy, in the heat of the moment, is not wise nor does it overrule previous global consensus. Until we have a calm, rational RFC on it, I have to assume the global consensus stands, as we have had plenty of RFCs and proposals that denied this power to the community, forming that consensus. Again, start an RFC, ping me, I would love to support it as I've supported many others and been involved in that process many times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "I think you all have to realise that I am generally suspicious of people in high levels of authority and always supportive of people on the lower ranks - both here and in real life, and that's a combination of personal views and what life has dealt me. This means I will always give the time of day to newcomers and people who genuinely want help, but I will ignore or belittle admins coming here and trying to pick a fight ..." It appears to be a statement that all truly good admins or wannabes should frame and hang over their beds. It is evidence of nothing, except that this admin has a healthy and rather sceptical attitude to power for power's sake, and welcoming and helpful attitude to those who are genuinely WP:HERE. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's just more of an "eyes closed, hands over ears" attitude displayed throughout this incident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And seems to discount that there are plenty of admin that are HERE too.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The point will be even if there is a sanction against Ritchie, a violation of said sanction would require another admin to block Ritchie for that. I don't see the point of any of that and it'll probably cascade rather than get settled. If Ritchie violates again and again, do we keep issuing blocks on Ritchie while letting him be an administrator? Does every unblock get taken to ANI both for a discussion on the unblock and whether it's a violation of the sanction over the unblock? Either way, the three unblocks aren't sufficient evidence of a serious problem but do show a pattern of let's say "strong disagreement" in how to interpret certain policies here especially in regards to communicating with other admins before overturning blocks and with respect to WP:INVOLVED. There is a policy that you discuss it with the blocking admin but we have no remedy if you violate that short of getting called out here and perhaps taking the bit away. It's an issue of whether the community believes Ritchie's conduct falls in line of that of administrators, both by attitude and by actions. For that, ARBCOM is the proper remedy. I suspect they'll just admonish him rather than take away the bit but I think it'll be better than arguing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment about UTRS - Richie's UTRS account was approved on the same day it was requested, as there was (and is) no current reason for us not to allow it. The account hasn't been used at the time of this writing. If anybody wishes to formulate accusations of misuse of the UTRS tool, you can e-mail the tooladmin list at [email protected] or contact any of us individually. I'm keeping a semi-watchful eye on this discussion (specifically its outcome), and if the community decides it has the authority and the will to ban Ritchie from "processing unblock requests", then the UTRS account will naturally be deactivated as useless. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Everybody seems to rule out that Ritchie can just take WP:ADMINACCT and come here and reach a rough consensus that addresses the concerns. I don't think anyone wants to desysop him, and even any "ban" is unnecessary if he attempts to reach a common ground. If we can't even have this discussion here at AN, then it's a sad statement that there is no suitable forum between Ritchie's talk page and Arb.—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The unblocking was unwise. However it was within the context of an incident where misunderstanding and emotion were dominant factors. It was another WP clusterfuck of unintended consequences. However I see no long pattern of problematic unblocks. The evidence appears to be on statements and assumptions of Richie's perception of the admin role on WP. All admins have perceptions and patterns of behaviour based on them. We are veering into very dodgy territory here, that of thoughtcrime, as has been mentioned upthread. Ritchie should however think twice and discuss more before future unblocks, and act with a cool head. Irondome (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban Per Berean Hunter and Kevin Gorman. Finally the community is waking up. Ritchie333 should of been dealt with long ago. Caden ^cool 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although why a vote is being taken on the basis of one debatable unblock seems bizarre in the extreme. Admins very frequently disagree on whether a block if justified, and how long it should be. Big deal. Ritchie333 seems to be perfectly reasonable and willing to engage in constructive discussion over any and all of his actions. Accusations of "gaming the system" and "abuse of process" come across as unjustified and corrosive bitterness, not as a positive approach to try and improve the consistency in the application of admin tools. Quite depressing really. Also note Dennis's very telling point of order, which makes this whole thread little more than a toothless talking shop. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. and the community has been quite "awake", thanks.
  • Supporters including myself have cited evidence beyond the last block. Of course you are free to discount them and reach a different opinion. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Speaking as someone who recently had their own block overturned - I find this unseemly and unprofessional. I find it ironic that an admin. can support a sanction here for unblocking - and yet argue the converse at RFAR for his own unblocks. These threads should be reserved for admins. who outright violate our harassment policy, than for admin. bring content editors back into the fold. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment a clear signal is being sent that it is unprofessional to not consult with the blocking admin before unblocking and this thread is necessary to record it for future purposes (since this thread is closed). What results when you don't is drama and possible bitterness as evidenced by the threads that I've read where it is clear that the unblock was bad in addition to not following our accepted practices. That isn't my bitterness. I'm not angry but I am disappointed. Since we don't have any assurances from Ritchie that this won't happen again then this type of appeal to the community is spot on. If it isn't resolved then it will become a bigger problem. It isn't thoughtcrime that I've pointed out in his biases, it is that ulterior motives are underlying such that trust is breached. I don't trust the rationale he delivered in yesterday's unblock but had been seeing this in comments on other blocks. The whole "fog of war" tact that there was no consensus for the block was BS and the summary "easier to ask forgiveness than get permission" sums it up well. That is unprofessional and shows that he subverted the idea of getting permission in the first place. Someone is gaming WHEELWAR and moving fast to take the next step to achieve their goals and tie the hands of other admins. I'm not blind to it. The fact that there are those who in the small space of a few hours could not wait to stifle this thread by closing several times is telling. I think the community should be allowed to see and discuss.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Does the purple box just drop down automatically to include our comments that are too late, User:Berean Hunter? Oh look, no it doesn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Block review

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

---

Moved from ANI NE Ent 09:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This block appears to be punitive and not preventative. Can it please be reviewed? It has been imposed on an editor who has contributed much valuable content over a long period of time with a clean block log. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought WP:AN was better for these things. Can you please provide some context as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. SagaciousPhil violated WP:NPA pretty clearly and deliberately: [136], [137], [138]. As far as I know, people who violate NPA are blocked and it's always punitive. I said someone was crazy in an AfD, and like three days later an admin found it and blocked me for a day. That was clearly punitive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The context is as follows. The situation developed in this thread. The blocked editor took the wrong meaning from this ambiguous statement by another editor. Earlier (much earlier) these two editors had conflicted with each other. Wrongly assuming the comment was inflammatory, the blocked editor responded immoderately in her following comments. The blocking administrator pointed out her error in interpreting the ambiguous statement in this comment, and then promptly blocked her. I queried the blocking admin on the unreasonableness of this here, but he is not really responsive. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see SagaciousPhil made this comment: "Ched, it is the likes of you and I who will be sanctioned/blocked for not following the "group think" of the WMF groupies, none of whom are capable of producing any content." That's a pretty unambiguous slam on whoever she thinks is a "WMF groupie." Liz asks what is a WMF groupie, looks at the definition of groupie, and says "I don't think there are many editors who aspire to "seek intimacy" with the WMF. I don't even know what it means to seek intimacy with an nonprofit organization." Eric says "Where were you when CMDC called me a "Manchester gangbanger"?" Eric Iridscent describes people who post on Jimbo's talk page as a "clique of wannabees, weirdos and sycophants." Liz says: "That is a terrible comment to make, Eric, I think that remark is out of line." That's not directed at Phil. "And then she says "And Iridescent, I can understand what is meant by "Jimbo Wales' groupies" (although I doubt that they exist these days) but not WMF groupies. I don't many editors who even have any contact with the WMF besides checking the Meta website once in a while." How was that taken as inflammatory in any way toward SagaciousPhil? You can see Liz not retaliating in any way but trying to be gracious to Phil, who continued to insult her. Good block. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are confused and off target Wikimandia. For example, you claim falsely that Eric describes people who post on Jimbo's talk page as a "clique of wannabees, weirdos and sycophants". That comment was made by an admin. Liz's ambiguous reply was to Eric's question, Where were you when CMDC called me a "Manchester gangbanger". A comment can be inflammatory without being personal. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who took offense at what, personal attacks are never acceptable, no matter if they're made in response to perceived or even real slights. A block was perfectly in order. clpo13_(talk) 09:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just getting the air cleared, so yeah it's Eric related. It's a 48-hour block but I don't see any attempt at discussion with User:Berean Hunter first nor any warnings either. Aren't those personal attacks anyways? Do you think it should be reduced to time served? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If admins are now blocking content builders without warning to punish them, even hard working long term editors with clean block logs, then this needs to be clearly stated. Otherwise, the block should be lifted and the blocking admin should apologise. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a "content builder" isn't an exemption from WP:NPA. If you think there is such an exemption, you should have that clearly stated. I'd prefer a warning but I don't see any particular issues with the block right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about content builders being exempt from anything. I merely asked if "admins are now blocking content builders without warning to punish them". Does your reply amount to a "yes"? Do you put "content builder" in quotes to indicate that content builders are rather peculiar and no longer really belong on Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. I was trying to follow what was going on and have corrected above. You still have not shown how Liz's reply was inflammatory in any way to Phil. I have no idea what happened with CMDC calling him a "Manchester gangbanger," but if he is insinuating that Liz failed to do anything about it, and she was also not aware of it, I agree that is remark is out of line. And still don't see how it is inflammatory to Phil, who went off the rails with three consecutive, unambiguous, blatantly inflammatory insults aimed directly at Liz. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The three diffs are pretty unpleasant and clearly directed at Liz. It's definitely not necessary or encouraged (going way beyond using naughty words or being a bit grumpy). It would be useful to hear from Berean Hunter about it. But I think I've followed through a similar path to him. A few months ago Sagaciousphil and Liz ran into each other and fell out... for whatever reason (it looks like over Liz's RFA). This has escalated quite a bit and the comments from Sagaciousphil in the last round are going too far. I wouldn't call it harassment, at least not as it stands, Sagaciousphil does need drop the issue (FWIW; as an admin I feel I should still try ot keep 50% of my contributions article creation as it keeps you in touch with our purpose of being here, but others quite naturally differ). Casting this as an admin vs content creator issue is misdirection and damaging to that point. It's fairly clear that Sagaciousphil crossed a line in getting personal about this dispute and she needs to wind that back. There are lots of cases where I see disproportionate action against content editors vs. cleanup focus editors vs admins but this is not a good example of that. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks preventative and not punitive. I had already warned him that he was out of line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

When did you warn "him"? And how did you manage to divine the block was preventative and not punitive in the absence of an admin warning? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that the talk post asking for an apology might have been sufficient to de-escalate the situation, We'll never know now, as the block occurred 3 minutes later. On the other hand, those are three harsh comments over a 2-hour time span. I'd imagine an unblock request directly by the blocked editor would likely be accepted with some simple acknowledgements and a tiny bit of contrition, but they seem resigned to not pursue it. I don't really see anything blatant to overturn in the absence of a formal unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just speculation. The real issue is whether it is now accepted on Wikipedia that long term committed editors with clean block logs can be blocked with no warning and without any negotiation. In other words, is the principle now accepted that blocks can be imposed as punishments. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A warning, with a block following three minutes later, doesn't look like a sincere attempt at "prevention". pablo 11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by the term "content creators" as well and thus also put it in quotes. Please tell me about this special group of editors and how they need to be separated from people who do anything else at WP, such as new page patrollers, those who patrol for vandalism and copyright vios, those who do basic copy editing, those who translate articles, those who do unrewarding tasks such as contributed to AfD and RfD, those who welcome people at TeaHouse, and general editors who do everything. Are these people the same as article creators? I think I've made more articles in the last year than Phil has in the past three years. I would like to apply for content creator benefits please and immunity from blocking when I lose my shit and start telling someone "you are truly pathetic" and someone "who wouldn't know integrity or content if it hit her in the face" and "You are an insidious POV "editor" - I use quotation marks as personally I consider you very far from a competent content editor. Get a live, learn some integrity and as far as I'm concerned move on. You are not worth the dirt on my shoes ... take a hike ... do I need to make my thoughts about you any clearer?" I eagerly await instructions how I can do this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is off topic, but all the things you mention, apart from losing your shit, are part of building and maintaining good content. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Epipelagic: Likewise, it's speculation that the block hasn't been preventative. Only the blocked editor would know, and can address it in an appeal. FWIW, WP:BEFOREBLOCK advises to "note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking." Repeated NPA violations leads to a gray area of what is "reasonable opportunity to adjust". Obviously, it's best to avoid the attacks altogether; otherwise, one is at the mercy of a given admin's judgement, and blocks will always get some support from those who have no tolerance for NPA transgressions, while a pass will be supported by those who prefer to bend over to let people cool off.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish there had been this much protesting, during the times I got blocked ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I said below, it is all moot now. It is arguable that the block and/or unblock was a bit hasty, but based on the information I received, I would have unblocked if I had arrived first. Were both the block and unblock a bit hasty? I think there is an argument to be made supporting that conclusion. Were they abusive or violate policy? No. Best practice? Not really. This is one of those borderline cases open to interpretation, and since Phil sees that she did cross the line, freely admitted it to me, perhaps we should just let this close and move on. We know the facts, we know the players, we have our opinions, all we can do is argue for days with no one changing their minds. It is pointless drama and we are better off to just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  Dennis it is pointless drama that is going to repeat its-self the next time an admin unblocks a user based on little to no consensus (not yet formed) on ANI/AN. How do you propose that this be avoided in the future? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblocked

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

---

@Berean Hunter: I have tried to follow events leading to the block and it makes my head hurt, but basically I can see it being a cool down block designed to de-escalate the conversation. Since there appears to be no obvious consensus that the block was good, and that I think cooler heads are now prevailing, I am unblocking now. If consensus later turns out it was a good block, please accept my apologies in advance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So much for WP:RAAA: "Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without ... a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged"—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a more than brief discussion (RAAA doesn't say who has to have the discussion), a thread here and an apology in advance. As Grace Hopper put it, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RAAA is addressed to you as an administrator, it says you should have to have the discussion with the blocking admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite true. It says only if it is likely to be objected to and where the administrator is presently available (in this case the admin is not presently available). --Epipelagic (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As for "objected to" that is patently obvious. As for "available", they seem quite available. The point of RAAA is so admins just don't do this - 'no, I know better' act with tools, instead of having the actual (not proxy) discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LMAO, what a crock. Ritchie333, looking at her talk page, Phil is still fuming and thinks she's done nothing wrong. Also, there's been no evidence that Liz did the least thing wrong to provoke this attack in any way, shape or form. Liz twice tried to calm her down and got a third nasty insult directed her way. There's been no policy cited as to why it was not a good block. Can I go off on people I dislike with insult after insult and only get a five-hour block? I'll take a nap and come back refreshed. I'm a content creator and I deserve the same special treatment. I can think of some editors who are incompetent, insidious, pathetic and wouldn't know integrity if it hit them in the face and deserve to hear me extrapolate on why. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, don't turn yourself into a martyr. But I agree. This is a bad unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I second the comment about LMAOing and crock.Brustopher (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a very bad unblock. There is no "committment to change" or even an understanding from Sagaciousphil that her actions were wrong, in fact it looks to me like the opposite. While I would have tried to avoid warning then blocking without intervening misconduct, Berean's actions are easily justifiable (for example, if Berean looked deeper into recent contribs). A lack of consensus in favour of an admin action (as opposed to consensus against), no comment whether there is or not, does not mean it should be unilaterally reversed. However the unblock policy allows admins discretion in unblocking, which is what there should be. If using that discretion an admin needs to be absolutely sure that the reversal is needed immediately (WP:RAAA) rather than allowing for a discussion either with the admin who performed the action or with the community (especially when there is already a discussion ongoing). An admin saying that it's better to act without permission (in this case policy backing / consensus) and ask for forgiveness rather than let the discussion happen (collaborative project) strikes me as very worrying attitude to have. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There are three ways to undo this block, which on its face is within reason: 1) appeal, 2) persuade the blocking admin with your reason to unblock, and 3) get it overturned here at a close. Instead, the unblocking admin abused the tools, taking a minority position in this discussion as cover for his abuse of tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, and admin actions like this are why the civility policy/pillar is a joke. Straightforward personal attacks and the block is lifted without even a promise from the user not to do it again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Callanecc this was a very bad unblock, again since when does creating content outweigh personal attacks or Wikipedia policy? Ritchie you really see a consensus to un-block here, and if so from what policy standpoint? She pretty much clearly violated WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• If I may, as a non-admin—trouts all round. Liz's comment was deeply ambiguous; multiple people took it the way Sagaciousphil did; and Liz failed to ask herself why it was being taken badly. Sagaciousphil was roundly rude and did not stop to consider that she might be misinterpreting. Berean Hunter assumed there was only one way to take the remark, and three minutes after a stern piece of advice blocked an editor with a clean block log. Ritchie333 noted that Berean Hunter had announced he was going to bed, assumed this discussion would go his way and unblocked hastily, and without any note about the attacks that were the reason for the block. Now that we're here, the four of them should host a fry-up. That beats wheel-warring and vendettas any day. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Um this was after Dennis asked both involved to tone it down.[139] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't know, as it still has not been explained, exactly why Liz's comment was ambiguous and "multiple people" took it the wrong way. We are talking about the one where she says she doubts there are many Jimbo groupies and WMF groupies, right? She states there are not many active editors who interact at the WMF project except for visiting the meta website. Who is possibly offended by his? People who pride themselves on being Jimbo/WMF groupies and are thus outraged this status is being challenged? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It was the bit referring to Eric. Its meaning could be (although not in my opinion) ambiguous because the way the sentence is constructed it can be taken to mean she thought Eric's comment was out of line, or that the comment *referring* to Eric (by CMDC) was out of line. In context however it was clear (to me and others) it was the latter, SP thought it was the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But she specifically was referring to Eric. She began her sentence with "Eric" and it's clear she is talking about his comment. As I said, if she took it to mean that he was challenging her for not doing anything when someone at some point insulted him (and she had no knowledge of this), then I agree it was out of line. I don't know when someone called him that and what happened - the username Eric cites, CMDC, does not exist. Why would other people be offended by her comment? And how could anyone claim it was "ambiguous" and insulting? It's pretty clear. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine Liz will clarify (or already has somewhere) but I interpreted her comment as referring to what was said about Eric (and I agree) not Eric's comment on Dennis's talk page (which was fine). But there definitely was heaps of room for interpretations either way, it absolutely does not justify Sagaciousphil's actions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found it. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) called a bunch of people "Manchester gangbangers" and insulted British people over GG. [140], [141] She was blocked within 10 minutes of that comment and ultimately indeffed by ArbCom, and is still indeffed despite a sympathetic article in Slate[142] so she was not allowed to get away with that insult. Not sure what Liz has to do with this but seeing as this was related to GG, I can see why she felt the comment was so out of line, if that's what it was about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a terrible comment to make, Eric, I think that remark is out of line. Oh shoot, I didn't know that comment could be misinterpreted. I absolutely meant that the remark to Eric was out-of-line and uncivil. That's a horrible remark to make to an editor. I apologize for any ambiguity in my statement. I aim for my communication to be clear and this comment was less than successful.

As for Sagaciousphil, I don't know why she believe I am the epitome of everything wrong with Wikipedia but it's come up before since my RfA and I've tried to discuss it on her talk page which only made her angrier. So, I try to respond reasonably and, sometimes, with humor, hoping it will lighten the mood but no luck with that. I don't know what attacks she claims I've made. I generally steer clear of editors who dislike me and in this case, she responded to my badly worded remark on Dennis' talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, to be honest, I do not think your further intervention in this thread will be helpful. The best you can do now is to stop commenting on Sagaciousphil. There are other users around to handle this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In Liz's defence, she was called here for comment(I see now that you have already noticed this :). HighInBC 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed that and modified my comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was notified about this discussion on my talk page so I thought people wanted some clarification. I was talking about the remark to Eric, not made by Eric. But I'll take your advice, Ymblanter, and stay out of this unless people have any more questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Very poor use of unblock indeed. Contrary to the unblock summary, my reading of the discussion here is that consensus supported the original block. I propose a reblock until a decent unblock request is received in which Sagaciousphil promises not to repeat such remarks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, that was a bit of a hasty unblock. Especially without input from the blocking admin or a block appeal. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with all of your comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, had Phil given time to submit an appeal after cooling down, we most likely wouldn't be here now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am so sick of these cowboy unblocks. Is it so much to ask that if you cannot get the agreement of the blocking admin that you get consensus first? It is almost never helpful for someone to unilaterally decide a situation like this. Unblocking when a user is still insisting that they have no fault is essentially enabling the behaviour that resulted in the block. Please remember that your admin tools are to be used to enforce the expectations of the community and not ones personal whims. HighInBC 14:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Trout served. I doubt much more can be done about this. Reblocking now would be pointless, and other than trout there is little to be done about yet another cowboy unblock. HighInBC 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The lingering issue though is that there is no reassurance that this wont happen again, I have let Liz know about this discussion as I do not think anyone has pinged her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, from either Sagaciousphil (hence Martin's proposal above) or from Ritchie333. Yngvadottir pinged Liz above, but thank you for doing that! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, in my opinion I very much doubt that Phil would have served the full 48 hours if she had offered up an unblock request saying she has had the time to cool down or at least something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: with Sagaciousphil we can just react accordingly to future edits, we still have some ability to enforce our personal attack policy. As far as Ritchie333 goes there is very little we can do about this sort of unilateral unblock, there seems to be a culture of acceptance. The wheel warring policy makes sure that anyone who does a unilateral unblock gets the last word and we don't enforce the part of our administrative policy that requires one get consensus if they can't find agreement. It is against the rules, but every admin knows they can get away with it, and some decide that since they can they should. HighInBC 15:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The concern is whether this is a pattern with Ritchie333 to be flippant with other admin's blocks. I was a third party to another bizarre behavior by Ritchie333 here. On an unblock request, they post "I think we should apologise and unblock this user", which seems then and now improper to not discuss directly with the blocking admin and instead undermining the integrity of the blocking admin by posting on the blocked editors page. Moreover, it was a checkuser block, and WP:CUBL states: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee." After that drama, Ritchie333 did not resolve the unblock request for 9 days, at which point they inexplicably comment out the unblock request instead of outright denying the request. Are these just one-off events, or a pattern? Perhaps others can comment.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is a pattern, and evidence can be gathered to show this then I do think it merits further discussion. Though I think a fresh thread would be better suited than this one. I am not familiar with this admin's history so I cannot comment as to pattern. HighInBC 15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would start a new thread below as a sub-section if you feel it is warrented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(multiple e/c)I would not put it as 'culture of acceptance' (see this discussion, there is much non-acceptance) although, it is given temporal leeway - but, if an admin keeps abusing their tools after they are told not to - than consequences will generally follow. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I agree there's nothing more to be done about Sagaciousphil now, hopefully this discussion will show that the community isn't willing to give leeway when it comes to this sort of attack. Regarding Ritchie333 though, I think what needs to be done is that whoever closes this notes that there is (dare a I say, strong) consensus that Ritchie's actions were out of line and should not be repeated. Not to do that, just makes it harder to show that there have been previous instances if this comes up again. Having said that if someone wants to start a new (sub)section discussing Ritchie333's admin actions (or even just unblocks) then I don't have a problem with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Terrible unblock - "grow up, gain some integrity...oh, wow, I think I've told you this before....You have no comprehension of content creation and epitomise all that is wrong with Wikipedia" - Liz, you are truly pathetic. Perhaps one day you might learn how to produce content although it is doubtful...Grow up. - You are an insidious POV "editor" - I use quotation marks as personally I consider you very far from a competent content editor. Get a live, learn some integrity...You are not worth the dirt on my shoes ... take a hike ... do I need to make my thoughts about you any clearer? - When editor was told to stop the attacks by both me and Dennis, Phil went to further hysterics about her being a female and content creator. Not once apologizing or realizing that they were wrong. This is tool abuse, there is no consensus here to unblock, and Richie has unblocked against consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits of the block and unblock, Dave Dial, you should be aware that your "hysterics" comment is really sexist. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Being hysterical is hardly a quality limited to females. There is no need to assume the usage of the word had anything to do with gender. HighInBC 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• That's bullshit Drmies, and you know it. I won't play this game with you. Dave Dial (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As a female, I can say unequivocally that I was not offended by the hysterics comment. Being hysterical is most certainly not specific to women, and I'm disappointed Drmies seems to think so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• So what can we do going forward? We could re-block Phil, that has met with some support but High brings up a good point. We could seek action against Ritchie, I can see this thread as being an admonishment though as it is. Or we could let this whole thing go, and use this thread if the same issue repeats its-self that results in a block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've no idea about Phil. Since she's been blocked and unblocked, one can hope that she got the message that that sort of behavior is unacceptable. The more pressing problem is Richie and the manner he has chosen to go around and make 'cowboy unblocks'. He has even stated that is his goal moving forward. Dave Dial (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• What we do is move on. I talked to Phil via email a couple of times (for the record, I've never talked to her before this incident) and her comments were more than enough to generate an unblock had it been posted in an unblock request. She gets it. This was a very experienced editor and her first block, not a newb troublemaker. Some might see the block as a bit hasty, and/or the same for the unblock, but it's now over. My opinion....is irrelevant. The middle part is less interesting to me as nothing "evil" happened during that period. None of us can cast the first stone, so instead, let's close this and go write articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support closing, there is nothing else to do here. While the block being reversed was not ideal we are in the same situation that we would be in if it expired. Any further concerns about the unblock can be handled at the relevant user talk page or if anyone really wants to a new thread. HighInBC 15:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support closing, I do feel however that Ritchie's actions need to be looked into. Thank you Dennis for letting us know about Phil. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support reblocking Phil unless Ritchie is investigated - anything else is utter incompetence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry I may be daft but can you explain to me why the decision to block Phil would be based on Ritchie's actions and our response to them? Seems like the two issues should be handled separately. HighInBC 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Phil was unblocked without consensus and without apology. She should be reblocked. This is common sense. Reblocking her shows that Ritchie was wrong and violated policy in his unblock, and that nasty personal attacks will not be tolerated for any reason, especially from people who are not sorry about it. If you choose not to reblock her, you should investigate Ritchie's pattern of this kind of behavior. I don't understand this total apathy/impotence. "Look at all the terrible behavior we see, including from our admins... let's do jack shit about it" must be an admin motto I'm not aware of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think reblocking will solve anything. As far as holding Richie accountable that is something you are as capable of doing as anyone else. HighInBC 16:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with High, I encourage those who want to see Ritchie's actions looked into to start another thread. I know it isn't right the unblock, but re-blocking rather than looking at the admin who made the unblock is going to cause more of a mess. This thread can be referenced going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Then reblock her and investigate him. I think his conduct and your implicit endorsement of such is sending a very negative message to other users who are blocked for good faith edits or minor infractions and have their block requests declined. That you endorse a five-hour block of someone who made egregious personal attacks is a big middle finger to those users. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As Neil states below there is WP:WHEEL, I am open to re-blocking but that is what I meant by more of a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• You can't reblock. As I've indicated, as an uninvolved admin, I've received emails that qualify as reasoning for an unblock, an indication that she understands the mistake she made, and had I had the opportunity, I would have done so based on that information. This doesn't speak to the validity of the actions of the blocking or unblocking admins, and their actions are completely irrelevant to the fact that she satisfied the criteria for an unblock, even though the discussion was in private (this is not that unusual, actually). Reblocking with that knowledge would clearly be construed as punitive and outside of policy, so it is doubtful any admin would. You can't punish her for what some see as Ritchie's mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I'd feel more reassured if you said you'd unblock after discussing the issue with Berean Hunter than because Phil sent you private email messages. A unblock request should be public as it is only clear to you and Ritchie, and no one else, that she regrets what she said. The insults and slights have been occurring for months and I doubt they will disappear overnight.

And I find it very absurd that I was asked to not participate in this discussion when I was the target of the personal attacks. I don't think I've ever seen one party in a conflict asked to stay away from the discussion of the conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Liz, as I've never unblocked anyone in violation of policy and don't even know the blocked party, I shouldn't have to qualify my statement by outlining the steps in an unblock; it should be understood that typical procedure would be followed. To ask me to explain implies a likelihood that I wouldn't follow policy. I had already given her notice on my talk page prior. And we have accepted unblock requests by email since I started in 2006. It isn't optimal, but it is often one way to get the ball rolling. I won't reveal the content, but just say it took a couple emails to get to the "I get it" stage, which isn't unusual as people usually cool down with time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Wikimandia: Not apathetic (the rapid growth of this thread shows that) but an adherence to WP:WHEEL. Ritchie has chosen to disparage another editor on his talk page instead of rethinking his unblock so it's clear he stands by it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Isn't WHEEL in regards to two admins each overturning another, and thus going round and round? It seems pretty clear there are multiple admins here who feel Ritchie's action was incorrect. I don't recall anyone who supports him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Based on the "support closing" comments here, I don't see clear consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I saw a bunch of support above for a re-block, as I said I would still be open to the idea but feel the bigger picture is Ritchie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support closing: Neither the block, nor the unblock comes off well here. It is incorrect that WP:NPA results in punitive blocks. It can result in bans if they are repeated and gratuitous, but that is for the community to decide. And cooldown blocks are definitely discouraged, for good reason. Admins should use the block button carefully. That said, there shouldn't have been an unblock without a consensus. Admins should use the unblock button carefully as well. At the end of the day, it won't matter, let's end the drama. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A block prevents future attacks - thus, preventative.

As for 'reblock' - that will not happen, unless there is additional attack. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I closed this thread, since there is no way it could be consensus on re-blocking, but Hawkeye7, who is not an admin, reverted my closure. Need another opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Per recent discussions at ArbCom, items are to be left open for at least 24 hours. It is not acceptable to close discussions after three hours between 2 and 5 in the morning solely to avoid scrutiny or to restrict debate to North American editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What scrutiny? I said very clearly that whoever wants scrutiny is welcome to open a separate thread. This one escalated to the point it became unusable.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And it is a subthread, and for whatever reason you did not unclose the main thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't set policy (or isn't supposed to on things outside their realm, anyway), but just for grins and giggles, please point to the Arb finding. I would also note that your edit summary "Invalid closure - cannot close items after three hours solely to avoid scrutiny" looks a lot like casting aspersions, and I would ask you please be more careful in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't set policy for AN. The closest thing I can think of is there's discussion about making it so AE reports (something actually within ArbCom's remit) stay open for 24 hours.Capeo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see this turning into an arbcom debate, what does that have to do with the original discussion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban discussions must go 24 hours, nobody is being banned here. There is no rule that says a discussion that closes with no action must run a certain amount of time. The accusations of trying to "avoid scrutiny" are baseless and rude. HighInBC 00:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am tired of admins overturning blocks without discussion, which ArbCom has classed as WP:WHEEL warring. I am even more tired of discussions of serious wrongdoing being shut down after a couple of hours in the middle of the night. That is the opposite of consensus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think everything that needs to be said on this sad incident has been said. Much useful and reflective material has been posted. It has been over 24 hours now since this blew up. In a sense, everyone involved is a victim, of misunderstanding, anger, impulses that seemed right at the time. Now it is history. I am sure many parties have learned from this, even if pride, shame or other factors have prohibited them from articulating in public. Who knows what reflections, afterthoughts, apologies have been expressed via private channels? Let it go. A close would be wise. Irondome (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion and there was no serious wrongdoing. The problem wouldn't arise if admins didn't make bad blocks in the first place. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It was obviously a good block. Personal attacks are serious wrong doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reclose section It's clear that Sagaciousphil won't be reblocked. There's the matter of Ritchie's conduct. Based on his rather self-serving and condescending comments on his talk page it's also clear he considers the matter closed. Those who disagree should open a new section focusing on his actions rather than calling for a reblock. However, it's likely that "take it to Arbcom, we can't do anything here" will be a common response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to lift the topic ban of DrChrissy

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

---

It is 6 months since my indefinite topic ban was imposed on the 20th May 2015.[143] I am now seeking a lifting of this ban.@Awilley:

Although the subject-area of my ban was initially confused, the locus relates to three subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) WP:MEDRS and (3) human medicine articles. I have not edited any pages in these subjects or entered into discussions about them during the last 6 months. However, there was initially some confusion on my part whether the topic ban included my sandbox. It was subsequently pointed out how it did, which I accepted. At that time, it was unclear from the WP:Banning policy that personal sandboxes were included. Therefore, after realising the omission, I edited the policy article to specify this to improve the project and give more accessible and accurate future guidance for editors and administrators.[144]

Throughout the last 6 months, I have been highly motivated to remain a responsible Wikipedian and contribute positively to the project whilst avoiding violating my topic ban. To ensure this, I have on several occasions contacted the (final) closing admin, User:Awilley, e.g. here[145] and another admin, User:Slimvirgin, to discuss my potential edits.

During the last 6 months, I have remained a highly productive editor, focusing primarily on animal behaviour and animal welfare articles.[146] For example, I recently substantially re-wrote Pain in fish and started the article Pain in amphibians. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as the science reference desk e.g. here[147]

I believe the fundamental reason for my attracting a topic ban was my lack of understanding WP:MEDRS as applied to alternative medicine. This meant I challenged the guidelines in what became a very pointy and tangential approach to editing Talk pages. I was trying to make the point that it seemed to me at the time, there was inconsistency in the way that sources were being considered as reliable or not. I have now fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:POINTY. I recognise and accept my actions leading to the topic ban were disruptive to the project. I apologise and I pledge it will not happen again.

Briefly, I believe my topic ban has prevented the topic area from being disrupted by myself for the last 6 months. During this time, I have reflected upon and learned why I caused this disruption in the topic area. I will adjust my future editing in the topic area to ensure I cause no further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I have conflicted feelings about this request. I have some questions for DrChrissy that I would be interested in having answered. First, do you really want to be able to edit in that topic area? If you can be productive editing in other areas, as I believe that you are, what good would come from you returning to edit about alt med etc? Second, there is a significant possibility that the GMO arbitration case, now in the proposed decision stage, will end up issuing a new topic ban, in the GMO topic area. How can you reassure the community, in that context, that it is really true that you have taken on board the lessons of the ban that you now ask to be lifted? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Brief non-admin comment: This editor has violated their topic ban as recently as late August. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when I read this was much like Tryptofish's. If your behavior outside the area of your first topic ban leads to a second topic ban, how can we believe that removing the first ban would be a good idea? Deli nk (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Comment by proposer Thanks for the format change Trypto. You raise an extremely good point. I actually do not want to make editing in-roads into the subjects covered by my topic ban. I have no plans to edit human medicine articles (the irony here is that I cannot recollect ever having substantially edited a human medicine page before - although I may have at some point). I also have very little motivation to edit alt.med articles, except where these relate to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. I feel, however, I will become involved in WP:MEDRS, but again as this relates to animals. I have not looked at the MEDRS/Talk page for many months. The last time I did, there were discussions to extend MEDRS guidelines to animals and perhaps other science pages. I feel I have something to contribute to these discussions, but please be assured, these will not be disruptive contributions.

So, why do I want the topic ban lifted? It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing. There are several editors out there playing "gotcha" with me. Some editors have argued that because I have included content on the environmental toxicity of a substance to rats, this means I am making a comment on human health and therefore I have violated my topic ban. In reality, my reason for entering the content was that rats are often used as a model for the toxicity of a substance to other mammals in general. Other editors have effectively suggested that if I am using a source, I should count the words and if more of the words relate to human health rather than animal health, I am in violation of my topic ban if I use the source! Working under this extremely negative, microscopic surveillance has been totally exasperating for me and I wish to return to editing articles without such scruitiny of my editing.

Regarding the current ArbCom case, I would like admins here to look at this diff, please.[148] Note the first diff of apparent evidence at the PD relates to my behaviour well before the imposition of my topic ban and shows only a single reversion by me. The 2nd-4th diff in the PD also indicate just a single reversion on my part. I would argue this is not disruptive behaviour, but rather, indicates the topic ban I received here has helped me understand and develop a more balanced approach to engaging in such disputes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not-a-votes

• Strong oppose - DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems. I see absolutely no benefit to the project in releasing him from any sanction they are currently under. Further, the reason given for wanting out from the ban "It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing." Well, that's too bad, they shouldn't have edited in such a fashion as to be topic-banned - and the attitudes expressed 'All these editors are picking on me and looking over my shoulder monitoring my edits' does not bode well for non-combative editing should the ban be lifted. NO, just... no. BMK (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I obviously do not see it in such absolute terms as you do. One possibility I am wondering about would be basically to leave the topic ban in place, but to carefully amend it, by revising it to decrease the ambiguities over where the boundaries are. Perhaps some veterinary topics could be designated as permitted within the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support for editing pages related to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the TB handcuffs DrChrissy from being the productive editor he could be in his area of expertise. It has become more like a punishment than a deflector of potential disputes and that hurts rather than helps the project. Atsme^📞📧 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with Atsme that unshackling DrChrissy is more likely to help the project than hurt it. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I have to note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision a current case before Arbcom. Though it's possible they can change their positions before the close, right now it looks a whole lot like she's treading towards a topic ban in another area. I note the finding of facts here. This does not present much confidence to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support DrChrissy did not violate his topic ban as Yobol suggests, DrChrissy was in fact banned
  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)
  His post didn't cross that line. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• I continue to think that the wisest course of action here is to better define the boundaries. Personally, I am very sensitive to the fact that it is unfair to DrChrissy to always have to look over one's shoulder. There is a difference between a user being required to be careful in adhering to a sanction, which is appropriate, and a user always having to worry about getting caught in a "gotcha", which should never deliberately be part of a sanction. If there are "gotchas", that doesn't constitute appropriate "punishment", but rather it reflects excessively vague writing of the sanction.

So, @DrChrissy: Would lifting the prohibition on alternative veterinary medicine, while retaining the restriction on alternative human medicine, be helpful to you? If so, would you be willing not to get involved in MEDRS? How would you like to define the boundary with respect to things like animal studies such as that study about toxicity in rats? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply from OP Trypto, thank you very much for this. I know you are trying to help. I could argue for or against your proposal, however, I feel this ultimately comes down to the question, if the alternative veterinary medicine area no longer needs protection, why does alternative medicine and MEDRS need further protection from me? Where are the edits to suggest these latter 2 of the 3 areas of the locus still need protection from me? I feel very strongly that accusations here such as "DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released [sic] fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems." by BMK above should be supported by diffs or other evidence. Otherwise this may deteriorate into a drive-by shooting.

Just to indicate the difficulty of working with a topic ban on MEDRS, try explaining to a new editor mistakenly imposing MEDRS on an animal behaviour article with respect to primary and secondary sources without mentioning MEDRS! How can my inability to even point the editor in the correct direction possibly be beneficial to the project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to discuss the boundaries in this way, rather than just jumping prematurely to a concrete proposal. I see better now what you are saying about MEDRS. Perhaps you should be able to refer to MEDRS and to cite its proper or improper use in veterinary or animal-related discussions, without actually editing the MEDRS page or its talk page, or making or discussing proposals about how to revise MEDRS. As for alternative human medicine, I too would like to see specifics. From both "sides". I'd like you to indicate specifically what kinds of edits you would like to be able to make there, and I'd like other editors to indicate specifically what edits you have made that they think have been disruptive. Then, let's see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never edited WP:MEDRS and I see no reason why I would want to edit the main article in the foreseeable future. I have edited the talk page. At the time of my topic ban being imposed, there were discussions there about extensions of the MEDRS guidelines to include animals and veterinary science. I would contribute to these discussions - however, after having just looked at the Talk page, it appears these discussions are no longer ongoing. I would perhaps like to contribute positively in discussions where animals are used as models, particularly in behavioural studies and perhaps in zoonoses. Regarding alt.med articles, again I would like to edit where my knowledge of animal physiology, behaviour, and adequate design/controls for animal studies will benefit the article and the project. As I indicated in my OP, I have fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS and I would make edits fully compliant with these guidelines.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm pursuing this because I think it is becoming pretty clear that, no matter what, there will not be a consensus for a complete and unconditional lifting of the ban, so I'm trying to pin down something that would be better than nothing. I'm friendly to lifting the ban with respect to veterinary and animal-related topics. I think that, given what you just said, there may no longer be much reason for you to really be involved in the MEDRS talk page. Perhaps we can examine lifting the ban with respect to veterinary alt med (but not human alt med), and animal testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not share your belief there will be no consensus for an unconditional lifting, unless contributors are allowed to make unfounded accusations against me without providing evidence. What is your evidence that MEDRS needs further protection from me? (Please note that animal testing is not part of my topic ban and never has been.)DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have that kind of evidence myself, and I'm not claiming to. I'm just trying to discuss things, keeping in mind that this is not a vote. At this point, I'm going to step back and watch what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tryptofish, Yobol, and BMK. I see nothing that indicates the ban should be lifted at this time. That the editor wants such a ban lifted only 6 months later tells me they are chomping at the bit to start editing the topic banned articles immediately. And that tells me lesson not learned and disruption will once again likely be the result. If such is the case, what will the response be? An indef ban for the account rather than a topic ban alone? I don't see this request as a wise move on the requesting editor's part nor do I see that there won't be more problems for the editor down the road. The evidence just isn't there. More time has to pass, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to reply to each and every posting here - I have learned from experience that such an approach is not looked favourably upon at WP. However, Winkelvi (who I believe I have never interacted with before) misinterprets my keenness to have the topic ban lifted. I have already indicated above my future editing intentions if the ban is lifted - I will not re-hash these, but will re-iterate there is no desire on my part whatsoever to rush into editing any of the areas I am banned from. Winkelvi, please AGF. My chomping at the bit is to allow me to edit more positively and comprehensively (note the example regarding MEDRS I gave above - this is just one example where the project is actually suffering from my topic ban). You say "The evidence just isn't there." - could you please tell me what evidence you would like to see?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up - Tryptofish has not voted Oppose. He has actually made some very reasonable suggestions about a modified topic ban which are under discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that I have not yet really "voted" either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per Supports above, and DrChrissy's statement just above. Opposers are utterly unconvincing and appear to be grasping at straws. This is a noted content provider that has served their time, and is not intimidated by the experience. Bravo! Jusdafax 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor is up for an ArbCom topic ban due to the same behavior that resulted in the current topic ban and people want to lift it? Makes no sense. Though I see a lot of the same names supporting here that are involved in said GMO case.Capeo (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Capeo: I have just left a message for User:Edgar181 below, but as you have posted a similar assertion, I will pose the same question to you. To help the closing admin understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What is my evidence? Seriously? There's plenty over on the case pages themselves for those who want to peruse it. The same behavior would POV pushing and some edit-warring as well. Capeo (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. You have still not provided evidence; you have simply said where evidence might be found. The case pages are enormous! You are proposing a huge time-sink for the closing admin to determine if your statement is legitimate and worthy of taking into account.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick follow up - the PD presented only 4 diffs, all of which were related to only 2 interactions but clearly showed goading of me by one very notorious editor. The diffs contained only 2 reversions by myself, one in each interaction presented as "evidence".DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Whipsers): Psst, DrChrissy, placing blame on another editor isn't helping you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Typto - heard and understood.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I will indeed leave it to the closing admin to decide if my oppose is legitimate. Your history of conflicts in fringe areas is evident enough for them to see just from what lead to your current topic ban and the one soon to be imposed by ArbCom. Capeo (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of which "fringe" pages I have edited since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Since your topic ban? Not much, if any. Which was the point of the topic ban. If it ain't broken don't fix is my thought. Capeo (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The point of the topic ban was to protect MEDRS, human medical and alt.med articles - "fringe" articles (an absolutely enormous topic area) were not even mentioned by the closing admin. I am making this point because you and several other "opposing" editors have accused me of editing "fringe" articles since my ban. I have challenged each and every one of you to produce evidence of this. None of you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. This makes your opposition unfounded and repeats of this accusation are misleading the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Let me start by saying I do believe DrChrissy is a good faith editor who genuinely has the best interest of Wikipedia's readers at heart. I would add that there were some problems with the original topic ban, namely that users agreed to a ban on "biomedical topics" without really defining what that term means, leading to some messiness when trying to impose and define the scope of the ban, which in turn led to far more after-discussion than should have been necessary for a simple topic ban. Because of these factors I am inclined towards leniency/AGF here.

I'm not sure if the edit cited from August really constitutes a violation of the ban, but if it does I believe this was not intentional, and frankly I don't really feel like reviewing an entire arbcom case to see what's going on there. If arbcom feels a new, different sanction is warranted they are perfectly able to implement it, but I dislike the idea of denying this request because of an accusation there. As a former arb I am painfully aware of how many such accusations are made during cases, many if not most of which don't lead anywhere. I think we should give DrChrissy another chance, per WP:ROPE, which of course implies tht they also should understand that if they cause similar problems int he future the bar to re-imposing this ban will be quite low and there will be very little chance of getting it lifted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic here: the initial ban was not precise and had to be restated in more precise terms. That happened a long time before the edit in question, plenty of time for DrC to unserstand the boundaries of the ban; but even if we wanted to show DC some leniency because of the initial ban wording snafu, we've already done that: DrC was not blocked because of that edit. There's is absolutely no logical reason why an garble at the beginning of the ban, and a posssible boundary-pushing edit for which there was no sanction equals a lifting of the topic ban because the subject of the ban is tired of it. I will lay odds that the subject of every topic ban gets tired of it at one time or another.

Also, I do not agree that DrC has "the best interests of Wikipedia at heart." I think their editing shows that they have the best interests of their fringe POV at heart, and what they want for WIkipedia is to skew it in that direction. BMK (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I am someone who would, if anything, would be pegged as having a POV opposite to what you ascribe to DrChrissy (not that I really do, but it is how I appear to be perceived), but I do not see DrChrissy the way that you do. And Beeblebrox, there are two separate topic bans involved here, and the one that is under discussion here at AN is not an ArbCom decision, but rather, a community sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Will somebody please tell me what my POV is in relation to this topic ban because I have no idea!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have worded that inelegantly, but I wasn't trying to say that you have a POV. I was saying that the editors who want the ban to remain, full stop, seem to think that you have fringey views or something like that. But I don't think the issue here is really about POV, so I'm sorry if that's become a distraction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, my reply was not really aimed at you. It was more aimed at BMK. His accusations are a mixture of vague, wishy-washy statements without providing any solid evidence. @Beyond My Ken: What Fringe articles have I edited? How are my edits on those articles indicating I am pushing a POV? What is this POV? I think your reply needs to be very careful because as far as I know, it is not inappropriate to have a POV, but it is inappropriate to push a POV. Please provide evidence that I have been doing this since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I was also not sufficiently clear in my remarks.

@Beyond My Ken:Note the seperate paragraphs. I was not intending to say that the ppossible topic ban violation was due to the earlier vagueries about it scope, just that it looks like a bit of a stretch and I do not believe it was intentional violation.

@Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally said, to be referring to Arbs reviewing this topic ban. Never mind. But I think you are right about ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support Topic bans are silly and 6-month or more topic bans are ridiculous. DrChrissy is a good editor and he will either edit constructively or not in these areas. If not, there will be blocks and possibly a ban in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional support with alternate proposal I'm the admin who refined the wording of the current topic ban to what it is now, and I've been a point of contact when DrChrissy had questions or skirted the edges of the ban. I am encouraged that DrChrissy recognizes what the problem was with their editing 6 months ago, and though they have (in my view) been skirting the edges of the ban, I can also understand how it would be difficult to edit articles about animal medicine (their profession) without ever touching human medicine. Anyway, I think the topic ban has been a good thing overall for reducing drama so I'm hesitant to eliminate it completely. I would support, however, converting it to a voluntary "on your honor" topic ban, where DrChrissy promises to do their best to stay away from human medicine and MEDRS, but doesn't have to worry about being blocked if they mess up. ~Awilley (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Awilley, thanks for your input here. As ever, your words are well considered and very helpful. First, I don't think I have ever edited a human medicine article (I may be wrong here and other editors should feel free to indicate this if I am) and I have no desire to begin doing this now. However, although I have absolutely no motivation to start posting to the MEDRS Talk page at the moment, I feel that I may have something to contribute if animal-related matters arise in the future. I have worked extremely hard to build my reputation and integrity here on wikipedia. If I was to promise to do my best to stay away from MEDRS Talk and then edited there at some time in the future, there is no doubt in my mind there would be postings along the lines of "DrChrissy - you broke your promise. You have little integrity". In your proposal, I would not be blocked for the edit, but I feel it would leave me open to abusive and inflammatory posts. One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this? You agree to stay off articles specifically about human medicine and human alt-med, and away from MEDRS for 3 months. This is more narrow than your current ban, so you won't have to count words, scrutinize sources, or look over your shoulder. Just don't edit certain articles. This would be kind of the test period to see if drama increases again, and it ends automatically without appeal, after which you can edit anywhere on the site. ~Awilley (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed in principle to negotiating bans with the subject of the ban. Discussion can take place between uninvolved editors, but to put it on a one-to-one basis between the banning admin and the subject leaves it open to abuse. BMK (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse? Who should bans be negotiated with if not the subject of the ban? And what's wrong with giving editors some control over where they can edit? The way I see it if somebody has enough input where they can agree to follow a topic ban, that is a very good thing, and they are more likely to abide by that sanction than if it was unilaterally imposed on them by forces completely outside of their control. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your words. I would be amenable to considering this if the wording was very specific to articles rather than topics or discussion. For example, it was very recently announced that GM salmon has now been licensed in the US. I was editing the Genetically modified fish article to reflect this. The RS I was using stated that the fish would not be labelled as GM because it was "nutritionally equivalent to non-GM salmon" (I think those were the words). I felt this fact should be included, however, I did not include it because it probably relates to human health which is a part of human medicine. I think your proposal would deal with this type of problem. However, it is probably worth noting that the "count the words relating to humans and the number of words relating to animals" and "rats are used in studies for human health results therefore you have breached your topic ban" both occurred on the Glyphosate article - a herbicide, for goodness sake. I can see the distinct advantages of what you have suggested. But, I am mindful that many people have already supported an unconditional lifting of my topic ban now that 6 months has expired, rather than my having to experience a further 3-month test-period. I'm sure the closing admin will take all these points of view into consideration.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this would only apply to articles only. I too am aware of the supports piling up below, so you will likely be unbanned without needing my support. I think it's a good idea anyway, even if you just make the commitment to yourself and don't write it down on-Wiki. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting of the topic ban. It has led to several "gotcha" situations, and no-one being clear where the boundaries lay. DrC makes clear above that his understanding of MEDRS has improved. Lifting the ban will mean that he can work unimpeded, particularly on non-human animal health. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support unconditional lifting of the ban, with an accompanying understanding of WP:ROPE. I've seen enough discussion now, and I have made up my mind. I think that Beeblebrox makes good points, both about ROPE and about the non-dependence on whatever happens at ArbCom. I've waited for evidence of harmful edits around the boundaries of the topic, and nobody has really presented any. Lift the ban entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban given DrC's recognition of what caused the problems in the first place. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would feel very comfortable using DrChrissy's suggestion from his response to Awilley above: One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors) I maintain that he should be able to edit this site without question, and would especially hate to loose his voice at MEDRS-related discussions. petrarchan47คุก 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The community will do what the community will do, but if the ban is lifted, I see a significant probability that we'll see DrC's name on the noticeboards again. Remember, you read it here first! BMK (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. DrChrissy - straightforward, cooperative, professional. The Tban implementation - poorly-defined, "gotcha", dysfunctional. (How does WP attract/keep expert editors? By draining them of morale?! DrChrissy is a stronger editor from this muddy experience. That deserves recognition not bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• support a valuable editor, Wikipedia should be stronger, "knowledge-wise" with such an editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I do not recognise the editor described in many of the support comments here as the one who has been topic banned by the community. The editing environment has been improved in the topic areas covered by the ban. The fact that ARBCOM is examining those very same behaviours that led DrC to be sanctioned by the community suggests to me that this appeal is premature. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's also interesting to note that I recognize many of the "support" voters as being other editors who generally support the fringe side of things (QuackGuru being the obviously blatant exception). BMK (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although it's true that there are some editors who predictably line up to vote (not !vote) for the fringey "side" every time, and it's also true that the decision here is not going to end up as a vote, but rather as an administrative assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of arguments, I really do not think that DrChrissy is someone who advocates for fringe material. Nor, may I say, am I (and I hope that my pointing that out will not be portrayed as "whiney"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was not including you in the group of editors I mentioned, nor would I characterize your participation here as "whining", as opposed to your ongoing disproportionate response to your 24-hour ArbCom block over a month ago, which I advised you to put behind you ("Get over it"), instead of dwelling on it unnecessarily. Other editors have been the recipients of unwarranted blocks for any number of reasons, and you don't see them making it their life's work to rectify the injustice. (That's assuming that your block was unwarranted, which we cannot know because we are not privy to the information that ArbCom was.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I repeat: I see no evidence that DrChrissy will add fringey content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Then I would say that your evaluation of their editing is suspect, and advise you to re-read the community discussion which lead to the topic ban in the first place. You'll find it here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Roxy, thank-you very much for that first sentence. I could not have asked for a more eloquent piece of writing to indicate how much my editing behaviour has changed over the past 6 months, and how the topic ban has achieved its objective within the time indicated by the closing admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately misreading what Roxy wrote, or are you simply being disingenuous? What he said was nothing like your summary of it. He's saying that the subject area you've been topic banned from has improved significantly by your not being there, and that the description of your editing promoted by your supporters is unrecognizable to him when compared to your actual editing behavior. (Hint: It was bad for you, not good.) BMK (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh dear BMK. Lots of bold and underlining, but Roxy does not even bother to defend his own posting. Are you able to read his mind? He correctly identified that the community have recognised I have changed my editing behaviour subsequent to the topic ban and that is completely valid evidence for it to be lifted. I simply thanked him for that observation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, I can't read Roxy's mind, but, fortunately, I don't have to, since I can read their words, in which they expressed quite clearly what is on their mind. I suggest you try doing the same, since he said nothing whatsoever about the community recognizing a change in your editing behavior. It probably would be a good idea to read it again, this time without reading into it what you want it to say, instead of what he actually says. While it's often the point of snarky remarks, reading comprehension really is necessary to edit Wikipedia properly, if one is to, for instance, represent accurately what reliable sources say rather than what one wishes them to say. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. Real life, and it was bedtime. I dreamed about leopards and spots. Perhaps I should get a vetinary to interpret ... Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it is a very bad idea to lift an existing topic ban on an editor who is currently facing another topic ban for the same type of behavior that led to the first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  Edgar181, to help the closing admin. understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same type of behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Not an admin, but an editor who has worked with DrChrissy on articles such as glyphosate. DrChrissy is a valuable and hard-working editor. I think that judgments above that refer to DrChrissy having a "fringy" point of view are troublesome, for two reasons. (1) Having a POV is not against guidelines, but rather encouraged, actually, and i think DrChrissy's POV is valuable in editing here, as it's somewhat underrepresented. (2) The decision of what is "fringy" is rather relative. All judgment should be based on behavior, and relate to whether DrChrissy works well with other editors, uses appropriate sources, and represents them accurately. Any judgment that is based on an assumed "standard POV" for Wikipedia is creating a "party line" of sorts. I support DrChrissy's request for a full lift of the ban, and then future behavior being judged based on behavior in regard to the guidelines. SageRad (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another member of the crew. BMK (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: What is that supposed to mean? Looks a lot like poisoning the well and attempting to cast me as a gang-like POV editor. If that is the implication, then i ask you to either say that explicitly, or to strike the insinuating remark. Let's be explicit and honest about what we mean. I have indeed worked alongside DrChrissy on a few articles, very productively in general. A few times i've urged DrChrissy to slow down and to listen to other editors more, but on the whole i have found DrChrissy a generally good and conscientious editor. Now would you please explain your brief drive-by remark here? Thank you. SageRad (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• SageRad, considering your situation, you're hardly in a position to pass judgement on other editor's comments or to demand anything, nor can you be considered as a non-partisan voice in this discussion. I suggest that the closer of this discussion would be best advised to ignore your comment entirely as yet another one of the fringy crew. BMK (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• You repeat the same behavior that i've stated is problematic, attempting to poison the well against my input and framing me as a POV pushing gang editor and thereby trying to negate my ability to provide input here. That's wrong. I ask you to strike it. I've got editing experience with DrChrissy and can provide input. I'm generally in favor of the sorts of edits that DrChrissy makes though not always, and my input is quite as valid as anyone else's. What you're trying to do here is not ok. It's battleground behavior. I've stated my concerns. This section is about DrChrissy, not you and i, and I gave my input. SageRad (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and you certainly can do that. I also gave my input, which is that your input would best be ignored by anyone who closes this thread. I see nothing wrong with that. BMK (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what is wrong with it. SageRad (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to !vote (others have lined up to do that from the GMO ArbCom case), but myself and others have voiced concern many times on their talk page when DrChrissy has tested the edges their current topic ban(s).[149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157] If someone actually is going to consider removing the ban they should consider those diffs and talk page sections and that DrChrissy is up for another topic ban at ArbCom for the same behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you not !voting? It seems a little odd to me to contribute something like you have and than actually refuse to !vote. Perhaps you are not convinced by your own arguments? I feel you really should clarify which behaviours in the admin's closing statement for my topic ban are also being considered at ArbCom. You are stating it is the "same" behaviour, but I fail to see what behaviour you are referring to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because "votes" mean nothing here. The evidence should speak for itself. That and there's already a block of editors associated with the GMO case doling out supports, and I usually give those kinds of votes doubly less weight (whether support or oppose). Tossing a bold word or two in front of my post would carry just as little weight. What less involved editors determine from evidence presented in examples like mine is what matters, not vote counts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see more of the same aspersions that we've been seeing at ArbCom which includes providing diffs that don't support the allegations (and what makes them aspersions). The diffs I reviewed were simply explanations of the TB, not actual violations of it. Claims that DrChrissy has been "testing the edges of his TB" are part of the reason for his request to lift it - it was never done intentionally rather the TB is thoroughly confusing and extremely restrictive in places where it shouldn't be so it seems quite odd that anyone with a lick of common sense would condemn him to many more months in purgatory because of the flaws surrounding the TB. Ironically, the diffs used to support the unwarranted allegations (and I actually investigated them) also included comments by admins, SlimVirgin and Beeblebrox, who support lifting this ban, so how on earth could those diffs support keeping the ban in place? I will also mention that the long list of diffs look impressive but they don't support any of the reasons given to keep the ban in place. Thank goodness we don't have an overabundance of admins working under time constraints who will simply look at such a large number of diffs and ass-u-me they support the allegations. I find such a practice to be extremely disruptive and potentially harmful to both the editor being unjustly accused as well as to the project overall....but of course, that's just my POV. Atsme^📞📧 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As shown by Kingofaces43, DrChrissy seems intent on skirting their topic ban, by trying to edit articles which can be summed up "scientific consensus versus fringe unscientific POV / conspiracy theorists / Daily Mail health articles etc." with articles areas such as GM food, glycophosphate, acupuncture, high fructose corn syrup etc.. This does not suggest good faith. Why the heck can't they stay away from these areas and concentrate on uncontentious areas for a while? Their editing is not suited to WP:FRINGE areas whatsoever. It will just end up with future ANI and ArbCom actions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an outrageous posting! I have never edited high fructose corn syrup or its Talk page!DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about [158]? If you havent edited the article you've certainly discussed it. I have changed artcles to areas.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

E/C That is a diff to my Talk page in which I was discussing with a well respected admin whether a posting to the page would be a violation of my topic ban. They explained it would, so I did not make the edit/s. Are you suggesting that my seeking advice from an admin means I am in breach of my topic ban?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK it's not clear what happened. I shall redact it. But why even ask? Of course it would violate your ban. see WP:CIR --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to also redact your accusation about me editing the acupuncture page and its associate Talk page. My last edit of that page was on May 17th - 3 days before my topic ban was imposed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You had a community ban dated the 16th. See [159]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture is considered to be alt.med, not biomedical. Alt.med was not added until the close by User:Awilley to clarify the situation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

More quibbling? It does not inspire me to reconsider...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. This little exchange is typical of the Doc's behaviour with regard to his community imposed topic ban from the beginning. I see nothing to persuade me to change my opinion, expressed above. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) -

I reviewed our PAGs and couldn't find "quibbling" mentioned as a violation, much less worthy of a TB. What I do know is that casting aspersions is highly frowned upon as is baiting, harranguing and so forth. Wrongful criticism falls under that same category and may be considered a PA. DrChrissy is void of any such conduct and has simply defended himself against unwarranted allegations. Perhaps its time to more closely examine the allegations made against him to see what might be causing what some consider quibbling but is beginning to appear more like ill-will toward a GF editor's integrity rather than an attempt to resolve a real issue. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's where you're wrong, this is an attempt to resolve a real issue, that issue bring DrChrissys' problematic editing of WP:FRINGE topics. I've just noticed that ArbCom have just voted to topic ban DrChrissy from GM plants and agrichemicals [160]. To reverse their topic ban at this time would be ludicrous. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On the above dialogue, i do not think it's fair to represent the subject's clarification of scope of topic ban as "quibbling" and then to use that as more fuel against them, for that is a silencing sort of tactic. It must be permissible for the person in question to clarify as much as needed, until we are on the same page. I do not like phrasings and tactics that create the impression that any new words from the defendant are, in themself, further evidence against the person. It's a silencing tactic and not fair. It feels very bad to the defendant. They have a right to speak in their defense even if it's to clarify a detail. There is no limit to the amount of dialogue, as long as it's not a filibuster. Secondly, i fail to see how the GM ArbCom case's result is relevant here. Let's keep issues separate. I'm also part of the ArbCom case, and it's very complex and has its own many issues. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The recent ArbCom ban of DrChrissy is highly relevant, as it indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted. It shows DrChrissy has learned little from their community ban, and has continued editing with little regard for earlier criticism. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd I believe you are again inaccurately misrepresenting the situation. First, there is no recent Arbcom ban of me. There is a vote in process, but no ban has been imposed and I feel it is misleading for you to state this has been done. Second, you state that the ArbCom vote "...indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted". The evidence in the PD relates to Foie gras and Glyphosate edits. Are these "Fringe" topics? If they are not, which fringe topics are you referring to?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to discuss this further here, there is too much crap already in this thread. But if you're really curious you can ask me on my talk page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a matter of curiosity. You have made an accusation against me and I am asking for evidence to support that. What is your evidence for my editing "fringe" articles since my topic ban, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please take some time off from hammering DrChrissy and give an uninvolved admin a chance to carefully review the SUPPORT vs OPPOSE consensus before this discussion turns into 17 pages of meritless accusations and relentless repetition? Imagine being an admin having to wade through this stuff. Jiminy Cricket. We've already explained the pros and cons, and why the ban should be lifted (which has prevailing support) or not lifted (minority view based on the initial confusion as explained by Beeblebrox above). Try walking in DrChrissy's shoes for a week while trying to be a productive editor. It's frustrating to say the least. I will repeat what Beeblebrox stated above as it defines part of the problem regarding the oppose comments: @Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2015‎ (UTC)

You seem to assume that the discussion hasn't been closed because people (yourself and myself included) continue to comment, but I believe you're overlooking several possibilities:

1. The discussion hasn't been closed because no uninvolved admin who's looked at it has seen a consensus to lift the topic ban. Remember, the ban is in place, there does not need to be a consensus to keep it in place, only one to remove it, and since it's a community ban, that consensus needs to be at least as strong as the consensus was to impose the ban in the first place.
2. Some admins have looked at the thread but, considering the likely outcome of the GMO case, are waiting for a formal closure there to guide them here.
3. This is Thanksgiving weekend in the US, which means that many American admins are probably occupied with RL activities (such as family gatherings and Black Friday Christmas shopping), reducing the number of admins who might be interested in evaluating the discussion.

I'm sure there are probably other factors as well. BMK (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Not really involved, but there are some signs that the editor improved editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. DrChrissy's input was profoundly unhelpful in this contentious area, consistently supporting fringe views over the mainstream, and I see no evidence that he has gained any ability to accept that he might be wrong, which was a core part of the problem. I also believe that the ban has been flouted, or at least the boundaries pushed, with edits to the GMO topic area, where an explicit ban currently seems likely. The behaviours at issue were the exact same behaviours addressed in the GMO case, for which a topic ban is currently passing unanimously - the are is also a long-standing interest of Jytdog so edits in this area will also likely fall foul of the IBAN which is currently passing nem. con. If this topic ban is lifted it is my firm opinion that it will need to be reimposed in short order in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia in an area of healthcare where there is a major collision between quasi-religious belief and empirical scientific fact. And as a point of information, there is no "confusion" about whether topic bans apply to the sandbox. They do. They always have. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on wide support from Arbcom of evidence that DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring and is facing an imminent topic ban by Arbcom from GMO topics: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#DrChrissy_topic_banned. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose My recent interactions here and edit warring [161] [162] today at Glyphosate demonstrate that DrChrissy is unable to distinguish (or see the problem with citing) primary research studies. I can't see how relaxing this topic ban would be of benefit to the project. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

• Awilley, since you have been overseeing DrChrissy's TB, would you be so kind as to evaluate and close this discussion? It has turned to an ugly direction and what appears to be baiting. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be poor form for Awilley to close a community discussion in which they have voted. It is also poor form of you, as a supporter of lifting the topic ban, to pick a like-minded adminstrator to close this discussion, rather than just ask for someone uninvolved to close it.--Atlan (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I simply thought the admin who imposed the TB had to remove it. My mistake if that isn't the case. AGF, Atlan. Atsme^📞📧 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to practice what you preach, as you make a point of questioning the motives of oppose voters here.--Atlan (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't nice to cast aspersions, and it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. Please AGF and stop trying to make this discussion about me. You're being disruptive. Atsme^📞📧 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Cry me a river.--Atlan (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I never got a ping; I don't think it works with the {{u}} template. No, I won't be closing this discussion. As Atlan pointed out I did vote above. Also, it would be incorrect to say that I support lifting the topic ban. Mine was a conditional support with conditions that DrChrissy has chosen not to meet. My experience has been that closing admins tend to ignore extremely long threads full of bickering between partisans. It's possible to say your piece without creating several level-1 bullets and multiple section headings, and then challenging all the opposing comments. (I'm talking primarily to BMK and DrC.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Awilley: I think I might have been unclear in my postings regarding your suggestion of a conditional lifting. I did not say that I chose not to meet the conditions. Rather, I was pointing out that at the time, and still now, there is a community consensus for unconditional lifting of the ban. I was waiting for further discussion of your proposed conditional lifting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Will an admin please evaluate and close this discussion? Atsme^📞📧 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• And in doing so, please look at the hatted material. Most of it is frivolous, but there is also substantive argumentation in there.
  (BTW DrC and Tryptofish, the edit conflicts came about because DrC initially put his comment inside the hat, but at the top of it, and I moved it to the bottom of the hat, where it belonged to preserve chronology. Meanwhile DrC was apparantly deciding that their comment should be outside the hat entirely and reposted it, so we ended up with one comment inside the hat and one outside.) BMK (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The bottom line I think the bottom line here is that at the moment when a proposed remedy to ArbCom's GMO case is a topic ban for DrChrissy, based on a finding that DrC may have violated their current restrictions, has edit warred, and has been engaged in a long time "oft personalized dispute" with Jytdog, and that topic ban has already been supported by all 8 of the Arbitrators necessary for it to pass, meaning that barring any change in the voting, once the case is closed, there will be another topic ban on DrC, this one ArbCom-imposed; it is hardly wise at that moment it to remove DrC's previous sanction. BMK (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The bottom, bottom line I urge anyone reading the ArbCom case in relation to this lifting of a topic ban to do so very, very critically. There is an ever-growing plethora of concerns about how this case has been, and is being handled. Many of these concerns are coming from greatly experienced editors and are so fundamental to the case that some have called for the case to be withdrawn or restarted from a neutral point of view.[163]DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC The subjects of ArbCom cases, and philosophically like-minded editors, always have "concerns about how the case is handled" when it goes against them. It never fails, and it almost never amounts to a hill of beans. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind the bottom line - this case has bottomed out and needs to be closed, probably by the admin who originally imposed the TB. Two admins have weighed in and supported removal of the TB, while admin Awilly who has kept a close eye on DrChrissy's compliance and has offered a suggestion. The TB should not extend into this expert's area of editing which has nothing to do with human health other than guilt by association; i.e., humans consume animals, and some of the same alternative therapies are used. Interesting to see how the placebo effect works in veterinary medicine. *sigh* There's no reason to not allow an expert in his field to work unencumbered in his voluntary position on WP. The project might even consider expressing a little gratitude that we have volunteers like DrChrissy generously giving of their time and sharing their knowledge instead of inundating us with the negativity I've been reading. Atsme📞📧 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) As I mentioned below, this is a community-placed topic ban, not an admin-placed ban, and the opinions of admins carry exactly as much weight as that of any other community member. Even Awilly, who was good enough to straighten out the terms of the ban, is not in any way specially endowed to influence the removal of the ban, which is entirely a community concern. The role of an admin is simply to evaluate the consensus of the community when closing the discussion, not to override it, or to count admin !votes as more significant than the votes of you or I. BMK (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Forgive me, BMK, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. Was it not an admin who imposed the TB? Are you saying that a group of editors without authoritative tools can impose TBs on other editors, which pretty much makes this a numbers game? When did consensus become a !vote count? If that is the case, why do we need admins? Forgive my skepticism, but that's a scary thought because it could place editors at the hands of potential lynch mobs. It's bad enough that we have to deal with WP:POV_railroad but it appears to me that the procedure you describe may result in a kangaroo court. A call to Judge Roy Bean, and we've rid ourselves of opposition. For example, (purely hypothetical), let's say an editor claims that you (generalization) are a disruptive editor, and files against you at AN/I, then posts notices of the case on the TP of the WP project to which they are members and also at various other venues where they know they have support. You're saying that the sheer numbers of a "community" of editors casting votes can get you site banned or topic banned - do I have that right? If so, when did that happen and where can I read up on the policy? Jiminy Cricket, how is that not the makings of a kangaroo court, the latter of which should actually be what raises community concern. Doesn't the actual decision rest with the closing admin who then evaluates the merits of the case, reviews the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on those merits as presented by the community (which does not trump PAGs) rather than simply counting votes? Atsme📞📧 14:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The seemingly bottomless pit I rather think that whoever closes this request will determine the consensus, and whatever that is, will be the "bottom line" for purposes of this discussion. I think that DrChrissy has every right to respond to criticisms here, but I do not find it helpful for anyone else to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Absolutely, Tryptofish. And I hope that happens soon because the discussion has become less than helpful. Atsme📞📧 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Bottom's line "Enough; hold or cut bow-strings." [Exeunt] (Act 1, Scene 2) BMK (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I am rather reluctant to even comment on a posting which is so clearly off-topic, but it worries me that BMK also realises his posting and perhaps those below are totally inappropriate for the Admin's Noticeboard and yet chooses to joke about it on another editor's talk page.[164]DrChrissy (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Visible Pantie Line I'd pay good money for a Punch Line right now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "That's the way to do it!" [165][166] BMK (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Punch lines do tend to work better than bottom lines in some cases. Who shall we punch (data punch)? Atsme📞📧 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) The Bottom line "Poor blighter! All he needed was the love of a good woman. Well not even a good one, any old one would have done; slap a wig on a 'Speak your Weight' machine, he'd have been happy. And now he's gone and done himself in!" (series 1, episode 3) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The Northern line Mornington Crescent -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Regarding the Hatted content User:Beyond My Ken The fact you have made these edits which you describe yourself as humorous (rather than being topic related) on the Admin's Noticeboard, and you have joked about these elsewhere, shows a great disrespect to myself, the wikipedia process/community, and particularly the closing admin. I feel an apology to the community is well-advised.DrChrissy (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Since you've seen fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat, I've unhatted it so everyone can see it. As for apologies, none is warranted, and none will be forthcoming. I do, however, thank you for your comment, which well displays why the glowing descriptions of your behavior posted by your friends are so superficial and unconvincing. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC) See WP:BAITING Atsme📞📧 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I would like to point out that I previously attempted to hat the entire set of sub-threads about bottom lines and the like, on two grounds: that humor is unhelpful to an editor who is making a very serious request for the lifting of a topic ban, and that it is similarly unhelpful for one editor to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line" of a discussion in which the emerging consensus may be quite contrary to that claim of a bottom line. That same editor, first, reverted me to only hat the humorous sections, and then later unhatted everything in order to argue further with DrChrissy. I think that Atsme's point about baiting has some merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) For the record, while I was trying to make the posting, there were some very unusual edit conflicts which appeared to be due to BMK moving my comment in and out of the hatted content - all without my consent. For BKM's benefit, the reason I saw "...fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat" was very simple - the hat carries with it a warning that the discussion should not be modified. I was simply following instructions. And a third point BMK, please read WP:Hatting - this states "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors". You were clearly involved.DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Commenting only about template use, I was the first to apply the hat, so I apologize that I had failed to see what DrChrissy just pointed out about involved editors, although I also think that IAR applies to my use of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Trypto, I was assuming "involved" meant "has contributed to the material being hatted". You had not, so I consider you were non-involved.DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The Thin Red Line I have no idea how the title of this section is relevant other than illustrating how this entire discussion has degenerated into absurdity. Let's just lift the topic ban on DrChrissy. I find it hard to believe that editorial actions by DrChrissy have or will in the future waste as much time as this discussion has. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Wastage of time is not the issue, disruption of the editing of the encyclopedia and the skewing of its contents is. And, of course, this discussion -- a large part of which is garbage, I agree with you there -- has done nothing whatsoever to disrupt anyone's editing of content, has it? Nor has it done anything to skew our desired NPOV. Mostly, it's been a bunch of DrC's friends saying what a good person he or she is, so the topic ban should be lifted, and a bunch of other people saying that she or he a combative edit-warrior pushing a fringe POV, so the topic ban should stay in place. That's pretty much what pages like this are for. Oh, and yeah, there's some levity thrown in which apparently is a gross insult to DrC, Wikipedia and the Declaration of the Rights of Man ... apparently. BMK (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) BMK, I understand where you are coming from, but my overall view of DrChrissy's contributions to Wikipedia are extremely positive. I really don't see quite the same fringe POV as you do. I may be wrong, but I like error on the side of forgiveness. It fails sometimes, but I'll bet that in the long run it maximizes constructive building of Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I forgive DrC, I just don't want them to edit in an subject area the community has decided she's disruptive in. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about the tenor of her editing -- unfortuanately, lifting a topic ban requires a strong positive consensus to do so, and that's not here, and will not be here. (@Atmse: In determining whether to lift a community-placed topic ban, an admin's vote carries exactly the same weight as any other editor's vote.) BMK (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) FYI, DrChrissy is a he. With all due respect, BMK, I agree with the consensus here which appears to be that DrChrissy should have the TB lifted or at least modified per Awilley. Atsme📞📧 14:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Close out Consensus exists to lift the ban on Dr. Chrissy, can we have admin close this out noting conensus to lift the ban ? KoshVorlon 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) No such consensus exists, although a bare majority may (I haven't counted). BMK (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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