Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266

Application of WP:NEWBLPBAN

Per the WP:NEWBLPBAN and the above consensus, I request an administrator take appropriate action for this edit [1] by @Diego Moya:. The user is well aware that the allegations were proven false and that their false nature has been widely covered by the media in covering this incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you had read the article's talk page, you would have noticed that I removed the word on the basis of tone, not facticity. Whether the allegations were true or false were not a concern to my edit, the way it's written is. What exactly is the "appropriate administrative action" that you expect to be applied for this content dispute that you didn't discuss? Diego (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether you frame it as a "content dispute" or not, you have specifically edited the article in a way that is contrary to WP:BLP . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did I? What part of BLP? Diego (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Note - before you linked the above NEWBLPBAN threat from my talk page I hadn't seen before the above "Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur", that apparently is now a "broadly construed, community-endorsed" addition to General Sanctions. I'm digesting through it now to see what it implies). Diego (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Response against your BLP violations are fully covered by the existing WP:NEWBLPBAN, the above consensus regarding gamergate simply further identifies your edit as problematic and as deserving action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask it only one more time before I start considering you disruptive: What BLP violation that would merit administrative action are you accusing me of? With links and quoting of the exact relevant part of the policy, please. Diego (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That you either fail to understand or are attempting to claim ignorance of how your removal of the sourced and widely covered fact that the allegations were false is incompatible with BLP argues for not only a ban from gamergate but a ban from all articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No case for sanctions here. Whether the "allegations" should be labelled as "false" right away or be shown to have been false only through the following sentences is a legitimate question of editorial judgment and good writing; I can't see any BLP violation here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I quite disagree that any "matters of style" allow us to read WP:BLP as condoning any formulation that presents the ranting blog post of an ex boyfriend (repeated ad nauseum by internet trolls )to sit as an unadorned "allegation" when all of the reliable sources covering it specifically point out that the "allegations" had zero basis for being made in the first place. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" and "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." and "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously," and "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". Specifically removing the "falsely" descriptor is in contravention of all of those portion of BLP

. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask it TRPoD's filing of this thread was the basis for a WP:BOOMERANG on Campaign to drive away productive contributors, but in this instance I won't pursue it further. Doom, in the future please try to keep content disputes to the talk page. Diego (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom Your action here is a quick way to earn yourself a warning on this topic. I'd hate to have to issue the warning and make your next minor infraction a instant sanctions.... Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question concerns a central point in the Gamergate issue where gamers "claimed" that named people had engaged in unethical/corrupt behavior. The claim is known to be false—it is unacceptable to use WP:TONE to justify slanting the article by describing the claim without explaining that it is known to be false. TRPoD's request is valid. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a good edit to me. If readers are too lazy to read the rest of the paragraph, there's nothing we can do about that. And I'm a bit disturbed by the frivolous nature of this complaint. BLP is not a hammer to destroy legitimate edits. AQFK (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• The idea that there's a tone issue in using "false" to refer to claims that have been resoundingly proven false is bizarre. And the talkpage discussion confirms that tone isn't the issue at all, as the user arguing to remove "false" suggests replacing it with "viewed as false by the mainstream press" or similar silly weasely things because we just don't knowwww what's true. I don't think this is blockable in isolation even under the NEWBLPBAN, but has the user tried to make the edit repeatedly or otherwise behaved disruptively with regard to this topic or the BLPs of the writers and devs in question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't particularly a case for the sanctions, but Diego Moya needs to be much more careful in making sure their edits accurately represent the sources, especially when BLP claims are involved. This has been a recurring problem for Diego for two years at the similar article Anita Sarkeesian (cf. [2][3],[4][5]). In my experience, though, he has generally been willing to work out the problems they introduce.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not seeing the problem here. The claims are false. The article says they are false. WP:BLP doesn't mean that every sentence of the article has to reiterate that they're false. I'd suggest this gets closed before it turns into yet another wall of text re GamerGate. GoldenRing (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC Problem at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

There has been a lot of disruptive editing at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). The RFC process has been disrupted.

There is an open Request for Closure as follows:

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment (initiated 25 August 2014) and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote:

Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?

Please consider the later related discussions Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#REQUEST FOR A TRULY NEUTRAL CONSENSUS in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The two formal RFCs and the two subsequent “Requests for Consensus”, which were not formal RFCs, are not on the article talk page. The formal RFCs are on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 7. The “Requests for Consensus” are neither on the talk page nor in the archive. Occasionally an RFC is archived by a bot before it is closed. However, in this case, it appears that User:Luxure, who had been actively involved in the dispute over the lede, archived all of the relevant discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=630339433&oldid=630338122 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/Archive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385

on 21 October, after Cunard had listed the RFCs for closure. Then Luxure deleted much of the discussion without an edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29%2FArchive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385

That included the deletion of the Requests for Consensus that Cunard had requested be considered by the closer. I have reverted the deletion, so that the entire archive is present and can be reviewed by a closer (although closure may be problematic because of disruption of the RFC process).

The article is subject to WP:ARBMAC, and sanctions may need to be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire process was disrupting and disrupted, but, at present, a working (and apparently stable) consensus has emerged. I'm not exactly sure what the function of this section is (Wikipedia arcania for sure), but I urge the admins to simply let this (now) sleeping dog lie without trying to "fix" anything. --Taivo (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Taivo. The reason I archived those disruptive and disrupted 'discussions' was because it took to much space up (2560000 bytes) and it was labourous to scroll through, not because of my supposed hidden agenda. The talk page is no longer a mess of bickering editors. Luxure (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Move "Howrse Online" to Howrse

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 article Howrse was protected for some reason (I failed to find out the reason for this protection). Somebody created Howrse Online instead, this article should be moved to Howrse as Howrseonline is not the correct name for the page.

Scarvia (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• No The article was create protected because editors kept re-creating the article without meeting the minimum standards for an article. I have examined the page you want moved there and have initiated a WP:PROD on it because there are no independent reliable sources on the article. 3 references to the site for the game itself, and one reference to a "Questions and Answers" site does not make independent reliable sources.Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, I did not want to edit the page while it is using a wrong page name. I added sources now, so you can see, where the correct article might go.

Scarvia (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Baha'i article on Wikipedia

Hi, I would like to share a concern I have with the editors of this article (i.e. Baha'i). I think they think they own this article and it should never have been FA in the first place. The main reason it is not a universal view on the subject but the Baha'i point of view ONLY. If you go thru the talk page archives you will see over and over again the illustration of what I just said. In all honesty, I don't think it benefits the Baha'is themselves since people except more from an encyclopedic article than a regurgitation of the Faith/Cult's point of view on the subject (see their website at www.bahai.org for comparison). The Jesus Christ article is very different than what you would find on, let's say, the vatican website (& rightly so) and so on. I have the best intentions when I say this, but some narrow minded editors there make any addition which is sourced to a reliable source very difficult if not impossible and it should not be so on Wikipedia. I think this article would benefit greatly if other truly uninvolved editors keep an eye on this article and make contributions from time to time. Please note I grew up myself in a Baha'i family but I'm no longer baha'i :) 85.218.103.97 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge of the subject to say whether or not your edit was accurate, but using a term like "cult" to describe them is hardly likely to lead to positive feelings and constructive collaboration. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the phrase was "faith/cult"; this is appealing to people who would use either term, i.e. adopting a neutral point of view. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In the same way that using the phrase "soldier/babykiller" to refer to a member of the military would be NPOV and a good way to start off dispute resolution in good faith? Anyhow, this is offtopic, the correct location to discuss edits to that article is at Talk:Bahá'í Faith. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

To end an iBan

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.

---

And I'm calling it "iBan" cause I think that's cute. Skyring (aka "Pete") and HiLo48 became subject to an interaction ban here, after a proposal by DangerousPanda (aka "Colonel Bamboo"). The two have decided (see my talk page, "Breach of interaction ban...") that they wish to drop this, and they promise (implicitly, and no doubt they'll make it explicit here) they will get along. There is no real formal way that I can see in Wikipedia:Banning policy to make this happen (short of an appeal to Jimbo or an arbitration request), so I figured this is the easiest way to do it: to let the community give its blessing to the undoing of a community-imposed iBan. All in favor please say "aye". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Aye, as it would remove the potential of blocks, for either editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis - 2¢ 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A ban's for when people won't give it a rest; when they agree to give it a rest voluntarily, there's no point to the ban, and it can actively be a problem if they want to collaborate on something. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Given Pete's infoboxes, I suspect that he's in the USA (he has a "visited 30 of 50 US states" and "Route 66", which presumably outweigh "Guernsey"), so he'll probably be going to bed in the next few hours. Here in the USA, it's still yesterday from HiLo's perspective. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Which I was driving a red Mustang along Route 66 week before last, but I'm home again now. In Canberra. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm, never mind then...Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Aye - HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yea --Pete (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support It seems the iban has outlived its usefulness and is starting to get in the way. Strike it down. Chillum 05:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support but with a caveat that they should be reminded that any future incivility toward each other will result in blocks. If the ban has served its purpose and they want to get along now, good. If not, they should have learned, and can be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support since none of them has a problem interacting with the other.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support with an understanding of a short leash, per Robert McClenon. Interaction bans aren't just to protect the involved parties from each other, they are also intended to protect the community from disruptive spillover. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreeing with the above. Given the circumstances, I'd suggest the thread is closed and the restriction is removed without further delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you all, and thank you Salvidrim! for closing. Skyring and HiLo48 have been following this anxiously so I don't have to ping them; I wish them both the best. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Fyi, there is a backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Backlog breaking transclusions

Hi,

Theres a large backlog at WP:UAA thats breaking transclusions of the {{admin_dashboard}} template. Is there anyone willing to take a look at clearing some entries, there are currently 91 reports there. Amortias (T)(C) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time something like this happened -- I know it's never supposed to be this backlogged, but that still shouldn't literally break templates. A technical fix might be warranted on {{admin_dashboard}}. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is quite boring. Where's Daniel Case when you need them? Drmies (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am around; I just have concluded a weekend when I had less access to my computer to do this than I thought I would, and I am in the middle also of getting the National Register listing of the New York State Barge Canal properly noted in about 20 separate lists. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as I thought, off improving the encyclopedia instead of... never mind :)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

there is a content that violates copyright

Dear Sir/Madam,

we university of Somalia ICT Technitian, the issue that i need to report is the content that creates conflict of two universities 1 is a Somali National University and 2 the other is University of Somalia. this is the link of the link of the content that violates the copyrights of their respected owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_National_University. this information is a eal information that belong to the Somali National University but the logo that pops up when you search Somali National University from Google Search Engine is for University of Somalia. so the actual link of the logos is here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg

By Gaanbe (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.48.133 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Apparently the image you pointed out File:Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg, was included on our Somali National University page in the past (possibly in error), but was removed from there a couple of days ago [6]. If Google is still showing the image on its search page, that may well be based on the previous versions of our article and it just hasn't caught up yet with the correction. For the moment, that's all we can do; if Google is still showing wrong data, that's unfortunately something only Google can solve, not we here on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaanbe. Thanks for explaining the copyright mixup. The gif was originally taken from the Ranker university website, which attributed its original source to Somalia National University on Freebase [7]. It also licensed the file for reuse via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license. It seems that Ranker may indeed have mixed up the university's logo with that of another university. Given this, the file has now been removed from the Somali National University page and should be deleted shortly. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

UAA backlog

In response to the request above, I've handled a bunch of WP:UAA situations, but I'm confused by Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco and Eternalnameonearthmuhayimanaemmanuel2000. DeltaQuadBot, which runs WP:UAA, marked both of these usernames purely because they were more than 40 characters in length. Do we normally softblock users just because of long usernames? I know we often block long-and-confusing usernames (e.g. User:Bgoriygbodrbhodrubhrduobhdoubdrhoduboudubdorbieosbeosiphp wouldn't last long), but Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco and Eternal name on earth muhayimana emmanuel2000 aren't gibberish or otherwise confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember dealing with it before somewhere, but I don't remember what was done. I think the issue is the confusing length. I thought there was some technical reason it got added to the list. Im on my mobile so I'll take a look Monday or tomorrow to dig through who added it and look at my talk archive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There used to be code in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that prevented usernames longer than 40 characters, but this was recently removed as MediaWiki itself already limits usernames to 65 characters. For more details, see this discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Overly long usernames aren't block-on-sight anymore, but you really might want to talk to the user about them if they decide to stick around. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Revoke sanctions pertaining to Singaporean election

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.

---

These general sanctions were established in an AN/I thread in 2011. They are largely irrelevant now, and should be revoked. The text of them is as follows: "Vivian Balakrishnan, Tin Pei Ling, Teo Ser Luck, Vincent Wijeysingha and Singaporean general election, 2011 are put under 1RR and semi-protected". The 2011 Singapore election article specified by the sanctions has barely been edited this year, and I can't find any record of enforcement. There is no reason to keep these sanctions around. RGloucester — ☎ 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support unless there's something I'm missing. Restrictions like these on then-current or future events should probably normally be drafted to expire within a year of the event's conclusion unless there's some compelling reason to default to maintaining them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suspend, but not revoke Per Next Singaporean general election, the latest this subject area could turn over is 2017 (but probably sooner). I'd prefer to see the sanctions suspended with a blanket notice to all parties that if misbehavior restarts that the sanctions will come back into force with the will of a single administrator. The fact that General sanctions had to be enacted to fix conduct behavir is indicative of a serious problem in the subject space. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine new sanctions would have to be established for such a thing. As it stands, most of these articles haven't really even been edited this year. I'm not aware of any procedure for "suspending" sanctions. The article you mention is not named in the sanctions decision. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. I think that's what "support" means. The "these general sanctions" link goes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie, a huge page all about someone who's since been indefinitely blocked; it looks like she was a huge part of the problem. The situation cannot be the same next time around: if she's back, we'll revert and block the sock(s), and if others are being equally disruptive, we should consider the situation anew, and if neither one, then sanctions won't be warranted. We can't predict it before the election situation ramps up, so we shouldn't retain sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the page that is presently linked at WP:General sanctions. It seems no formal page for the sanctions was ever drawn-up. As far as I can tell, they've never been enforced either. There certainly isn't any record of it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Here's the linkage: Singaporean general election, 2011 -> Infobox -> (Next Link). It seems reasonable to leave these sanctions in place as there is rumbling that the next elections are going to be called in the next year (see the text of the article I pointed at). If no disruption happens then we can look at revoking the sanctions, but I'm hesitant to revoke them entirely (and require an entire new set of disruption/GS discussion) to re-institute the sanctions if it becomes a problem. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As these sanctions were not "broadly construed", but limited to certain articles, you'd still have to start a new discussion to get them to apply to that article. Regardless, this strikes me as WP:CRYSTAL. They are not being used, and have never been used. If they are needed in the future, they should be created in the future. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. If there are problems during the next election, we can re-instate the sanctions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of sanctions. Elections are contentious times of the year. It may be worthwhile having these sorts of sanctions automatically come into force whenever an election is held. A simple notification on AN/ANI that such sanctions are being enacted would suffice I believe. Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:SPI backlog

Hello admins! Posting here in an attempt to draw attention to the backlog currently at WP:SPI. There seem to have been a wave of reports over the last few days, and there are some now having sat open for nearly a month (one going back as far as September 4). Many just need archiving. I know you probably get notifications about this anyway but if any of you are interested, please take a look. Ivanvector (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a toxic editor

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 read James Well's speech recently in London in Wikimania and he stressed "Toxic editors" that they may as well leave and make Wikipedia a harmonious medium to work with. But look at the talks generated by this editor- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChamithN I would suggest that he has to leave wikipedia and find a way to vent his anger- not here. He is unconstructive, immature, unreceptive and acts on impulse because he is busy..? that's the right answer if it is..but why ask for a talk when he cannot talk... he is stupidly stupid.. and has to immediately be penalized and his editing be extremely limited and be phased out in the wikipedia world. Thanks. 124.104.182.35 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
2. You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
3. In theory, this sort of request is more appropriate for WP:ANI. I say "in theory" because I've interacted with this editor before, and I don't believe they're anywhere near to indefinite block/ban level. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

This page could use more administrator eyes. General sanctions are in force there, but tendentious editing seems to be continuing at a rapid rate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Need an administrator to check a deleted article

There is a new article Christopher Drew Ingle and with it a oddly named disambiguation page Christopher Drew Ingle (disambiguation). I tried to rename the disamb page as Christopher Drew, but it was protected from creation by a now-retired administrator. Now I suspect that Christopher Drew Ingle is a re-creation of the deleted page that led to protection. I could use an administrator to check this and help clean it up. Please ping me when replying. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They are unrelated, User:Oiyarbepsy. Previous deletions at Christopher Drew have been articles about a wrestler, and about a school principal, not a musician. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please rename the odd disambiguation page to that title? There are two bona-fide articles for Christopher Drew, this musician and an American football player. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It looks like Ingle styles himself as "Christofer Drew" according to the article about the band, so maybe that's where the article should live. I have unprotected Christopher Drew so that you can set things up as you see fit. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved Christopher Drew Ingle to Christofer Drew, which appears to be the appropriate title. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Blanking of archived AfD discussion as "defamatory"

I have twice restored the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laique Rehman here [[8]] and [[9]] following blanking of the whole article by Engine997 with the edit summary (removed derogatory comments put in this page about this bio showing in search engine, please do not put it back). A previous reversion by an IP [[10]] and another different IP [[11]] suggests a campaign to remove this archived discussion. I am danger of 3RR if I restore the content. Perhaps the important issue is whether potentially damaging assertions made in an AfD should be referenced as, for non-admins such as me, we cannot see the content deleted at AfD which may well have been supported by appropriate references. At present I have simply reverted on the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Any guidance or suggestions appreciated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to reasonable requests, we will generally blank AfDs or other process pages as a courtesy, with the recognition and understanding that the content of the page is still readily available in the page's history; see WP:CBLANK. Of course, I would be curious about which search engines are returning AfD discussions—AfDs are flagged to not be indexed (WP:NOINDEX), and neither Google nor the default Wikipedia search box will return this page when searching on the individual's name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy blanked and added {{xfd-privacy}} to the page. There is no reason it has to be visible. GB fan 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Given TenOfAllTrades valid point and that the AfD contained nothing defamatory beyond the subject not having received sufficient coverage for Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, I don't know why this should be hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What does it hurt to have it blanked? I do not see anything negative that will occur if a 4 year old AFD is blanked. GB fan 17:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sam, keep in mind that our reaction to a description like "Non-notable businessman and one-time court litigant" can be very different from that of the subject who is not acclimated to wiki-jargon. So if the suject prefers that the page be "hidden", I think we should err towards making that largely cosmetic change. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure which point of mine you're agreeing with. I don't see why we need to maintain a permanent monument declaring a living person to be "non-notable" – particularly if it is true – especially if that person is made uncomfortable by it. (I did mention that his comment about search engines seemed odd, but I will now note explicitly that there are certainly some less-popular search engines which ignore the no-index request.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point regarding terminology, I wasn't necessarily arguing that all AfD pages should always be visible, I just didn't deem it overwhelmingly necessary to hide this content. I don't really have any qualms now that it's hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I nbelieve that we should never blank AFD discussions, unless they're about BLPs and the persojn in question asks for the blsanking. That having ben said, there is no need to revert such blanking, provided that the AFD has been closed and is not currently being discussed elsewhere (such as DRV) - anyone who wants can still look back at the last non-blanked version and se what it said. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with User:TenOfAllTrades here, while the language is relatively mild, if it's turning up in search engine results it could be upsetting or prejudicial to this person's business interests. Blanking is cheap, and it's easy enough for anyone to access the discussion through the "History" link if they really want it badly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

I think that, in general, closed and archived discussions should be left as they are and not edited further. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much one way or the other, but I find myself curious as to why folks think a rude search engine that ignores robots.txt wouldn't just crawl the "View History" link on the page into revisions and then crawl the version before blanking? NE Ent 02:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My experience with tinkering with a few crawlers is that various history pages, when they're not being linked to directly, are too "deep" for crawlers to reach consistently. Some of the more advanced ones will also get a bit suspicious that the contents of many revision pages are largely identical. Lastly, some crawlers such as Google dislike URLs that contain querystrings, which our history pages use. In other words, most of them probably could, but they don't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• I agree entirely with Abecedare & Ten - blanking on request (or accepting blanking by third parties) is entirely reasonable. AFD discussions can read very harshly to the subject or anyone not familiar with our jargon and insisting they're searchable in the face of third-party concerns is a bit harsh. It's not as though the discussions become inaccessible! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree also. We deliberately have a relative more open policy in discussions than in articles because we need some way to evaluate the suitability for a WP article and that sometimes does include negative or unfortunate comments. it's unfair to leave them so very visible. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the more common requests via OTRS. For living individuals, having a page on the internet that declares you are "not notable" is obviously unpleasant. It's all in the history, the bar to courtesy blanking AfD debates is and should be low. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• We've always done courtesy blanking with good cause and a reasonable request. We are pretty lax on what qualifies, for good reason, as blanking an AFD really doesn't cost anything in usability and having that info public can be embarrassing to real world people. If someone blanks one and you think it shouldn't be blanked, you can always drop it by WP:AN for review, before reverting. Dennis - 2¢ 00:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• We should always be free with courtesy blankings of stuff that affects real people, and of course that applies to AfD's. It doesn't have to be "defamatory" content, it's quite enough that it's disagreeable for an actual person to have it immortalized on the Internet. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

Question for clarification

Here I am told that «Last month was the second time there have been zero admins selected (the first was last September) and it looks like this month will be the third time. Additionally the project is losing admins at a rate much faster than can be replaced and the workload that remains is both increasing and causing the existing admins to become more stressed and more abusive to regular editors.»

What areas would do we need more help with now? And can this problem please — if not already — have a space dedicated to documenting it, such as at WP:Maintenance?

After some more time, I figured out that this contributor (the one I'm quoting above) is blocked. Are these claims accurate? I had initially assumed yes. —Gryllida (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The first claim looks correct according to User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true that we are short of admins, there are currently 1386 admins, of which 458 have performed an admin action during the month of October. Only 227 admins have performed 10 or more admin actions in the last month. The vast majority of the admin tool use is performed by a small group. Please see stats. Areas where we are currently chronically short of admins include WP:SPI, WP:PUF, WP:FFD, WP:NFCR, WP:RFPP (on weekends), and image deletions of all kinds. WP:UAA recently got so backlogged that the admin dashboard broke from exceeding the transclusion limit. I'm sure there's more problem areas that I haven't thought of. We need more admins, and we need more admins actively using the tools. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CFD is also a big problem - we havediscussions from early August still open there, and the lkist of pages with open discussions tends to get longer and longer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that those who'd want the tools can't have them and we often fail RFA candidates on tiny things often irrelevant to having the tools. The issue isn't that we lack people wanting to be admins but that the system we use hasn't adapted to how the wiki itself has changed, it's still very much an old admin's club, often a gruelling selection process and decided by a select few and on irrelevant information. tutterMouse (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mass-deletion script

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.

---

Does anyone have a script to mass-delete pages? I'd like to have the following pages U1-speedied, but I don't feel like loading 94 pages, hitting the "delete" tab 94 times, picking U1 94 times, and clicking "delete" 94 times.

Of course, if no script is available, I'm willing to do it of course; no need for someone else to do it manually. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done (I just used twinkle.) Mike V • Talk 23:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please fix archiving at "Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests"

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 delete the erroneous archive pages for Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests. I messed up, and started the counter at 3 instead of 1, which screwed up {{archivebox}}, etc. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've renumbered them. Please see my edit summary. Graham87 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for your help, Jax 0677! Graham87 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Unusual user page deletion

User:Unbuttered Parsnip nominated his/her pages for Mfd, but it's not necessary to go to discussion... it's not an article in progress, but just a few words, so I applied the db-nonsense template, because it seemed to be the next best choice. If this isn't the right approach, what is? Thanks!

• User:Unbuttered Parsnip/sandbox/abbr diff for Mfd to db-nonsense
• User:Unbuttered Parsnip/sandbox/unlink diff for Mfd to db-nonsense

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have used {{db-user}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! When I tried to use db-user, I got an error, since I'm not the user. But, I did post that on the user's page. Thanks so much for taking care of the deletion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of error was produced? The template itself doesn't object on such grounds, which is good because legitimate alternate accounts are allowed to mark their main accounts' pages for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just a warning, not an error, telling the deleting admin to double-check to make sure that someone isn't trying to get someone else's page deleted maliciously. --ais523 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was wrong about "the template itself doesn't object"; there's a big red warning the width of the template. This warning was just added two months ago; it's not a longstanding component of the design. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This warnong is designed to prevent U1-taggiong vandalism. However, if there is clearly a request by the user to delete it, I doubt any admin would decline the request. Whenm in doubt, leave a mention of the location of the request in the edit summary when tagging, as an admin should look there before declining the deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist notice request

Hi! I'd like to request a watchlist notice for this weekend, to run from Friday 31st October, 11:00 UTC (not before) until Sunday 2nd November, with the proposed text,

This weekend, help find 10,000 maps in scans from 13,000 books. See project latest status.

Ideally, the message would look similar to the current WP:Geonotices, and run immediately below them.

More information about the campaign can be found in this draft article for the Signpost this week.

I first suggested this at WP:Geonotice, but that usually runs more tightly-focussed meetup notices, so felt a wider community view was needed as to whether this would be appropriate. I started a thread at WP:VPP to try to gauge opinion, but got no comments. So, since watchlist notices need an admin to put in place, I thought I should bring it here.

Wider participation will be make-or-break for whether this effort works. Is the notice above something that people feel would be appropriate to find above their watchlists? Jheald (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean — are you asking that we add your message to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes -- or authorise WP:Geonotice to add it with worldwide visibility. (One of the Geonotice maintainers will be at the event in London tomorrow). But basically I just wanted a view from a straw poll of administrators as to whether this would be appropriate.

(My apologies if it is in the wrong place, and it should have been at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, but I have left a note on the talk page there of this discussion). Jheald (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jheald, what (if anything) did you learn in London today? I held off responding because of that. Since he's responded to a lot of requests Wikipedia:Geonotice, I was going to ask Andrew Gray for help, but then I saw that he was concerned about something. Would you summarise his concerns, if it be appropriate to mention them in a public forum? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes, I talked to @Andrew Gray: for a couple of minutes about this (in amongst a great day, with some good talks, lots of maps tagged, and some very fine 'GingerDead men'). He says he's had pushback before when he's posted messages that people feel are off-wiki activities, or aren't related to core discussions happening on wiki. Also, that people haven't exactly been rushing to comment, either one way or the other, neither in the previous thread at VP/Misc nor here. So in view of that he was going to hold off, and wasn't prepared to put up a worldwide geonotice.

I think that's a pity. There's currently very little of the world getting any sort of geonotice at all; and work has been continuing -- there's another 3% been done overnight, though that seems to be down entirely to one French editor, one Australian, and one editor with insomnia from today's tagathon. So I can only wonder how much more we could be achieving with more of a global push. People may see the Signpost piece and have a look, but a watchlist message would surely attract more, even if only to have a look around to see what's in the index. -- Jheald (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations

After reviewing the contributions of Patrick O'Canada (talk · contribs), they have uploaded many image files (e.g. last 500 contributions) sourced from http://stuffled.com that constitute copyright infringement, which need to be deleted. I have nominated many files for speedy deletion using Twinkle (see my CSD log) which resulted in their deletion, but this is going to take a significant amount of time and days using this method due to the high volume of problematic files.

Per the bottom of stuffled.com pages: "Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the submissions, which remain the sole property of the original artist. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners." Per Wikipedia's WP:COPYLINK, part of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Copyrights page, "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf"

Perhaps some administrators can review this user's contributions and delete image files that are sourced from Stuffled.com on the spot, without having other users go through the speedy deletion nomination process, which again, appears to be a task that will take several days or even weeks to perform. Also, while this user may not be aware of the copyright infringement inherent in these uploads (they haven't responded on their talk page yet to my speedy nominations and per their User contributions page have not contributed since 25 October 2014), the user may need to be blocked for the time being to prevent further copyvios from occurring and due to the extensive nature of the occurrences. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? All the ones that I checked were logos marked as non-free. I don't see a problem with those, as long as their use is otherwise NFCC-compliant. The uploader has merely been using that third-party website as a source, but wasn't citing it as an alleged copyright holder. Using third-party sources for non-free items may or may not be okay in terms of factual reliability (depends on the site), but does't present a copyright issue as long as it's clearly understood that the copyright belongs to the organization in question, not the third-party site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: An inherent problem is that http://stuffled.com does not state having permission to host such content. Per WP:NFCCP, criteria #4 (part of the WP:NFCC page), "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor" (underline emphasis mine). This creates problems of Contributory liability, in which Wikipedia is potentially contributing to the infringing acts of others, particularly because Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the images and does not state that it has permission to host them. Additionally, pinging User:Diannaa to this discussion, as I notice they have been deleting the files en masse (see log file for this user). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Northamerica1000, and that's why I started deleting the files. It's no different from linking to copvio YouTube videos. I will stop for now pending further input. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there could be a serious problem. The latest contributions appear to be SVGs, which present the (yet-resolved by case law) problem of both the image being copyrighted and the SVG (an extension of XML) code being copyrighted, which could be different. In case, a spot check of the contributions show many of the SVGs images would fail US's threshold of originality, but the SVG used to create that may not be. If these same logos were recreated by a WP user as SVG, they would clearly be PD-logo free, but whomever made the original SVG likely holds the copyright on the SVG part of the code. (To note: it is believed from law that the SVG code behind an image is a unique copyright over the image itself, though it's also unclear because most people do not write out SVG by hand but as a mechanical interpretation of the drawing from their program of choice (eg no new creativity in making the SVG file), though it is completely possible do hand code SVG.). I would definitely think that most of these should be removed to allow WP editors like at the GL recreate them instead or otherwise just use JPG/PNG.

I will say if these were JPG and PNG and the site was just hosting the images, and we could easily find the original images from elsewhere, ideally on the respective company's website, deleting the images due to being sourced to stuffled is not really appropriate since the issue can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles he/she added images to already had valid images present, and they're still available on the WP servers, but obviously the image usage bot will start tagging them and then deleting them. Perhaps a bot run to replace the status quo image before this user added their version would be a good first move, and save a lot of duplicate work. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to fix this in a hurry. Not only does this leave a trail of missing logos, but there's now a danger of the valid logos starting to get tagged and removed as orphan non-free images. This seems very unlikely to be a copyright problem in the first place. I'm still working through whether this is a NFCC problem, as the issue appears to have been discussed extensively on WP on various pages already. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The missing logos can be recovered by following the user's contributions. I found one instance, Xero (software), where the user removed a free-to-use image from the Commons and replaced it with a non-free image. Another article, Urbanspoon, did not have a logo when the user arrived. I have uploaded a png image for that one. The step we need to do first is to decide whether or not the svgs from Stuffled.com need to be deleted, and then we can move on to the second step of adding logos to the involved articles. The user uploaded 1,317 images altogether, according to X!'s Tools. I will be out most of the day and will check back here when I can so that I can get involved in the clean-up. - Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[ec]Okay, most of the discussions I found about the appropriateness of SVG were pre-2010, and were on other issues such as the misguided notion that SVG should be avoided because it is scalable creates the impression of being higher in quality than a PNG (a matter contradicted by the wording of WP:IUP. The few that address whether an SVG obtained from a third party site could have a separate copyright as a derivative work were inconclusive. There isn't a whole lot of support in the archives I looked through for the proposition that logos obtained from repositories are rejected on the basis that those sites are not from the copyright owner. Logos don't follow the same logic as copyrighted images, art, music, etc., where there is a single source for each work. Presumably all of these logos come from the brand owner in one way or another. Any decision to start deleting old logos based on a new NFCC theory would need a more thorough discussion and then a workable process to implement. However, in this case it's a user who recently (over the past month or two) made a bunch of mass edits to replace old png logos with new SVG logos, apparently found on a site somewhere. It's reasonable to ask them to stop. The next steps, logically, would be to have a discussion about it, and then decide whether to roll all of this back or not. Has the user been notified of this discussion? I don't see any actual human-generated prose on their talk page about this issue, just a bunch of templates and bot-generated notices (which they appear to have unwisely ignored). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The uploader of the images was notified about this discussion at 13:13, 31 October 2014, one minute after the discussion herein was created. (diff). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A computer font may be copyrightable in the United States as computer software, see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. An SVG file seems to be similar to a computer font in many aspects and may therefore presumably also be copyrighted as computer software. The software aspects of the SVG file need to be creative in some way in order to meet the threshold of originality. I am not sure how to figure out if any given SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software. An SVG file is also a text document, and there may also be things in the source code which are separately copyrighted as text. As it is not well documented on Wikipedia how to determine if an SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software or not, it may be better to list such files at WP:PUF instead of speedying them as F9.

If you find a copyrighted computer software stored in some other vector format (say, EPS or TTF), then you may not simply convert the file to SVG format as this is then a derivative work of the original computer software. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifying User:RHaworth about this discussion, since they deleted File:ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs Logo.svg, a file I nominated for speedy deletion, along with others uploaded by the user. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the legal arguments seem rather overwrought. For slavish copies of company logos fair use would seem likely to apply regardless of the origin or SVG issues. That said, I agree that NFCC seems to require that the images either come directly from the original copyright holder or be derivations "created by a Wikipedia editor" (and not versions created by a random third-party on the internet). In a case like this that restriction probably isn't required legally, but it isn't totally irrational from a precautionary perspective either. So yeah, it seems as though removing these logos is the right course of action under existing NFCC policy. Dragons flight (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Future Perfect. The logos have been "published" by the holder, thus NFCC is satisfied - they have literally made known to the world what their logo is. The appearance issue of whether it is in fact what the logo looks like is not an NfCC issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Diannaa went on and mass deleted a large number of logos, even if they were used under fair-use criteria or even ineligible for copyright protection, not waiting for the outcome of this discussion. This action has forced many editors to waste time correcting the resulting redlinks, reuploading and re-tagging logos, etc. A few folks (including me) have expressed displeasure over this on Diannaa's usertalk page. Please would let someone address his/her overzealousness? kashmiri ^TALK 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You have mistaken the sequence of events. The deletions were underway when the discussion started. As soon as I realized there was an objection to what I was doing, I stopped. I will restore logos to all the affected articles, whether the decision is to restore the svg files or to seek out and use the logos that were previously in use on the articles before Patrick O'Canada started replacing logos. Either way, I apologise for undertaking the work hastily and without seeking advice before beginning. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks :) kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the strongest policy-based reasoning so far is that the files should not be hosted on this wiki. One more point: I wonder why the uploader's exclusive interest on this wiki is to upload logos from this one website. Is he trying to drive traffic to that site? In other words, it it a subtle form of link spam? I won't be deleting any more of his uploads for the time being, but I am going to start restoring the png files that were in previously place on the affected articles, if no one posts any objections. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've decided to go ahead and get started on this. We can always restore the svg files later if that's what people decide is the best course of action. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I've found quite a few instances where he removed free-to-use logos from the Commons and replaced them with his own file. Some of his corporate logos were out-of-date. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

List of wealthiest historical figures

Someone (anonymous IP 77.96.230.11) is trying to censor material info about the Rothschild dynasty which is all properly sourced. He/she is desperate and now makes unfounded (personal) attacks of "antisemitism" (sic.) This person has lost the "battle" of arguments now he/she is trying [personal attacks] and this is forbidden on Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:505C:7320:4CAF:9492:D2F6:1DB1 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is it me, or does it look like you are the only one that wants that material included, and two editors have reverted you? Per WP:BRD, the burden is on YOU to go to the talk page and present your case for inclusion, then get a consensus to include the material. Or if you can't, live with it as is. Dennis - 2¢ 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has been handled elsewhere, thus can be closed. Dennis - 2¢ 17:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it seems the one controversial editor who is trying to edit the stable version, as can be found here... and he/she has been reverted REPEATEDLY here,here and again here. You got it backwards! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:505C:7320:B1D6:2EE5:F1C4:FE5D (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I realize this one editor has been [blocked from editing] by admins now. Thanks. The talk page of this article is filled with false claims such as Central Banks have no shareholders (sic) -- the FED sytem has "shareholders" which is a way to organize how things work; or that the claim by the Independent (U.K.) was removed because it was false (sic.) among others. Besides I think calling the Rothschild family's own accredited historian (i.e Niall Ferguson) "anti-Semitic" is absurd and false. On the up side this editor (possibly same person as user:Kxcd?) was fine in his behavior before his absurd claim of "antisemitism" and his subsequent edit-waring with WP admins. 2A02:1205:505C:7320:3508:8763:FD6:4418 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

After looking at it rather more closely than I intended, I've discussed it on the talk page under the existing thread Talk:List of wealthiest historical figures 1#Request for protection and deleted the paragraph. I understand why editors have restored an apparently sourced paragraph in the face of such brief claims of antisemitism, but the objections are valid. I hope we can discuss what if anything of that paragraph should be retained on the talk page rather than in edit comments. NebY (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For you info the FED system has shareholders even though it does not equate to direct "ownership" if that's what you meant. Now the Commercial banks (which are in control of the FED) have shareholders with ownership rights themselves. Apparently, the two WP:RS cited say this family has stakes in the central banks of some countries. Unless you can prove otherwise, those are reliable sources as I can see here. The claim that Rothschilds (as a dynasty I suppose) have "trillions" is supported by the Independent (UK) journal which meets the WP:RS standard also. For the rest, provide another RS to deny that fact. Your opinion (alone) does not matter here IMHO. 2A02:1205:505C:7320:3508:8763:FD6:4418 (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog breaking transclusions

Hi,

Massive backlog at WP:SPEEDY. Can we get some mops applied please. Amortias (T)(C) 10:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's business as usual at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks Amortias, but could you possibly be more specific about what's breaking transclusions? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as previous post further up the page(probably should have referenced it). When some of these get backlogged it breaks the transclusions of the admin dashboard template. Amortias (T)(C)

Note: 10.68.16.32 soft-blocked

Following discussion at WP:BOWN, this address has been temporarily soft-blocked. Should this block cause any issues that are more impacting than were being caused please revert without consultation, and leave a note at WP:BOWN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done This issue has been resolved, ip block removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics

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

---

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban, a topic ban of User:Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this).

I want to acknowledge that I do think Lucia Black was disruptive at AN/ANI (including in the thread where the Japanese entertainment topic ban was enacted), and also that I think the topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles was well deserved. I also acknowledge that Lucia Black seems to think that a group of editors are out to get her, and doesn't seem to understand that she actually has been annoying and disruptive in AN/ANI discussions. I thought that the proposal for a full site ban on Lucia Black was reasonable (even though I probably would have voted against a site ban had I voted).

Despite that, I feel the topic ban on Lucia Black should be removed for the following reasons:

1. Lucia Black was in general working productively with other editors on Japanese entertainment related subjects. For example, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_to_make_reforms_.28MOSAM_fix_proposal_2.0.29 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_61#We_need_another_FA_article, from just before the topic ban was enacted. Because Lucia Black was already working productively in the area from which she was topic banned, the topic ban doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Suggesting that Lucia Black should show good work elsewhere before the topic ban is overturned also doesn't make sense to me, as again, she was already doing good work. The only areas where she was really causing problems were Ghost in the Shell and AN/ANI, and she already had separate topic bans for those areas. While she was continuing to be disruptive in those specific areas, topic banning her from other places where she wasn't being disruptive just makes no sense.

2. While I'm not entirely sure what subject area everyone edits in, the impression I got was that the people in favor of both a site ban and a topic ban were primarily people who have interacted with Lucia Black at AN/ANI, and that people who have interacted with Lucia Black on Japanese entertainment articles were mostly opposed to any sort of further sanctions. It seems nonsensical to me for her to be topic banned from Japanese entertainment when the people who work in that subject area don't want her topic banned.

3. Because a topic ban was proposed as more of an aside and not as the main subject of the discussion (which was instead for a full site ban), I think many people didn't mention that they were against it when they otherwise would have. For myself at least, had I realized that that a topic ban was a possible outcome of the discussion, I would have probably participated and voted against a topic ban. I think the consensus of the discussion likely would have been different had a topic ban been proposed directly, separate from the discussion of a site ban.

I want to apologize for taking up any more of anyone's time with this discussion. I know some users (e.g., Hasteur, Robert McClenon, and Salvidrim!) expressed frustration with how much time has been wasted on issues related to Japanese entertainment and Lucia Black specifically. I want to remind everyone that you don't have to respond to this thread (or any thread on Lucia Black, anime, or whatever) if you think your time could be more productively spent elsewhere. I've created this discussion because I personally think that Lucia Black was making good contributions, and that those contributions outweigh any time wasted on AN/ANI. I ask that anyone responding here please consider first and foremost whether the topic ban is useful for the subject to which it applies, Japanese entertainment, rather than focusing on AN/ANI. Calathan (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Her drama wasted too much time of constructive editors, and until the very end, she refused to concede any sort of responsibility towards her actions. Zero awareness of the issues. As far as she's ever let on, she attributes her topic ban 100% to "people out to get her", and "0% her combative and disruptive edits". I can't support repealing it with that sort of attitude. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But what does any of that have to do with Japanese entertainment? I agree that Lucia has wasted tons of time of people here at AN/ANI, and been really rude to people here, and doesn't acknowledge that she has been wrong here, but again, I don't understand why she would be topic banned from Japanese entertainment articles because of it. Calathan (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because that's where all the disruption happens. I don't see what's not to get. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But the disruption doesn't happen there, it happens here, at AN/ANI. I've had WT:ANIME on my watch list for many years, and I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive there. Likewise, I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive on any anime-related article I've had watchlisted (though obviously she was disruptive on Ghost in the Shell, which isn't one I've watchlisted). Calathan (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't spend much time at WP:VG then? She was disruptive with countless video game articles. I'm pretty sure a discussion at WP:VG that spurred the topic ban discussions. Couple all that with her endless issues with the Ghost in the Shell anime/manga articles, and it's pretty easy how they came up with a "Japanese Entertainment" description - the issues occur with Japanese video games, manga, and anime. Unless there's a fourth kind of Japanese entertainment she wants to edit, that this topic ban is impeding on, the end decision made a lot of sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't spend time at WP:VG, so I wouldn't be aware of any disruption there. Ghost in the Shell was an exception to her normal behavior from what I personally witnessed. If there was a lot of disruption talking place elsewhere, then I admit the topic ban makes more sense. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly rather surprised you're going through such lengths to change her topic ban. Your account of her actions is more scathing than some of the people who wish to have her topic banned. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've notified Lucia Black of this discussion per the page instructions, though I told her I personally don't think she should post here. However, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for me to notify WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games. My thought is that would be appropriate since they are subject areas to which this pertains, as long as the notices are worded in a neutral fashion, but I wanted to make sure first. Calathan (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TBAN altogether, because Lucia hasn't provided any evidence that she even acknolwedges her problems, and has made no effort whatsoever to reassure the community that she will not continue the same behaviour. Propose narrowing/clarification of scope from "Japanese entertainment" to "Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed", because I think it maintains the usefulness of the scope, while providing a somewhat clearer guideline. I also wish to thank Sergecross73 for letting me know I had been mentioned on AN, because Calathan certainly failed to do so. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, I'm sorry for not notifying you. I initially had your name and the other names I listed linked so that the notification system would automatically alert you that you had been mentioned. However, then I thought that might be rude, since I was specifically mentioning you because I thought you had felt this subject was a waste of time. I didn't want to seem like I was intentionally wasting your time, so I removed the wikilinks. It seems clear that you felt it was rude not to notify you, so I'm sorry for doing that. Calathan (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Also, I don't think that proposed narrowing makes sense. Sergecross73's commented above that he thinks Lucia has been disruptive on WP:VG, so if a topic ban is warranted, then removing them from the scope wouldn't seem to make sense. Calathan (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I do feel this is a waste of time, and I'm glad you realize that much, but notifying people you mention on AN/ANI isn't just suggested, it's required. As for the scope, "Japanese entertainment" doesn't even come close to being analoguous to "video games". Most issues at WP:VG, IMO, centered on animanga-related video games, and these would obviously be covered under "Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed". A topic ban is meant as an intermediary measure meant to try and avoid banning the user entirely; if there is continued disruption outside of the scope of the topic ban, that can be dealt with separately. I just think "Japanese entertainment" can be vague and that my proposed scope serves both Lucia and the community better by being more focused and unambiguous. Under the current scope, Mario games can be considered "Japanese entertainment", while Donkey Kong games wouldn't; that sort of illogical thing should be avoided whenever possible. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I thought it was only required to notify people whom a topic is about, not those mentioned in passing. The big orange banner that appears doesn't say to notify anyone you mention, but to notify anyone you start a topic about. I've never heard the requirement to notify anyone just mentioned come up in ANI discussions before, and I read those frequently. Anyway, I don't understand the statement ""Japanese entertainment" doesn't even come close to being analoguous to "video games"" . . . I don't think I suggested anything of the sort. I do understand what you are getting at though. I personally don't think the sanctions are useful, but if people do think they should remain, then it does make sense for them to be unambiguous. Calathan (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Revised: Support return to previous status quo (TBAN from GiTS, IBAN with Chris, BAN from AN/ANI, probation enabling pagebans when necessary); the last time she appealed this, then I let myself get carried away by the mob and proposed a siteban without any additional justification other than a feeling of wasted time fueled by my own lack of neutrality. That discussion resulted in the intermediate "result" of the current broad TBAN, and while I think the consensus could've been read either way (I'm not faulting the closer), I do know the discussion wasn't started with a constructive intention and that my own lack of detachment inevitably swayed the community's feel and doomed Lucia unfairly. I apologize for previously acting highly dismissive of Lucia, who, despite everything else, does remain a dedicated (if passionate) contributor. I don't think the current broad TBAN is preventing disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 4)Oppose at this time. This request seems to challenge the validity of the topic ban on several grounds, such as that those supporting sanctions were too far removed from Lucia Black's encyclopedia work to cogently evaluate the situation (essentially the opposite logic in WP:INVOLVED), and that the topic ban is too broad (though Calathan also seems to state that the siteban proposal was reasonable, even if he/she would not have supported it). Honestly, I don't find these arguments convincing. If Lucia Black is editing productively in another area and the topic ban had outlived its usefulness, some rolling back of the editing restrictions could be considered. But a facial challenge to the validity of the ban just doesn't seem right. What I find disturbing is the suggestion that AN/ANI regulars should just ignore Lucia Black's disruption of those fora in recognition of her positive contributions, rather than call for sanctions. This ignores the critical problem of unseen disruption—nascent editors who just stop editing when they encounter difficulties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree strongly that working well with other editors is important, and in general think it is more important than writing good content. If I thought Lucia Black was scaring away editors from Japanese entertainment articles, I would be in favor of topic banning her from there. However, I instead think Lucia Black is working well with other people on Japanese entertainment articles, which is why I don't think she should be topic banned from there (I do however, think strongly that she should be topic banned from AN/ANI). Calathan (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict x 2) Weak support. I didn't think she deserved to be banned from this stuff in the first place, and back then I voted accordingly, but her behavior wasn't flawless and she hasn't demonstrated any willingness to correct the problems there were. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support- I thought the topic ban was unnecessarily harsh, overly broad in scope, and vindictive. It's been several months without disruption so the ban is clearly not accomplishing anything useful now, if it ever did, which I doubt. Reyk _YO! 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The bans purpose was to end her all excessively combative arguments. There haven't been any Lucia incidents since it was enacted. How can you say it accomplished nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

On the overwhelming majority of articles she's banned from, there was never a problem in the first place. The ban is unnecessarily broad and given the, I'll be blunt, sneaky way it was enacted I do not think it should stand. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we are talking about a large swath of articles here. to compare its like being blocked from editing all articles related to sports because bad choices were made on a superbowl article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This support is coming from someone who works on anime/manga related articles, I feel that Lucia had already upset a certain group of editors and an excuse was looked for to drive the final nail in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Even if this is going to end up with clear oppose, no consensus, I have a thought that she has been changed. Knowing what type of discussion these editors had, she could have been blocked forever, may be she has learned something from the topic ban. She is eager to make useful contributions to this topic and so, the topic ban can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I was the original proposer of the topic-ban, as a "compromise" between a warning and a site-ban. I see no evidence that she has learned her lesson, to stop creating drama. However, she has served time that, for her, amounts almost to a site-ban. I am willing to see her topic-ban lifted on two conditions. First, it should be understood that any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion, will result in a two-month to six-month block. Second, since we don't know whether she has learned that lesson, she should continue to be topic-banned from any filings at WP:AN or WP:ANI. She doesn't acknowledge that she has learned her lesson, but WP:ROPE applies. If she doesn't know that she can hang herself with 14 feet of rope, we don't need to protect her. Lift the ban for now. Leave the ban on drama board filings in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - Lucia: When you are in a hole, quit digging. When you are in a tunnel, quit accusing others of tunnel vision. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment @Robert McClennon: Are you personally offended by the idea of someone having tunnel vision? its not a crazy accusation or anything. It only suggest that someone is far too focused on a single goal that it impairs them to see other perspectives.

• Can you clarify what you mean when you say "any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion"? Debates are a part of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Bans should be appealed by the user that is banned, not by a third party. Until we actually hear from Lucia Black here, I don't think this request is actionable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is it a written rule though? Lucia is currently barred from posting on the admin boards so I do not see how she can appeal her case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a simultaneous discussion going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 176#I need some help that others may be interested in reviewing. For myself I stick by my original point. Despite Lucia Black's protestations to the contrary, I am highly skeptical that she is unable to edit in other areas to demonstrate her capacity to collaborate with other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. I'm neither for nor against the current ban, but I understand why it was placed and I don't think bans should be treated lightly. Unfortunately I also can't agree with Calathan's description of Lucia Black's past problematic behavior as being restricted to the GitS articles and AN/ANI. I'd love to see her prove herself elsewhere for a period to allow the community to see a positive record of her conflict-free editing. If she can participate productively in an area she hasn't worked before that would seriously undermine the claims that she is nothing but a hardened WikiWarrior. Again I am quite doubtful that she is actually incapable of editing other areas. It worries me that she seems much more bent on getting her sanctions lifted as if they were a mistake or an unwarranted abuse of power rather than acknowledging and addressing her own behavioral problems. -Thibbs (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose until a request is lodged by Lucia. I'd be leaning oppose anyway but a persuasive statement and understanding of the issues involved from Lucia would be appreciated. Nick (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support If anything shows a battleground mentality, it was the repeated calls for a site ban every time Lucia Black came up on AN/I. The only reason those individuals settled for the broad topic ban because the topic ban was effectively a soft site ban. Given that Lucia's area of interest and expertise was in Japanese-related media, they knew that she had almost no chance of having the ban repealed. Second, as Calathan has pointed out, the editors who most worked with Lucia unemphaticly opposed the topic ban. Third, the topic ban was entirely the result of Lucia appealing her previous topic ban, which she felt was unfairly placed. If an editor asks for a review or appeal of a sanction, additional sanctions should not be put in placed. And finally, why are Lucia's biggest harassers complaining that they weren't notified? Think about it for a moment because that exemplifies their battleground mentality. So not only do I support the lifting of the topic ban, but also propose an IBan/topic ban on Sergecross73 and Salvidrim! on all topics involving Lucia Black. —Farix (t | c) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "effectively a soft site ban" - I told you this before, TheFarix, but I find this sort of comment to be frankly harmful to Lucia Black. Why tell an editor that collaboration with others in an area outside of her comfort zone is impossible for her? Honestly this line of argument strikes me as completely lacking in credibility. It's an attack on Lucia's capacity to locate and judge 3rd party sources for reliability and on her capacity to conduct research to learn about topics she is not already familiar with ab origine. The sad thing is that she herself is susceptible to believing these slanders against her. How about a little encouragement for a friend rather than undermining her? -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Salv was just upset that he was mentioned by name but not pinged. Valid complaint at AN/ANI. I didn't complain about not being pinged at all. All I've done is comment. I have not started any discussions, or done any sanctions against her, ever. I may be in support of the topic ban, but I've done nothing out of line to warrant an interaction ban. (Nor has Salv for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose A removal of a topic ban requires 2 things: proof of extensive positive and drama-free work outside the topic area, and proof that the editor has a "method" of avoiding the problems that led to the topic ban in the future. Yes, someone else can show the former, but only the bannee can convince the community of the latter. the panda ₯’ 11:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Per above. This has been stated several times throughout this but it seem like few really care/noticed. AcidSnow (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. When we reject unban requests, unblock requests, and the like, the failed request is often seen as a negative thing for the affected editor, and if failed requests are repeated frequently enough, we'll say "no more". Should this unban request fail, we mustn't see it as a stain against Lucia, since she didn't originate it. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I generally concur, but with a caveat. This request is not so much an unban request but a challenge to the original ban discussion's closure (as well as, in part, a relitigation of the same issues that were handled by the prior discussion). I think a subsequent request based on the same rationale should turn on the outcome of this discussion, regardless of who brings it. Evaluating the original ban discussion closure does not require the same degree of scrutiny, care, or involvement of the banned party that a normal unban request does. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support (by being the subject) per Nick's Mr. Stradivarius desire to hear my opinion. I would definitely wish this topic-ban to be appealed. What i want to say more or less is mostly on TheFarix's has been saying and Calathan's opening statement. I believe that the community in WP:ANIME are far more informed on the situation than those who know me only through AN / ANI. After all, we're talking about the subject in which i am currently banned indefinitely from and the community dedicated to improving it.

A lot of times i'm being asked for change. And to be brutally honest...i dont think the ones asking for it will ever see it regardless. The only way i think people will genuinely see change is if they And i'm here to tell you that, i was showing those signs before the additional sanctions were added. Even during the proposal of the additional sanctions, i treated Salvidrim with respect, and didn't attack him or used battleground-like words shown in Talk:Uzumaki#Interview verification. So as you can see, i have definitely been improving, even with pressure of additional sanctions on top of me. But if we all see this objectively and treat this as any other case, you might be surprised to see the glaring holes, as other members have noticed. I believe a lot of this is tunnel vision.

In response of @Mendaliv:, DangerousPanda and AcidSnow. Allow me to inform you in the situation. Initially, I only asked to lessen the topic ban of all Ghost in the Shell to just the article in question (not remove it entirely) according to where the disruption happened and was given permission by an administrator to bring it up in AN and ANI. As years of dispute would have lead to be unresolved, i believed that consensus by having every one else banned from the article except one person would be deemed harmful for the article when the time came to get true consensus would be asked.

However Salvidrim, Sergecross73, and Hasteur were editors who pushed heavily for a site-ban over the same grounds. There was clearly no agreement with it, and had more or less stated that a topic ban would be most appropriate instead. But there was already a topic ban. So, i think if we ask ourselves or at least attempt to answer the question: What merited additional sanctions?

Overall, If we treat this as a discussion and less like a vote, i think that there will be less room for tunnel vision and will be able to consider all points, even previous points that were missed in the past. I believe, regardless of consensus, there was no new grounds for additional sanctions. Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Again, I have not "gamed the system" or "stonewalled" anything. People keep bringing Lucia to AN/ANI, and I comment. I don't start the discussions, propose the sanctions, or enact the statements. I comment in discussions. This is just Lucia trying to push the blame rather than take responsibility for her actions. Sergecross73 msg me 10:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sergecross, if you feel that way, can you please tell everyone under what new grounds was necessary to ban me from Japanese Entertainment indefinitely? Lucia Black (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whet do you mean if you feel that way? Do you see my name in your block log? At the place where we log bans? At the top of these proposals? No, you don't. It's not feeling, I objectively didn't do those things. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Let's look for the hallmarks of a Lucia Black disruptive thread:

White knights attempting to intercede for LB Y

LB passing the buck on any responsibility that they may have had in the previous threads Y

LB tendentiously nitpicking apart opposition viewpoints (See 02:54 post and 10:47 post) Y

No plan for how LB indends to prevent the previous incidents from reoccuring Y

Request for complete removal of sanctions rather than narrowing the existing sanctions Y

Claiming a conspiracy by editors to prevent her from editing Y

No we've already given many editor-years and megabytes of argument to "How can Lucia Black return back to editing her preferred subject area?". Start the request over clean. Avoid the hallmarks that I've pointed out, and there might be a chance of success. As I recall I suggested Japanese entertainment as the scope of the topic ban is because the line between Anime/Manga/Video Games/Actors is so thin that arguments that start in one line of media riot over into the other media with very little encouragement (See also the "Ghost in the Shell" split/merge riot). Cutting off the entire topic area to prevent disruption around/with Lucia Black is not us punishing her, it's us protecting ourselves from disruption Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I don't want to argue about word choice. But i don't believe you are simply casting a vote. After all, you have responded heavily in the discussion and its not even trying to be a consistent argument. But i don't want to fight. I asked a genuine question. What did i do to deserve more sanctions? Can you please answer me this? And this isn't just for Sergecross. I think if we get this answered, we'll have our true consensus. What exactly did i do to deserve more sanctions regarding Japanese related media?

Hasteur Most of it is unnecessary to argue about or even a point against me. but the most important points, i will say that are heavily inaccurate. I originally did ask for narrowing existing sanctions (not removing them completely) but the result was more sanctions on top of it over no new disruption within Japanese entertainment. So i rather have the new sanctions removed.

Conspiracy is a strong word, but i will say this to clarify. I don't believe in a secret underground anti-Lucia Black organization where they have a meeting every sunday and find ways to bother me. What i do believe is a group of editors that are human and just as imperfect as the next who have a case of tunnel vision. And for the record, other editors have felt far more strongly about it then i have recently. So if you don't want to prove it to me, prove it to the other well-intending editors who believe it. Lucia Black (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you want to pass the blame, take no accountability for your actions, make accusations at others while not answering any questions directed towards yourself, and then tack on a little "but I'm not here to argue" in there to make it all okay? This sort of behavior is what keeps getting you all these topics bans at AN/ANI and Japanese media related areas - and now you're using it as your approach to get un-topic banned? You may want to re-think this approach. Some of your supporters were contingent on you understanding what happened, taking responsibility for it, and providing a plan for keeping problems from happening again. You don't seem to understand any of this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to Lucia: I do admit that I am human, that I am imperfect, and that my judgement may not be detached and neutral about this. I do feel tired of the drama surrounding the discussions about you, and that's probably a less-than-ideal POV from which to approach the discussion. I don't hate you specifically but I've reached my limit of how much idle ranting I'm able to respond to constructively. I admit my own shortcomings (I wish you would do the same!) and I hope that whatever closing admin will treat my opinion with the appropriate weight considering my serious involvement. I won't be surprised or disappointed if the full topic-ban is rescinded, and hope that if consensus does end up leaning that way, that you will be able to resume editing constructively, and hopefully never end up at AN/I again. It is an annoyance for me, but I can't begin to imagine how hard it must be for you to deal with this and if anything, I admire your dedication and persistence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm only reiterating what TheFarix and Calathan have been saying that there was no additional grounds to add more sanctions on top of the ones that were established within hours. And i have taken accountability for my actions. I never denied that i was disruptive in the article in question. And that was taken accountability from the start when i originally only asked to narrow the Topic Ban, not remove it entirely. If you want to hear my full thoughts on it: i feel bad about it and thought it was a good idea to take a break from that specific article Ghost in the Shell until i was confident that i can tackle the article again. However, to be brutally honest, i don't know exactly what to do when it comes to that specific article to avoid issues other than avoiding edit wars, especially with only two (now one) member involved. Of course i'll think twice and maybe thrice before even getting involved, but i'm not sure i can do it all and still reach a consensus. Not alone at least. The issue has always been lack of consensus for that specific article (not blaming lack of consensus, its just a factor that keeps me frustrated). And that's what worried me when i was banned from the other articles as well. Regardless, my main concern at the moment is the Topic Ban from "ALL" Japanese media related articles.

@Salvidrim!: it does indeed take a lot to say what you have said, and i thank and respect you for it. I personally do take into consideration of my own actions as well. And that's what i have been trying to say before, but i guess to a few other editors and myself believe it evolved into something else when additional sanctions were being asked. The others who support the appeal (and myself) don't know what additional disruption i did in order to elevate the sanctions for Japanese media related articles. So when i'm asked what i can do to prevent this, i'm heavily unsure on what "it" is exactly. If we're talking about Japanese-related articles, i assure you i know how to handle myself the majority of the time. My Achilles' heel is based more on a specific article and specific editor involved. So avoiding that specific article and that specific editor combined will help me focus on editing other articles.

If we're talking about AN and ANI, i am trying my best at the moment to present myself in the best that i can, regardless if anyone agrees with me. And i apologize ahead of time for anything i have said to offend you. And it is taking me a much longer process to respond because i'm taking consideration as much as i can peoples feelings. Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If there was any doubt that you had learned from previous incidents you've completely destroyed it. Again with the TL:DR rants and nitpicking apart the opposition. Kindly show yourself to a room with no exit because I (and I would assume many others) are tired of threads involving you and creating much heat for the amount of light we gain from them. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think its too long to be read, but then again. A lot of what i'm saying is by repeat, with some new light. If the problem is that my comments are too long, perhaps dont get involved. And i'm trying my best to show you respect, i ask you to do the same. Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "if you don't want to read everything I say then get out" mentality is precisely the wrong one for this discussion. We have a responsibility to make arguments concise and accessible as part of the consensus-making process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Its more that if you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't hold it against the discussion. WP:TLDR#Maintain civility which suggest that it is a fallacy of ad hominem, Appeal to ridicule, Thought-terminating cliché. There was a much better way to do so. And overall, an argument shouldn't be dismissed simply because it was too long. You can ask me for a more concise version without using TL;DR. So basically, i'm being respectful, please give me the same courtesy. Lucia Black (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Too stressful

I personally am far too stressed of a lot of whats being said here. I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example. And i rather be able to present my points neutrally without someone trying to look for a flaw in word choice. I also believe that this is toxic, and i dont think anything i say to the community will be happy about it.

Its a stressful time. So i'm going to request for Arbitration. I think i'll be able to get far more fairer treatment there. Is it possible to request for arbitration instead? Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• "I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example." - This stings, and rightly so in my opinion. I'm not happy about the way you have been (and are being) treated. I apologize for literally bashing you (although perhaps never very openly) and being generally dismissive of you. I let myself get carried away in the mob and I'm angry at myself for that. I'm not sure exactly why this discussion has "opened my eyes", but damn... you don't deserve to be dismissed this way. However: ArbCom is definitely not the way forward. It's my candid opinion that you would end up digging your own hole deeper; I hope you will not submit yourself to that. I doubt ArbCom would accept the case anyhoe, as I don't think this is something "the community has proven unable to handle". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words. And i apologize ahead of time if i said that a little too strongly. i think i'm going to give up. I'll probably wait another year or so if someone believes i deserve to get it appealed again. Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Go ahead. Appeal to ArbCom, they'll decline you for forum shoping in addition to this still being solvable in the community (and since you used Appeal to Jimbo while this thread was going in in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) your sanction will stick. It took a consensus of editors that saw significant problems with your editing to impose the ban, a consensus of editors that saw that your actions during the discussion of the imposition of the ban as problematic and upheld your topic ban, a mixed bag of consensus here indicates that your actions have yet to demonstrate that your editing will not be less problematic. Please follow the advice that I and others gave above: 1. Keep clear of all drama (including discussing your ban) 2. Come up with a way to show that previous reasons for the ban are no longer relevant (i.e. No disruptive posting/editing, brief (~200 words) and to the point statements outlining your view when you're in dispute with annother editor) 3. Accept responsibility for your actions previously 4. Do not make any accusations about other editors that caused your editing misbehavior. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

After a good nights sleep and relaxation from the stress, i didn't want to come back. however if you are going to reference other discussions, i suggest you double check and make sure your conclusion is accurate. I originally requested Jimbo Wales to review the previous discussion under beliefs that there is a fundamental flaw on how an oversight lead to the appeal to consensus over whether there was any action warranted. There is indeed a mix crowd but not because the determination of my editing will be less problematic or not. If that was true, clearly this involves WP:ANIME more than the AN community or any Japanese-media related community. Basically, you would've heard them out more.

The truth of the matter is that there are different priorities with the opposers and supporters. The strong supporters note that i am indeed beneficial to the Japanese related articles, and there is proof and witnesses provided. Not only that, but they don't understand what warranted additional sanctions in the first place. That's important. The strong opposers from the previous discussion that originally wanted the topic ban aren't prioritizing that (not an accusation, it's just an objective observation). This isn't about whether i can or can't edit with the Japanese media-related community without disruption (because there's plenty of proof that i can. And there has not been a single counter against these points). But common points within the strong opposers are never connected to the disruption within Japanese media article. The common points is how much annoyed, tired, or at their limit one is during the AN and ANI discussions when it involves me. And the other light opposers are simply opposing out of procedure but if they knew the previous AN discussion was out of procedure, they would possibly be interested in knowing more on why. (and this is said among the supporters)

Basically, this key question needs to be answered: what new actions have I done at all to merit additional sanctions regarding Japanese media related articles? I didn't break the previous sanctions, only requested it to be narrowed and that was given permission by an administrator (so at least i had some ground to do it). And if this long refusal to answer is based on the intention of making a point regarding "she hasn't learned her lesson", than that is just an even more Battleground behavior because answering this will help move things along smoothly without calling it drama or anything. In fact, you would be helping an editor see their flaws. If that's not the case, then i'm sure you will be happy to answer that question. Because not only will you be making a stronger point, but you will also be helping another editor improve. Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to opt for arbitration committee and these are the reasons why: 1) I genuinely do not believe this can be solved by the community. Especially when its split between editors in WP:ANIME, editors who know me only through WP:AN and other editors who don't know of the matter. Regardless if i had valid ground to make an argument, its still under the basis that the previous AN and ANI discussion was not done adequately, adequately. And i don't think the administrators or the community will be willing to even consider that idea except for the ones who were part of it. 2) Its far too stressful to see how certain editors have no discretion when it comes to the things they are saying, but find and twist my words. There's a history of dismissing me, ignoring key questions, and over all Appeal to ridicule. Nothing i have asked has been answered, and none of my points have been countered. The only thing that has been done so far by the opposers is pick my words apart and refuse to answer.

I genuinely believe what i'm saying will receive more consideration there than here. Lucia Black (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered changing the scope of your request? For example, rather than requesting a complete removal of the restriction, requesting for your restriction to be relaxed in respect of say 3 specified articles (and their talk pages) from the topic. I'd be more open to considering support for that type of request as it would mean if you are doing good work, it would be recognised when you later request for a further relaxation after a month or two, but if there were still issues, the scope of any disruption is reduced also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist Can you give me a reason why i shouldn't ask for it to be removed entirely? Keep in mind, i'm only asking to remove the additional sanctions that have has no basis other than obscure consensus. There will still be sanctions. But right now, the sanctions that are in question are under no basis.

Why would you not support removing those sanctions? Lucia Black (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is more or less based on whether there was any grounds in the first place to add additional sanctions on top of the ones already implemented? Not whether i am a good editor. Everyone here knows i'm a good editor. those who don't only know me through WP:AN or ANI. and no one will ever go in AN and ANI for how "good" they are. so how can the opposers know how beneficial i am if they will only see the AN and ANI discussion, and not follow me elsewhere? Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You're probably not making any progress with this angle because two editors already reviewed the close, and said it was a reasonable conclusion to come to. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion based on an obscure consensus. All I asked for was to reduce the original sanctions. So i ask again...for the sake of of being fair to me. Under what new actions did i do to cause to be banned from Japanese related media? All i asked for was it to be reduced and i was given permission by an administrator to do so. Refusing to answer this question is just WP:BATTLEGROUND because i'm going to be banned and not even know what i did to deserve it...Which seems to be against policy. Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, ARBCOM is the only way to go, at this point. NO one is willing to answer this important question. And to me, it will forever look like "your topic banned because there was a consensus for it". I think in ARBCOM, the question will have to be answered, because its no longer about whether consensus controls any action, ARBCOM will be the consensus. SO it will rely more on which one has the more relevant point. Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

At this point, rather than pursue the same path and arguments that happened in the original topic ban discussion, I propose that we hear from a broader base of members from WP:ANIME and WP:VG. In the previous discussion (after looking back) I, perhaps somewhat hastily, proposed the wider anime/VG ban in addition to the GITS ban but ultimately only supported the GITS ban. I'm sure parties to the current discussion will want to wade in here, but rather than seeing the same old names rehash the same arguments, I think fresh eyes need to be brought in. Lucia, I highly recommend against starting any discussion here, not because I want to muzzle you, but I sincerely want to see what others, apart from the regulars here, have to say. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anytime a discussion involves an edit Lucia dislikes or when she proposes a policy change, there is always an endless debate. While having been out of the loop and skipping most of the discussion, I believe Sergecross and Hasteur analyzed Lucia's behavior quite accurately. However, I think Lucia should receive different sanctions instead of the topic ban, mainly due to her edits on articles no other editors are taking up. My suggestions for sanctions would be: 1) Lucia should not start discussions on policy, MosS, and whatever changes that could be made. 2) Aside from vandalism or something that goes against the MoS, she should consult with an editor who will discuss the edits in her place (or turn her down on her request for a discussion). Her having two consistent consultant editors in WP:Anime and WP:VG would be sufficient. That should settle the Lucia Black disruptive thread syndrome unless I forgot something. Course, it'd be up to Lucia to accept those terms or not. If this does go to Arbcom, I can only imagine a complete ban for her. Excuse my grammar and derailment of thought here, it has been a long day for me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I cannot make this decision for the community, but I will say:

• Wikipedia is not about User:Lucia Black.
• An article is calling for help.

84.127.82.127 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Having a question about sources at an obscure and largely unimportant article is hardly a reason for or against anyone's topic ban. It's truly mind-boggling to think that you thought this would matter in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Bot issues

It seems to be a bot been editing while logged out or some technical issue. Special:Contributions/10.68.16.32. I will post this up on VPT as well. ///EuroCarGT 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Possibly ClueBot 3 according to recent contributions to own user page. --///EuroCarGT 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion active on WP:BOWN, not blocking at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Xaosflux. ///EuroCarGT 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, see notice at the bottom of this board, and more details at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Issue resolved, block cleared. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: You should never block RFC1918 IPs, because it causes problems for users behind trusted XFF proxies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I did soft block it only, so logged in users should have been fine, I also watched for auto blocks and none appeared while being observed. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Banned from IRC?

Apparently my IRC nick (GeorgeEdwardC) has been banned from numerous IRC channels. I'd like to question this, since I did absolutely nothing. I'm banned from #wikipedia ^connect, #cvn-wp-en ^connect, #wikidata ^connect, and I'm not sure why. It could be my IRC provider, and it might not be. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has nothing to do with IRC, we have no authority there and it isn't under the control of the Foundation. You would need to talk to someone there. I know, that might not seem obvious, but really, we aren't affiliated in any way. Dennis - 2¢ 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So... Where can I contact said people? It appears I'm only banned from WMF channels, except #cvn-simplewikis, strangely. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not banned from IRC. The IRC client you were connecting with has been banned from our channels due to it repeatedly being used abusively by others. If you connect with another client, you should be fine. For future reference, however, questions about IRC bans, etc should be asked on the #wikimedia-ops channel on IRC. You're much more likely to find someone who's able to answer your question there than on a noticeboard onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi George, Rjd0060 has set you a ban exemption for your NickServ account for the #wikipedia channel and I have just set you one for the #wikidata channel. If you identify to your NickServ account, you should be able to join both these channels. If you can't join, poke either Rjd (RD on freenode) for #wikipedia or if you can't join #wikidata, poke me (JohnLewis on freenode) and we'll resolve it for you. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another

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

---

Should general sanctions based on the following quotation be enabled? -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

• Comment see previous discussion: #General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Request that this RfC be closed immediately – I explicitly told PBS not to use my words, or my text, for any RfC that he wants to start. He made an AN/I thread on this matter, and no one supported his bad faith behaviour. Now he comes back here, takes the words I told him not to use, and tries to start a farcical "RfC". This is a joke, a duplicate of an existing discussion, and a attempt to stymie something that has consensus. I've followed the normal process, but that's not good enough for PBS. Instead, he has to badger me, separating the proposal I wrote from its authors, staring RfCs without my consent. I believe that PBS should be sanctioned for such behaviour, but I'll deal with that at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• If there are differing views on the wording, it would seem appropriate to offer several alternatives and ask the community to choose one (or none) of those, especially when dealling with a topic where "ownership" of the rules may be one of the major issues. --Boson (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS doesn't have a "differing view on wording", and PBS hasn't presented an alternative wording. He has presented the wording I PROPOSED in a parallel process, as an attempt to discredit my proposal above. I've spent weeks proposing various alternatives, asking or feedback, and the results are up above at the appropriate thread. This is just a diversionary attempt at forcing a bureaucratic process onto this proposal. General sanctions are not established by RfC. They are established through discusion at WP:AN. Close this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

*Close this there's already one running here on a this same board above us. Though we don't own our words on Wikipedia (nothing's copyrighted), it's a bit unusual, to say the least , to have two RFC's on the same thing running. Close this one and let the other one continue on. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is an ethnical obligation, rather than a legal one. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The other proposal is explicitly NOT an RfC, RGloucester objected to using the RfC process for his proposal (which is his right to do), and so the other one is not an RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Close as duplicate—While this was a good-faith effort to broaden discussion, there are far better ways of accomplishing that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"What are the far better ways of accomplishing [it]"? -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the problem, if he wants a larger audience to come here and comment on it, it doesn't stop or prevent the previous proposals from continuing, and does not stop them from reaching consensus just as they normally would. (although if/when the other proposal gets consensus this would probably be closed at the same time as moot). The only problem I can see is potentially fractured conversation on the topic, but given the RfC has different procedures and a different audience I don't think its that big of a deal. --Obsidi (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't have the right to force this proposal through an RfC. No where in policy or guidelines is he given the right to do that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

He is free to request an RfC on anything he wants to. That doesn't force your proposal to only go through an RfC (they can operate independently).--Obsidi (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because this RfC is my proposal. He's taken my proposal, moved it around, screwed up the existing discussion and caused what can only be described as WP:Forumshopping. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If he is proposing that regardless of whatever consensus occurs in your thread, the RfC will reverse that, I would agree with you, that would be WP:Forumshopping. Forum shopping is like going to one admin, getting the answer "no", going to a second admin to try get a different answer (and so on). Using the second one to override the answer given in the first. But I see this request differently, he is not proposing that whatever consensus you come up with be overridden by the RfC. He is proposing his own process (using an RfC), that may get consensus before yours does. For instance yours might end in "no consensus" but the RfC would continue collecting input for the rest of the month and might get a consensus at the end of that. Its very rare to have something like this occur and should usually be avoided so that we can have a unified discussion, but it isn't contrary to any policy that I am aware of. --Obsidi (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My first proposal was to convert the section you named "moving on" into an RfC you refused to allow that. So I do not think you ought not complain that it is "WP:Forumshopping" if I I have started the RfC else where. I am surprised and disappointed that you did not and do not agree to see what the broader community thought of this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. This noticeboard is clearly labelled as for "information and issues that affect administrators". Any RfC on general sanctions clearly affects non-administrators too. Accordingly, regardless of other issues concerning the appropriateness or otherwise of the RfC, I would have to suggest that it is inappropriate to hold it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the prior thread on this page about "General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain" should also not be done on this page? (otherwise I don't see how an RfC is any different) --Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because community-authorised general sanctions are always established at WP:AN per Wikipedia:General sanctions. That's how it has always been done. No "RfC" is required. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, AN is the right place for this (and that a RfC is not required, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible). --Obsidi (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose to the current wording because topic is very narrow (like "British Isles") and could be defined more succinctly as "edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units", and the scope is unnecessary and makes it too complex. In more detail:
  1. United Kingdom is not clearly defined. There have been at least 2 UKs (and possibly three--depending on the interpretation of the name of Kingdom of Great Britain). It is not made clear if UK includes the nations that existed before the UK came into existence. So the scope of these general sanctions are not defined. For example the proposal sates "solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries", is the height of the Duke of Wellington covered by this article as he was born in Ireland. Is Bonnie Prince Charlie covered by this definition? What about British India (is it no because India is involved and is an English speaking nation?), or British rule in Burma (is is yes because Myanmar is not English speaking or is it no because it was a Province of British India?). What about the Battle of Waterloo (1815)? What about the Second Battle of El Alamein (1941), as there were divisions from other Commonwealth nations involved in the battle. There are 100,000 of articles which could or could not be interpreted as having "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" depending on how the UK is defined and what solely means. -- It would be much simpler and far less confusing if the two clauses were removed completely and the sanctions started with "Any editor who systematically..."
  2. RGloucester states above "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM". If the MOS is to be ignored then it makes a mockery of the wording "clear consensus" because a clear consensus also involves the wider consensus as expressed in policies and guidelines.
  3. "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" See the previous point on consensus. However this is not the main issue in this sentence. From reading the conversation above, it is not the changing of values from one system of measurement to another but changing the ordering so that instead of "imperial (metric)" an editor changes the ordering to "metric (imperial)" -- or vice versa. So the wording of this proposed general sanction is not addressing the issue for which it was created, as it is quit possible to change the ordering without changing the values. -- "Any editor who systematically reorders imperial and metric measurements without a clear consensus to do so"
  4. " who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits " This is far to broad and besides is clearly coved by usual guidelines and policies already.
  5. "Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions" This can be seen as interfering with normal administrative actions, as those who have been blocked for "otherwise disruptively edits" argue that they were not notified.
  6. "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
  7. "Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." This is a very bad idea, because unless everyone who ever edits any of the affected pages are notified then notification becomes a warning system to warn of possible sanctions, and as such editors who do not think that they deserve a warning object to being listed in that way. If there has to be a central logging system the "notifications" should only be logged by uninvolved admins and calling a spade a spade be listed as warnings. (see my comments and others at Discretionary sanctions discussions).
  8. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• PBS you've already expressed your opinion fifty thousand times. Please stop this forum-shopping nonsense. I will pursue action against you, if you keep this up. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Help with file deletions

Here's three files that I can't delete, because I was the nominator. If another admin could have a look please and delete if they check out ok? Thanks in advance. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point of procedure, you can perfectly well delete those yourself too. It's not an XfD but a speedy procedure, which by definition means that a single admin can do the whole process. The prior tagging is also not a "nomination" but a mere notification regarding the grace period. The only case where processing it oneself is not advisable is if a substantial objection was raised in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I did not realize that. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletions backlog

I'd be grateful if someone could look at the proposed deletions starting with the current oldest category from 25 October. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've actioned the entries from the 25th, but there's still plenty from the 26th and 27th that need looking at. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC).

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY

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.

---

Over 100 request for WP:SPEEDY, can we get some eyes over there please. Amortias (T)(C) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

{{CSD-categories}} says 58 now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Closure review of RfC on general sanctions

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

---

This is a request to review the close at RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another. I discussed this with the closer here.

Closure requires an uninvolved editor per WP:Closing discussions, in this case the editor who closed, RGloucester, is clearly involved (and so far does not dispute that). Instead he has invoked Ignore All Rules to claim the ability to close this RfC. I believe this closure to be invalid and ask that it be reopened. --Obsidi (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Premature close of the RfC -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close any "RfC". There was no "RfC". There was farce, and I merely marked it as such. Any attempt to re-open this so-called "RfC" would be endorsing the disruptive actions of PBS, of his forum-shopping, of his bad-faith, of his filibustering, of his bulldozering, and of his inability to work with other editors to come to consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC closed

The Media Viewer RfC arbitration case is closed following a suspension period of 60 days. The following considerations were taken by the Committee:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 00:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

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.

---

Pursuant to a discussion at WT:MOSNUM, I'd like to propose that general sanctions be established for matter pertaining to units of measurement in Britain. This is a subject area that has seen persistent disruption for many years. For those not familiar with the situation, Britain is currently in a state where both metric units and imperial units coexist. Many people express a preference for one system or another, and the matter is quite political. Our style guide has recommendations about what units to use in articles with strong ties to Britain at WP:UNIT, but these have often been the subject of acrimonious debates. Edit wars about which units to display in articles have caused various problems, including a sock-puppetry campaign by banned user DeFacto. Given all this, and given the recurrent disruption and inordinate time-wasting that is caused by this type of behaviour, I'd like to propose enacting general sanctions, as I said above. These general sanctions would enact WP:1RR for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles, and would allow uninvolved administrators to place sanctions on those who behave disruptively in matters pertaining to British units of measurement. I'm open to other proposals, as well. However, I think that it is about time that something was done to curtail this incessant disruption. It is harmful to the encyclopaedia, it wastes time, and it causes editors to wage political wars on articles that scare aware good editors. Please do comment. I recommend that anyone who comments here should read the talk-page archives at WT:MOSNUM, as they provide a good history of the dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is long overdue. To put this into perspective, current guidance is to use predominantly metric units with the few exemptions defined where the imperial unit remains the primary unit and to provide a conversion; to be clear the guidance is to use both systems. Its a sensible compromise yet we have seen the talk page held hostage by pressure groups seeking to use wikipedia to advance an agenda; they are not here to build an encyclopedia. For example, the pressure group the UK Metric Association has been advocating its members use wikipedia to advance their agenda since 2008 [12], equally guilty are the British Weights and Measures Association [13]. The problem is both camps are completely inflexible and compromise is an anathema to both, this is making consensus building impossible with ordinary editors unwittingly finding themselves in the middle. A perusal of the archive [14] demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. WCM_email 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but where in your UK Metric Association source do you see them asking their members to use Wikipedia to advance their agenda? All I see (on page 4 of the newsletter) is a very sensibly written piece describing what Wikipedia is, noting that there are POV policies and style guides which need to be followed, and asking readers to "correct any inaccuracies" in articles related to metrication. It's pretty much the sort of neutrally worded message one might expect to see one of our own WikiProjects addressing to completely new editors. The British Weights and Measures Association post is similar; it simply describes a good-faith clarification they made to an article, and doesn't actually advocate its members to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. Maybe both groups really are using Wikipedia to push their points of view, but if so, there's no evidence in the links you've provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support. The situation sounds rather problematic, and the proposed solution sounds good if applied only to individual editors, as proposed herein. The field is so broad that anything beyond the limited scope herein proposed would be destructive: we mustn't go any farther. Placing sanctions on the whole field would amount to general sanctions on the entirety of the UK, which would be nutso. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I didn't mean "the whole field", I meant what you said. I apologise if I wrote something misleading. Administrators should be able to place sanctions on individual editors, as proposed above, and as you said. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I was supporting weakly because you said "I'm open to other proposals, as well". We should not be open to other proposals, because the only other proposals that would address this specific problem would be far more wide-ranging than would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The situation in Britland isn't problematic, this appears to be a solution in search of a new way of spelling Aluminum. We really need to stop Americans using cups and spoons in recipes before tackling this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. This is about British people arguing amongst themselves about whether metric or imperial units should be made primary in UK-related articles, not about Americans doing anything. The idea that "the situation isn't problematic" is absurd; I recommend you take a look at WT:MOSNUM at this very moment to see why it is problematic. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is that this is a non-issue, and you know it. The vast majority of Britlandians have no issues on this subject, and the WT:MOSNUM link is a hed rerring. The 'camps' are unimportant fringe nobodies, the issue in the UK has been settled for years. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Er...I don't know if it is settled or not, but I do know that people keep bring it up, edit warring over it. All the more reason to institute sanctions, so that the vast majority of Britons needn't be plagued by petty nonsense in British-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's just a time-wasting discussion. Everyone who actually lives in Britain knows that we buy fuel by the litre but every road sign shows miles. Eric Corbett 00:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Don't forget, Eric, milk is sold in pints AND litres. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know. It amused me the first time I saw it, but after living there for a while, it was something to get used to. Never ceases to amaze me how big a deal people make out of it. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Going in pursuit of the original discussion and the statement by RGloucester. Edit war over minor units cannot be ignored. VandVictory (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Question relating to the implication if this proposal was accepted and implemented. Would this really apply to any editor who made unit changes to any of the 10000s of articles that may be considered to be related in such a way to that UK? If so, how would this sanction be publicised and made known to every new editor who came across what they thought was a unit anomaly in such an article. It wouldn't be practical to alert each and every editor about to make such a change to each and every qualifying, would it? ProProbly (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @ProProbly: If implemented like the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction, it would basically involve editors being notified after they made edits that changed measurement formats on British articles. After being notified, they would be blockable if they went on to violate the restriction. However, no-one should be blocked for violating 1RR if they have not been notified (although the ARBPIA page states this is possible, in practice it is not done). Number 57 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: Thanks, that helps clarify the likely consequences. That relies on someone who knows about this sort of thing spotting it. Would that also mean, do you think, that someone who changed a qualifying UK article to comply with their interpretation of the WP:UNITS guidelines would also be warned? ProProbly (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @ProProbly: I wouldn't call it a warning - it's a notification that the sanctions exist. But yes, everyone who makes those kind of edits should be informed. Number 57 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto Seems likely this is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. WCM_email 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• What about height - both metric and imperial are used in the UK (imperial probably more prominent IMO) and we have {{height}} which converts from one to the other, but which should be displayed primary? GiantSnowman 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Height is already in WP:UNIT, but see WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? for an example of how much heat and how little light can be generated by such questions. NebY (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And thats a perfect example of disruption, where one editor took it upon themselves to edit counter to the Manual of Style, to work through a category switching unit order. They then bragged about it offsite and invited other members of their pressure group to join in. But of course per WP:OUT I can't point this out. WCM_email 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What might not have come across in Curry Monster's point was the sheer scale of the abuse - this was well over a thousand articles over the course of several months (during this period, according to their contributions, this editor did little on Wikipedia other than converting articles in this category against MOSNUM consensus). Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. We have a workable and mainly working compromise at WP:UNITS and a general desire for peace. But long conflict has left many twitchy and it would be impossible to agree a comprehensive phrasing of WP:UNITS that would cover every possible eventuality - previous attempts to tighten the phrasing have foundered in mutual suspicion of what loopholes and interpretations the other side might seek to exploit. It remains fertile ground for extremists, particularly one who refuses to accept consensus and has no compunction about, indeed takes pleasure in, stirring and wasting the time of fellow editors. NebY (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @NebY: The "compromise" does not reflect the real-life UK practice though and carries no explanation as to the reason for not so doing. It is not supported with evidence, in fact it flies in the face of the available evidence. In short it is totally biased in favour of the metric system. If we fix that, people might respect itProProbly (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@ProProbly: I'm glad to see you engaging in civil discourse here, however, this is not the place to go on about changing MOSNUM. That discussion should take place at the MOSNUM talk page. This discussion is only about the proposed general sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support—The immediate concern is the latest batch of DeFacto socks, and I don't think the issue would have come up here if there wasn't such a backlog at WP:SPI. We also have discretionary sanctions for WP:MOSNUM (thanks to NebY for pointing this out), but using this doesn't seem to be a good fit for blocking socks or solving the wider problem described in the proposal. If this is what it takes to get the disruption to stop, then let's do it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think Wikipedia needs punitive sanctions on discussing UK units. However, there should be some way of settling disputes over units that get out of hand and a more effective way of dealing with sockpuppets. It is crazy to fight over whether a statue was 9 feet or 2.7 metres tall. The best way to sort this out is to find out the actual height of the statue and go with that. I also think there's something wrong with a hard and fast diktat that all British heights and weights must be Imperial first when UK Rugby League, Rugby Union and Premier League put metric units first for their players. I think we all know that most milk in the UK is sold by the pint but some milk is also sold by the litre. However, MOSNUM could be read as if milk was only sold by the pint. While MOSNUM could do with some tweaking, there's no way that the general preference for miles could or should be overturned at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Glass, whilst I do respect your opinion, this is not the place to be discussing changes to MOSNUM. That's a different pint-bottle of fish, meant to be dealt with at MOSNUM. The purpose of this proposal is to provide mechanisms for dealing with disruption in this topic area, not to quash discussion on potential changes to MOSNUM. Third-party administrators would be able to impose sanctions, as appropriate, on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from WP:General sanctions). RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, but much of the discussion here has been about what MOSNUM says. If the sanctions are going to apply to such things as edit warring over units of measure, fair enough, but if the sanctions are going to be applied to offences against MOSNUM, then MOSNUM had better be beyond reproach. Michael Glass (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Glass: No, no. Not "offences against MOSNUM". MOSNUM is not and will never be infallible. Like I said, the point is not to quash discussion about changing MOSNUM, but to curtail disruptive behaviour in those discussions. Only uninvolved administrators will be able to impose sanctions, and only for the reasons that I quoted above. You needn't worry about not being able to discuss changing the current guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Background and current situation: Currently the discretionary sanctions (DS) authorised by the Arbitration Committee in the article titles and capitalisation case apply to WT:MOSNUM. Given this comment by an arbitrator on the case's proposed decision talk page the DS likely also apply to article talk pages. If that is the case then the only place they don't apply (depending of course on how broadly you construe) is the changing the characters on articles. From my reading of this thread and of recent discussion regarding it the disruption is being driven by a small number of users and a banned user's socks (which the sanctions will do nothing to stop. My suggestion: (administrative opinion to stay uninvoved) Instead of authorising a brand new set of sanctions for this area can I suggest instead that we just go with the current discretionary sanctions and if editors side step them and only edit war over the characters in articles then they can be brought here individually for topic bans. As far as I can no one has alerted the people involved to ArbCom DS (now mostly done) or made a report to AE so the DS haven't had a chance to work. If I'm reading something incorrectly or you don't agree please feel free to reply so we can discuss. Cheers, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Relating those sanctions to this matter seems like a bit of a stretch (one arbitrator's vague words seem like a spurious link), and does not do anything about article-space edits. I see no reason why a new set of sanctions cannot be established for this matter, specifically meant for this purpose, as opposed to weaselling around with old Arb Com sanctions. As far as "a small number of users", there are recurrent editors that cause disruption, but it is certainly not limited to them. Whilst I do agree that what you said could be done, bringing editors here for topic bans, and so on, this mechanism is slow and bureaucratic, often does not work until the disruption has not gone on for ages, and really does not give the appropriate tools to administrators in this area. This is not an area where edit warring or disruption is ever appropriate. There are very few good reasons to ever edit war over units of measurement, perhaps even fewer than in other content areas. Given the history here, I believe that implementing some kind of sanction specifically for this purpose cannot hurt the situation, it can only help it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The diff provided is a former arbitrator replying to a current arbitrator's comment [15] that someone would "wikilawyer" DS to articles. I agree that having overlapping DS and GS in the same content area -- arguing MOSNUM and UK units in the same discussion -- would lead to unnecessary ambiguity. Given the community consensus that's forming, an explicit AC:RFAR request to extend DS to UK units seems reasonable. I lack the wikitime at this moment to fill out all the pixelwork. NE Ent 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with such an amendment, but I'm not familiar enough with the hidden gears and cogs of Wikipedia to attempt to do anything of that sort. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite see that overlap would be a problem and if we have sufficient consensus here, should we bother an overloaded Arbcom? After all, we're used enough to telling editors that they're in breach of multiple policies. Can't the community simply impose general sanctions identical to standard discretionary standards with the addition of 1RR on all conflict between editors regarding units of measurement in UK-related articles, wherever across en.wp such conflict takes place? That should suffice for warnings and actions alike. NebY (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my thinking, NebY. ArbCom seems to make everything more complicated than it otherwise needs to be. Perhaps it is because I'm British, and in Britain courts (yes, I know ArbCom is not a court) do not have powers of legislative interpretation. I honestly believe this is a matter better suited for a new set of general sanctions. However, if those administrators who are frequently involved in general sanctions matters, such as Callanecc, believe that an amendment is better suited, I'd be happy to take that approach in the interest of compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support the principle of general sanctions in this area. What we have at WP:UNITS is basically a decent compromise. Not perfect, but probably the best we're going to get given the levels of distrust on talk.

I would note that when the current rule has been taken to forums for UK-related articles outside MOSNUM it has generally been pretty well-supported. It's quite unusual for this to get brought up at WT:MOSNUM by non-regulars: I had a look and I found only one discussion on this topic on MOSNUM in the last year at that was not either started by a UK-Units regular (including DeFacto socks) or immediately prompted by the actions of a UK-Units regular. And POV pushers on both sides have come unstuck when they've appealed to what they thought was a silent majority consensus for their preferred system - only to find that in fact, editors were happy with the status quo.

I would in particular broadly endorse the points that User:NebY has made. But I would note that a major part of the problem has been outside MOSNUM, with people mass-converting whole topics from one system to the other, particularly when going against MOSNUM advice, and in favour of their own POV. These editors have generally not been sanctioned in the past, and they should have been. We can get too hung up on DeFacto - he's not the only one by any means. There are plenty on the metric side as well - the main difference is that they aren't blocked or banned. Kahastok talk 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did forget to say that the problem and the fertile ground for conflict extends well beyond MOSNUM, and I didn't want to imply just one person or just one side needed to exercise or suffer more restraint. NebY (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support no-one says it's logical, but it's real. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - long overdue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support based on evidence presented here. NE Ent 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per all the above, this is sorely needed. WaggersTALK 10:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording/remedies

As a broad consensus seems to be developing in favour of my initiative, I'd like to propose a wording for these sanctions.

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without justification, or who edit-wars over such a change, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, an editor must be given a notification with a link to the decision that implemented these sanctions, and should be counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. After being notified of these sanctions, the editor will be subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when changing values between different systems of measurements in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

Does this seem appropriate? RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we add that any reference to suggestions that we base unit order on the source used ie source based units is disruptive? Its just as bad from a disruption POV as the edit warring and unit changes. WCM_email 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of general sanctions is not to stifle discussion, but to discourage disruptive editing and behaviour. Such an addition would be completely inappropriate. If an uninvolved administrator believes that someone is editing disruptively, then they can be sanctioned. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You mention the UK: what about the ROI, as well as ambiguous situations such as Man, the Channel Islands, and the various remaining colonies such as Anguilla, BIOT, or Tristan da Cunha? I'm not pressing for such sanctions or attempting to opposing them: I simply wonder how you'd accounted for them, whether "we should include them", "we should not include them", or "the precise boundaries ought to be left to the enforcing administrator". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity in Ireland. It is completely metric, at this point. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a dispute over units at articles relating to the places you mention, and hence I do not think it is necessary to specifically include them in the scope. They are such minor cases that I doubt it will ever be a concern. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. Kahastok talk 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, it is quite obvious that that article has "strong ties" to the UK. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree entirely. I only brought it up because there seemed to be some question and there was a suggestion that it hadn't come up - after all, the FI have the same status as Anguilla, the BIOT, St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha et al. Kahastok talk 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't think there is a need to specify that these sanctions apply to the "British Indian Ocean Territory", or whatever. That seems like overkill. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's late and I'm still buzzing from an extraordinary poetry reading (capacity crowd on its feet), but I can still see how to drive several coaches and horses through and around that phrasing, and I'm sure more alert and less buzzing minds will thoroughly enjoy thinking of more. Maybe patch in "or who edit-wars over such a change, or otherwise engages in disruptive behaviour regarding units of measurement in such articles, may be sanctioned..." Or just look at how DS like WP:ARBPIA are phrased and talk of editors editing in the area of units of measurement in UK-related articles. NebY (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fewer word proposal:

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

Less is more NE Ent 23:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (edited NE Ent 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC))

I'm of the opinion that it is important that procedure be clear, and I think that your version leaves out a good deal of the procedure. I based my proposal off the British Isles sanctions and the Syrian Civil War sanctions. I believe it is important that we make note that sanctions require notifications and must be logged. I'm also not sure why the 1RR was left out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the logging, I missed that on the copy paste and have updated. The proposal says after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, I believe that is sufficient. Additionally, as a too long veteran of the dispute resolution boards, the more language present the more violating editors will seize as an argument for why they were done wrong: But I wasn't adequately counseled! I think it best to keep it short and sweet. NE Ent 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can support the version you've just edited, though it needs a bit of copyediting. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this version will be gamed to push source-based units over the top of MOSNUM rules because of the reference to "clear sourcing".

Source-based units - that is, a system whereby you use the same units as primary as the specific source used to justify the information (regardless of any other consideration) - has long been used by POV pushers as an excuse to impose their personal preference in this area (because they choose the sources that use the units they prefer). MOSNUM has never preferred source-based units - in fact source-based units have been repeatedly rejected (for the same reasons as would apply to source-based spellings) at WT:MOSNUM when they have been advocated by those same POV pushers - but it has in the past contained wordings that those editors claimed allowed them to override the rest of the guideline in favour of source-based units. The justification claimed for the mass-conversion of articles described here was source-based units.

We should be very careful to avoid wordings that might be similarly exploited. Kahastok talk 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the wording as proposed. If MOSNUM recommends one thing and a source gives another unit as primary, this could be an issue that needs to be looked at. Automatically labelling discussion about this as disruptive behaviour sounds quite problematic. After all, between the Metric fanatics, the Imperial fanatics and the MOSNUM AS IT IS! fanatics, we need to tread a very fine line. Michael Glass (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would support the wording if the words I have struck through are removed. I know I speak from bitter experience but we've editors like Michael Glass have been pushing the idea of source-based units for years ad nauseum. This is one of those disruptive ideas that won't go away and its an excuse to edit counter to MOS. As noted above, a source is selected simply to impose personal preference and the wording proposed left room for further disruptive behaviour. WCM_email 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) In light of this comment, and having considered the point about outing raised here and concluded that so long as the evidence is on-wiki there is no problem. I'm not going to pussy-foot about this any more. The editor who went through well over a thousand of articles in a particular topic - sportspeople - converting them from one unit to another directly against MOSNUM guidance, claiming that that guidance was overridden by his preference for source-based units (used as a proxy for metric units because of his choice of sources) is Michael Glass. And it's not the only UK-related topic he has mass-metricated, directly against the advice of MOSNUM with no particular justification, claiming source-based units.

Now that was 2011-12, so it's certainly stale now - but it does nicely illustrate why I and others have particular reservations about Michael's motivations here and why I and others see Michael's constant calls for source-based units on MOSNUM talk (most recently this morning) as problematic. Frankly, he's one of the worst offenders we have here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to this post-edit-conflict. I would endorse Curry Monster's point here. Kahastok talk 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You fellows are getting something wrong here, as did PBS below. The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM. It is to stop disruptive systematic editing. Someone systematically "enforcing" MOSNUM could be just as disruptive as someone doing otherwise. Changes of units of measurement in British articles should be done through talk page discussion, and these sanctions are meant to facilitate that. They are supposed to stop disruptive editing, stop edit-warring, and so forth. The fact that you fellows are attacking the motives of Michael Glass here is entirely inappropriate. This is not a place for that. This is only meant for the discussion of the potential sanctions. Please take your off-topic comments about MOSNUM and Michael Glass elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I've removed "sourcing", and left "clear justification", as I believe that makes it clear enough without delving into over specification. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording including the reference to sources it appears to me leaves us open to the argument that this does not count as systematic mass-conversion of articles because it's based on sources (because it applies source-based units). Michael appears to endorse this idea. The wording of sanctions should clearly not undermine the MOS, and there is strong potential for this to do so. Kahastok talk 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not "undermine" the MOS, nor does it "support" the MOS. It has nothing to do with the MOS. It has to do with disruptive editing. Regardless, it no longer says anything about "sourcing". RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this dispute has poured over onto this page is proof of why we need these sanctions, regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, let's try a new proposal meant to address concerns below:

In articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

I've tried to revise this to make it more clear. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this address the appropriate concerns? RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the "five pillars" bit is worth having. Is there precedent for such language? I'm afraid this whole thing might wind up being a civility slugfest.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a number of problems with the proposed text:

1. It introduces an "offence" ("systematically chang[ing] values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa") that does not have a sufficient basis in policy. It is disruptive if it is followed by edit-warring, which is clearly covered by policy.
2. If the text about systematic changes were to remain, it should not be listed first, since the main problems are uncollaborative editing on the talk pages and edit-warring. A quick look at WT:MOSNUM, even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on Wikipedia's primary use of imperial units for milk in [returnable] bottles (as opposed to milk in general or milk in other containers!), should indicate where the problems lie.
3. I think blocks of one year without reference to the (administrator) community (e.g. via a noticeboard) are excessive. I think a maximum ban of three months (which can be repeated if the behaviour continues) should be sufficient. Normal blocks still apply, of course, so I don't see a special need for longer blocks or bans using this mechanism.
4. I also don't see a special need to refer to the five pillars.

So how about the following suggestion:

For articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, any editor who disrupts talk page discussions pertaining to British units, edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units, or who otherwise engages in disruptive editing, may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, in particular those related to consensus-building and edit-warring.

--Boson (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the five pillars are always referenced in general sanctions. Traditionally, this is done by piping "the purpose of Wikipedia" to the five pillars page. However, I personally find the piping a bit bizarre, and so removed it in favour of an explicit mention. The policies that are listed at the "five pillars" page are essential to Wikipedia, and are in fact policies. They are meant to be adhered to, here as anywhere. All general sanctions include a mention of these. "Blocks of up to one year" are par for the course in general sanctions. I'm merely using the standard measures that general sanctions follow, and I see no reason to make these sanctions different from other sanctions, as I said above. Systematically changing of units without discussing such changes and without clear justification is an example of disruptive editing. It has noting to do with an "offence". This is the essential problem with British units, and as such, modelled after the British Isles sanctions, should be primary. Talk page disruption is a problem, but it is inherently secondary in terms of how problematic it is to mass edits in the mainspace. Therefore, I strongly oppose placing talk page matters first. Disruption in the mainspace is always more disruptive than disruptive on the talk page, given that such mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers. Please follow the standard "general sanctions" format". They are called "general" for a reason, and there is no need to make many exceptions for this particular example of them. They are meant to be simple, and they are meant to be general. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the piped version if that is what is done traditionally. Could you point me to the format for general sanctions that you are referring to. You refer to the British Isles sanctions and link to general sanctions, but you are apparently not referring to the text I find there:

"Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log."

--Boson (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Boson: See the following, from the general sanctions page:

In areas of conflict the Arbitration Committee occasionally authorizes administrators to impose sanctions on editors working on pages if after a warning they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Administrators may impose a broad range of sanctions including blocks of up to one year, article or topic bans and revert restrictions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for more information, areas subject to discretionary sanctions can be found here. The community may authorize sanctions which echo those imposed by the Arbitration Committee, with the exception of appeal and logging procedures.

This is the basis for all general sanctions. I originally got the idea for these general sanctions from working on clarifying the Syrian Civil War general sanctions in a recent AN discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If I understand that correctly, the formulation is used as a general explanantion or rationale for sanctions at WP:General sanctions, rather than in any particular sanctions text, except in the Syrian issue, which you worked on. By the way, your ping did not reach me, although I have all notifications switched on. Is this a known bug related to your signature or something? --Boson (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your argument that "mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers" in this particular case – when we are talking about whether to write

• 270 metres (900 ft) or
• 900 feet (270 m).

It just makes it seem more dramatic than it is. --Boson (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is disruption, nonetheless. Our as an encyclopaedia integrity is at stake, and this particular behaviour is always disruptive and almost never productive. Consensus is critical in this area. That particular text is part of all the sanctions, as it is the basis for general sanctions. When anything says that "general sanctions" may be imposed, it means that these are the "general sanctions" that can be imposed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I would strongly oppose Boson's wording because it entirely skips out the nub of the problem. If we could be sure that the mass-conversion of articles would cease, talk page discussion would be easier. RGloucester is right that that such mass-conversion is almost always disruptive. Note WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which points out an Arbcom ruling describing just this kind of behaviour: this precisely describes what some editors have attempted in this area. Kahastok talk 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Support/Opposition

Strongly Oppose This is instruction creep of the worst sort. It is based on turing the words of a guideline into enforceable policy. Any such enforcement such as this should be based on polices not guidelines "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)

The devil is in the detail. Why just Britain?

Scope: What does United Kingdom mean does it include does it include the Isle of Man the Channel Islands etc? Is the Channel tunnel French or British. Does this apply to the height of someone who holds both British and Irish identity. Does it apply to someone a Republican born in Northern Ireland who does not recognise the British State and travels southern Irish Passport? What about the speed of a tanker ship does it only apply to British resisted ships or British owned ships as well? Does an article such as the Bombing of Dresden in World War II, What about the Battle of Waterloo does it come under this? What about the American War of Independence (fought before the UK came into existence) and the War of 1812 (after the UK came into existence)? What about the Duke of Wellington who was Anglo-Irish, what about Michael Collins born in the United Kingdom died in an Irish Free State? What about William Joyce executed as a British traitor? What about Henry VIII (born before the UK state existed)? What about articles on Australia prior to Dominion status? What about British India which was a member of the League of Nations? What about the Boer War? What about biographies of British Army soldiers born in the Dominions? The article Tram uses British spelling so is it closely linked to the UK? There are two different articles on railways vans, Clearly boxcar is not British but what about covered goods wagon? The point about British Isles is it is narrow in scope and easy to understand. This is broad in scope and open to lots of misunderstandings and also creep.

"These general sanctions would enact WP:1RR for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles" So what happens to the rest of the edit that involves more than "switch units between imperial and metric" is all the text in the edit involved under 1RR or just the bits in {{convert}} template? Weight in tonnes is about the same as weigh in long tons. In the case of RAF bomber raids were the weight is given as 10 tons and has been copied into a Wikiepida article as 10 tons, if someone changes that to 10 tonnes is that subject to this as clearly 10 tons is ambiguous (could be read as 10 short tons)?

Should the pull-weight of English Longbows be given in lbs, kilos or newtons, are newtons part of this? Is switching between kilos and newtons a breach of this 1RR? If not, then is switching between lbs and newtons a sanctioning act, if so then what is the point of the sanction?

If there is a mix in the article where some place imperial first and the other place metric first is homogenising them all one way a breach of this sanction?

If a horse is measured in hands, does that have to be shown in any other imperial system? Would including hands and having them deleted come under this rule?

Height of humans should it be measured in centimetres or metres does conventing from one to the other breach these sanctions, if not then what is the point of the sanctions as that can be just as divisive as between feet and inches and metres?

The MOS is a guideline not a policy. Before any such proposals as those suggested above (which are based on a guideline), implemented there needs to be a widely advertised RfC, with dozens of people involved (not the less than 1 score who have discussed it here). So an RfC should widely advertised include advertising it on the talk pages of any and all WikiProjects which edit "British" articles. It needs to be put forwards with clear initial wording so that people who are not familiar with British weights and measures are clear on what is being proposed.

-- PBS (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misconstructed the purpose of these sanctions. In no way does this intend to make "MOSNUM an enforceable policy". Many articles don't even comply with MOSNUM. Even on one of those articles, if someone goes around switching units (perhaps to "comply" with MOSNUM), gets reverted, and then keeps switching units, that would be an instance where these sanctions would apply. There do not apply to normal editors making changes, and discussing and attaining consensus for unit changes on the talk pages of articles, nor do they apply to those who discuss changing the guidelines at MOSNUM. They only apply to those who switch units constantly with no good reason, and edit disruptively as such. Read the "British Isles" sanctions. This is similar to that. It isn't like there would be a ban on switching units, and it does mention "with clear justification". Merely it would force discussion on the talk page, as opposed to having systematic changes of units across articles, like the proposals specify. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Any such disruption would be equally true for any article so why single out a specific set of articles? -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of general sanctions is to allow administrators to deal with disruptive editing swiftly in specific areas of conflict. Edit-warring and disputes over units in UK-related articles have caused innumerable problems and inordinate time-wasting. Systematic changing of units in many UK-related articles, as has been done many times by various people, is disruptive. I don't think there has ever been a conflict over American units, Australian units, or whatever. That's because those countries all essentially have one set of units, more or less. In Britain, this is not the case, and that's why we see constant conflict over units. Units in Britain are politically charged in a way that they are not in America, Ireland, or Australia, and that's why they've caused endless conflict here. That's why general sanctions are appropriate. They grant administrators the tools they need to deal with conflict that otherwise isn't being dealt with. The status quo is to let disputes fester for months, leading to all sorts of nonsense like sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, &c. It simply does not work. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean for two reasons. First is all pages with measurements need then in imperial and metric, if not then they are either difficult for an American to follow or for an Australian (so at worst all one is talking about is which comes first). Second what does "UK-related articles" mean --See my comments above--ie what is the strict definition that you wish to use for that term? -- PBS (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! You haven't followed the conflict, then. All articles have both metric and imperial measures, or at least they are supposed to. The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first ("primary"). It may sound minor, but it causes 10 tonnes (9+4⁄5 long tons) worth of headaches. That's exactly why it is needed, the same as with the British Isles sanctions, which are most similar to this proposal. It causes inordinate disruption. UK-related articles refers to articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the same way "strong ties" works for ENGVAR and date formats. I don't think a strict definition is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for date formats or ENGVAR, I don't see why it would be here. That's up for article talk pages to decide, and in the case of sanctions, for the uninvolved administrator to decide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In British English both day month and month day are used. Your are talking to one of of those who was involved in early over ENGVAR :-) ENGVAR is fine vague definition for a guideline because it is an exception to the rule of it an article started out in one version of English do not change to another, and people in good faith can debate on the talk page if a particular page falls in or outside a particular ENGVAR. If you want to use it for sanctions (where by definition good faith is lacking) then you ought to come up with a precise definition of what you mean. I have given lots of examples above of the problem of scope. So what is your clear definition for enforcement of sanctions? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I take your points above about advertising this more widely and agree that would go better with some more preparatory work on the wording. But I don't think that wording should be extremely tight and fear the first proposal placed too much emphasis on disruption within articles by unit-switching. This proposal's here and meeting with such general support because we've seen so much wikilawyering, so much playing merry hell with the details and so much delight in finding new tactics and battlegrounds. Looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, I'm attracted to the brevity of "Men's Rights / Men's Rights Movements" and "All pages about social groups" and would favour simply "Units of measurement in UK-related articles". If "UK-related articles" seems too broad, we can probably find a tighter phrasing such as "articles primarily concerning UK subjects". I don't think it's necessary to be explicit that this includes talk pages and project pages and the like, any more than it is for MR/MRM and social-groups sanctions. NebY (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NebY, here. However, I see nothing wrong with "articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". This is a standard definition used here on Wikipedia, and is used for MOSNUM purposes. I don't see how this definition is inappropriate. In articles without strong ties to the UK or US, metric is favoured by MOSNUM, though it says that changes should not be made without discussion. In those cases, any dispute would fall outside these sanctions. This only applies to UK articles, like, for example, Bristol Temple Meads railway station. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hesitant about the "strong ties" phrasing only because it might encompass articles which also had strong or stronger ties to other places - I'm not sure quite which, maybe soccer or World War Two or some such. Still, maybe we can make progress by looking at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:

• Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
• Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
• Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further, though it is tempting to paste in Boson's list. NebY (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Reluctantly oppose the suggested wording. It is not balanced because it does not explicitly and adequately address the main problems, which are at discussion venues such as WT:MOSNUM and talk pages – and in fact distracts attention from these problems, which are more to do with:

• the uncooperative approach of a very small number of vociferous editors
• repeated discussions of previous behaviour that verge on personal attacks and focus on individual, named editors rather than addressing their arguments
• an apparent unwillingness to assume good faith on the part of at least one editor
• consensus building being derailed by walls of text and circular discussions
• discussions of alleged conflicts of interest that verge on (purported) outing
• collaborative editors being tempted to leave and effectively grant veto power to more vociferous and persistent editors.

Whatever the intentions or motivations of any of those involved, changing the order in which metric and imperial units are shown (or the addition of metric units to comply with WP:MOSNUM, as in the recent dispute) is objectively nothing like as disruptive as the nature of the discussions at WT:MOSNUM. What we really need is something that enables egregious sockpuppets to be blocked very quickly, and encourages constructive and brief debate of issues aimed at improving the articles and the guidelines.--Boson (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, the wording says "who otherwise disruptively edits" and "who does not adhere to the five pillars". This is fairly standard for general sanctions. It doesn't specify every particular behaviour, merely "disruption". If an uninvolved administrator believes that something is extremely disruptive, he can sanction that editor. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the enumeration

1. any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification,
2. who edit-wars over such a change,
3. or who otherwise disruptively edits.

The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages, but the "otherwise" is intuitively understood to mean "disruption of a similar nature", which would probably suggest edits to articles similar to edit-warring. This would target editors "guilty" of one type of potentially disruptive editing and give ammunition to other editors who are actually causing the problem. Similar problems come up in law; I'm not sure if it's covered by the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alteriu. So if we are to have an enumeration, we should probably include both types of disruption, specifically referring first to talk page disruption, and something like the Ninth Amendment ("the enumeration of certain types of disruption shall not exclude any other types of disruption"). --Boson (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept that the described issues are the key problems on talk. If those issues exist at all, they arise primarily through exasperation when the same editors make the same arguments for the same changes over and over again, which certainly does happen. In some cases they've been making the same case for years on end, it's been rejected at every turn, and the reasons provided for rejecting the case have been ignored the next time. Editors should not be expected to counter the same argument the 50th time an editor has raised it in the same way as they countered it the first time; to expect them to is to expect an inhuman degree of patience.

I would also note that the difficult nature of talk page argument is to a major degree driven by the backdrop of experience of disruption caused by mass-conversion of articles - particularly when this arises through Wikilawyering the guideline. It is much harder to get consensus when there is no trust, and that backdrop means that there is very little trust. It is this that, ultimately, is a major cause of the problems on talk. If we could be sure that such mass-conversion would no longer take place, I believe that would make discussion at MOSNUM talk easier. Not necessarily always easy - you have people who demand 100% metric and people who demand 100% imperial and it's going to be hard to reconcile them regardless - but easier. Kahastok talk 19:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We should remember what started the current flair-up: the discussion WT:MOSNUM#Which units should be primary for the height of a UK statue of a UK politician? started by an egregious sockmaster after this edit] changed the non-compliant "a nine-foot bronze statue" to " a 2.7-metre (9 ft) bronze statue" to make it comply with WP:MOSNUM, which requires that metric units also be specified. --Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been pointing this out. If we could get to a stage where people did not use DeFacto socks as an excuse to escalate this, but rather did what we really should be doing - closing the discussions started by DeFacto socks and letting sleeping dogs lie - then this would also reduce the problems at talk. There are ways in which we reduce the arguments here, but they require everyone's cooperation and we don't have it. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem at WT:MOSNUM is not that some people want all metric and others want all imperial. Excluding the contribution of the DeFacto sockpuppets, the disputed issues (as I understand them) are relatively minor:

• whether to refer editors to "The Times" style guide
• what to do about sports where metric measurements are often used by the relevant associations (and The Times style guide says that metric measurements are preferred for sports) but the text of WP:MOSNUM (excluding the reference to The Times style guide) prescribes imperial measurements
• what to do about milk, beer, and cider (where the guideline (arguably?) deviates from legislation and usage).

The problem is that the situation is repeatedly misrepresented and disrupted in the way described above.--Boson (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's how you've understood the issues here, then I believe you've misunderstood them in general. We do have editors who argue 100% metrication and we have editors who argue 100% imperial. Not all of them are asking for it all at once, but it's clear that that's the desired final result. A major argument in the present dispute, for example, is that change would make the guideline more metric and that that would be desirable in and of itself - which misses the point entirely (as Wikipedia is not allowed to express such a POV).

But as I say, one of the major issues is the history of some editors Wikilawyering the rules to push their preferred system. If we could be sure that this will stop, then I believe that this would assist in resolving things by generating trust. I know I would be far more willing to trust that people are not going to systematically abuse the MOS if I was confident they would be sanctioned for doing so. Kahastok talk 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re your last point, that's why I used "including but not restricted to" phrasing above. NebY (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --Boson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? NebY (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include WP:IDHT] etc. would be sufficient. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to sacrifice "being boring" - it was more of a placeholder. I had hoped "disputation" covered talk pages and edit comments - maybe that can be made clearer by extending the examples of behaviours as you suggest, as in this draft: "Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and forum-shopping, disruptive, tendentious and time-wasting editing and disputation concerning units of measurement". Mmm - that's verging on too lengthy. Thoughts, anyone? NebY (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@NebY and @RGloucester What does "primarily concerning UK subjects" mean? What precise is the definition of UK/United Kingdom that you are using? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "precise definition" is necessary. This strike me as splitting hairs. Like I said, I would use the exact same "definition" used by MOSNUM, that is, articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled too at the implication that we would need a detailed definition of the United Kingdom. WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units itself has "In non-scientific articles relating to the United States... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... UK engineering-related articles...". Looking for similar scope issues, I find WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic has "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". Sanctions are no more precise than those policies, which wouldn't surprise anyone who's seen bounds tested: "related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted", "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted", "Explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." and more. There isn't a great deal to choose between RGloucester's phrasing and mine; mine is intentionally slightly more restrictive.

I saw your list of possible grey areas above. They are always with us. Editors have been applying their interpretations of WP:MOSNUM#Units in many surprising ways and arguing fiercely about many possible interpretations. Conflict over use of imperial or metric units has extended to articles very similar to the ones you mention, maybe even to some of those very articles - I haven't checked. Those conflicts can be bitter and fierce, long and draining. We're proposing to damp down those conflicts through sanctions and, I'm glad to say, we actually have strong general consensus among the combatants for this effort - if we can find a suitably balanced phrasing. NebY (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@NebY and @RGloucester When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like The Protectorate, as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the Great Fire of London is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in Early Modern English, but British English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made another proposal above, if you care to take a look and see if it addresses your concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@NebY do you agree with RGloucester's assesment of what UK means ? -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My "assesment of what UK means" is irrelevant. If these sanctions are applied, no-one is going to call me up and ask me what UK means, or consult this discussion for my assessment. NebY (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@NebY so you are supporting a proposal in which you think there is no agreed definition as to scope. Why? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS:That's not what I said and it doesn't follow from what I said. I've supported the suggestion of sanctions. I haven't supported RGloucester's wording, which I have tried to discuss with them, and I have floated an alternative approach to a formal wording. I now despair. I'm staying away from the latest WT:MOSNUM monster and have only come back here when you've pinged me. NebY (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester I am not sure which proposal you are referring (what is the time stamp on it). If you do not mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then you should not link to it. Instead you need to define what you mean by the UK. Do the proposed sanctions include articles about the 26 counties of Ireland that were part of the United Kingdom? -- 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to play what I presume is a game. It is fairly obvious what it means, and that's why it is used already for the sake of ENGVAR and date formats. "Strong ties" to a particular country, as opposed to others. Ireland is outside the scope of these sanctions, as they are totally metric, and as has been explained above. Sadly, I feel that you fail to realise that the Great Fire of London has strong ties to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" despite the fact that that state did not exist at the time of the fire. That's because the territory where that fire took place is part of the modern United Kingdom, and hence the history of that territory has "strong ties to the United Kingdom" as opposed to other states. The history of southern Ireland does not have strong ties to the modern UK as opposed to other states, as the state that it has the most strong ties to is Ireland. Is that that difficult to understand? My proposal is in the "propose remedies" section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester It is incorrect and therefore misleading to say that Ireland is totally metric. It is far from it. It is very similar to the UK, with TV and newspapers using non-metric, and people mostly using non-metric in everyday life. The only difference from the UK is that the Irish government has changed speed limits to kph, but people still have mph speedometers and speak in terms of mph. Ireland should have a section for articles with strong ties to Ireland being required to use the same units as the Irish do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.215.35 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose in Strongest Possible Terms largely for the reasons enunciated by PBS. Further, what does "strong ties" to the UK mean? What system of units would be used for Capture of USS Chesapeake? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

These sanctions are not about determining what units are used where. That's already determined by the MoS (WP:UNIT). Please actually read the MoS and its section on "strong ties" before commenting. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: but you have to "play that game" because you are proposing to put into place sanctions that can have editors banned for a year. For a start you give the example of the "Great Fire of London" but it can be argued that is because London is within the country of England and the country of England is where the English Nation resides (strong national ties to the English). That does not mean that there is a strong national tie between the the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it depends on whether one sees the state of the (UK) as encompassing four nations or just one -- a very topical political argument. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The point about WP:ENGVAR is it is an exception to a rule (of no changing spellings etc from the initial spellings), but there has to be a consensus to apply it in any given context. It is from a guideline and "guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" (WP:POLICY) and if there is an article written in a different dialect of English then consensus has to be obtained before a change takes place. This means that even if in your opinion an article has close ties to Britain, if it is written in another dialect then British English does not apply (EG War of 1812). If the initial author had written that in British English then it would still be in British English. But according to what I understand you are suggesting that even if an article is not written in British English if the subject has strong ties to the United Kingdom then such an article would be subject to the proposed sanctions. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You stated above that in you opinion it applies to The Protectorate but it does not apply to the 26 counties. Then what about the Siege of Drogheda? I raised this problem of scope in the Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the idea that there should be a sanctions warning/information page, you will also find those arguments in Discretionary sanctions discussions of 2013. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If editors want to bring in sanctions on changing measurement types why not make it universal instead of trying to defined it to a poorly defined subset of articles? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute. You are talking about discretionary sanctions, but these are general sanctions. There must be a page to coordinate and log sanctions issued so that administrators can be held accountable. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page? "Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon. There is nothing unclear about it. As I've said, and as it says at the page I piped it to, strong ties means "strong ties to one country as opposed to others", meaning that in areas where multiple countries have strong ties, it does not apply. I do not take kindly to one editor stonewalling what is overall a broad consensus of many editors above. I'm happy to work to create a good wording, but this is just taking it to another level. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon." Where? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why you care about this in the first place. When I suggested using an internationalized form for the United States you said "In English, American means "AMERICAN". Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Wikipedia, where they can indulge you in stupidity." Since the majority of this master Anglophone race are in the USA and they use imperial units why are we catering to the whims of the dirty foreigners? I thought you were against that? DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please take your irrelevant and entirely off-topic vitriol elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... okay. DocumentError (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

• It is about time we moved this forward. There is no reason to allow this proposal, like so many others, to flounder. There is broad community consensus that something must be done about the present circumstances, and I intend to get these sanctions up and running. Let me propose another wording, using the basic general sanctions format. This wording should address the concerns of PBS and NebY above.

In articles that have strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard.

This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Re:"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?94.196.212.246 (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester I object to the name of this section it is not "moving forward" (which is a biased title) it is "arbitrary break (2)" (or whatever number is appropriate).

I asked ""Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Wikipedia jargon." Where? You replied MOS:TIES and MOS:DATE TIES but neither of those do mention the phrase instead they state "a particular English-speaking nation" and as such there is no need to define if the English speaking nation is England or the UK. So I am not sure why you write I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page?". So the MOS does not give you a definition for what the UK means, further you are putting in a claim for national ownership on articles which is expressly forbidden in the sentence "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article".

In you latest version you write ou to talk about "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" but you are unable to define what the United Kingdom and claim it includes articles like the Protectorate, or in you latest draft are you excluding historical article before 1922 as the United Kingdom before 1922 included Ireland?

You say "This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute." but by removing the scope of the UK it would simplify the wording, making it much easier to understand as there would be no debatable pages on the borders.

"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus", but from what you wrote earlier "The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first" then it is not a "changes values from one system of measurement to another" but a rearrangement of the ordering of one system of measurement with another.

Higher up the page you said "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM." then what does "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" mean because consensus usually includes the wider community view as expressed in policies and guidelines, explained in WP:CONLIMITED.

In this section you state "There is broad community consensus that something must be done" I see no such consensus particularly as this suggestion has no been put to an Rfc, that has been widely advertised.

Also the whole issue according to this posting to this page was started by an editor adding metric to a page that did not have a metric measurement. Presumably some people objected to the metre before feet measurement, but I do not see why the MOS has to micro manage something like that (first come first serve unless there is a consensus to change it just like ).

Something else that editors to this section do not seem to have not considered it that the the verity of English that an article is written in defines the ENGVAR not the subject of the topic, this means that the advise given in MOS:UNITS is not very useful because ever article is written in a National variety of English and it is the language an article is written in not primarily the subject of the article the should determine any quirks in measurements, although there will be cases where the units used will be tailored via common usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, if you want to change MOSNUM, be my guest. I don't like the current guidance either, and have submitted numerous proposals over the past year as such, whenever this problem comes up. England/Scotland/UK, what's the difference? There isn't any England. It was subsumed into the UK, and anyway, they use the same units. I don't understand what you are talking about with national ownership. I never said any such thing. Merely that I am mimicking the existing guideline at MOSNUM, which specifies that articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use that nation's system of units. Rearranging the ordering is changing the values. "Clear consensus" means what it always means, which is that the appropriate usage should be decided through talk page discussion. MOSNUM itself says in a footnote that in the event of a dispute over units, talk page discussions should decide what units to display where, and that the existing guidance at MOSNUM is not a hard and fast rule. This suggestion does not need to be put to an RfC. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, and all existing general sanctions were not created through RfCs. If you'd like me to remove the "scope of UK", fine. I'll do it, if you'll support it. However, I don't see why that's appropriate. The point of general sanctions is to remedy a dispute. If there is no dispute, there is no need for sanctions. Given that there is no dispute outside UK-related articles, I don't see why the scope should be expanded as such.

A "biased title"? There is nothing biased about it. I'm merely trying to move forward. What the heck could be biased about that? My break wasn't "arbitrary". I put it there for a reason. PBS, I'm starting to think that your only intent is in stonewalling this proposal. You have shown no willingness to compromise, and have continually nit-picked over things that are utterly absurd and trivial. You are raising issues that have nothing to do with this proposal. You are acting with a clear bad faith attitude towards me, and it is seeping into myself as well. Please explain, PBS, what exactly it is that you want me to do to make this proposal work? If there isn't anything I can do, then there is no point in continuing this discourse. As it is now, it seems as if you are trying to make me write a legalistic document that specifies every potential technicality in existence. No other general sanctions outfit does this, and I don't see why it is necessary here. The administrator in question has discretion in interpreting the basic framework, as he does with all general sanctions. He is held to account by the logging of sanctions, and by the ability of those sanctioned to appeal. There is no need whatsoever to write a constitution here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another question for PBS. It is quite clear you don't like my general sanctions proposal. However, there is a widely acknowledged problem with units of measurement in UK-related articles. This problem needs solving, and has caused inordinate disruption. I am trying to remedy that situation, and so far, no one else has visibly tried or succeeded in doing so. Given that you have a great distaste for my proposal, what is your proposal to deal with these problems? If you haven't got one, that says something. There is no reason to allow this disruption to continue. I don't care how it is curtailed, but it needs to be settled. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment, but I will answer some of your points in detail in about 18 hours or so. In the mean time I would like you to consider the article Berlin Victory Column which is written in British English, but has yet to have imperial measurements on it. I would also like you to consider articles on the Allied bombing in world War II and how to decide which metric conversions to use when the article says 100 tons of bombs were dropped, but the secondary sources do not make if clear if they mean short or long tons. -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about that. None of that matters with regard to these sanctions. That's to be determined by MOSNUM. I don't understand why you are bringing up inconsequential stuff here. This is not about MOSNUM, or what conversions to use. No article is forced to comply with MOSNUM, anyway. It is just a guideline. The only purpose of these sanctions is to sanction disruptive editors. What units we use where is inconsequential to this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If an article is written in British English then surly the measurements used should be those used in British English? The subject matter is irrelevant, other than in the long term articles about a subject with a strong tie to a English-speaking nation will gravitate to use the English of that nation particular nation. The point being it is not the subject matter that dictates usage but the style of English used. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how the present guidelines are arranged, PBS. At present, if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric. Regardless, PBS, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. If you'd like to change the guidelines at MOSNUM, as I've said, please do. I don't like the existing guidance. These sanctions, however, have nothing to do with what units are used where. If you'd like to change the guidelines, go to WT:MOSNUM and contribute a proposal there. In the mean-time, however, I'd like you to respond to my question. That is, what exactly can I do to make this proposal work, and if I can't, what is your proposal to solve this disruption? RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester "if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric" where? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - existing procedures cover such issues perfectly well; experienced users are well aware of the need to discuss edits that are contested by others. When people don't discuss them and cause disruption, they can be appropriately warned/blocked etc.

A great many new (and new-ish) users are likely to have strong feelings about metric/imperial measurement in the UK. Blasting them with discretionary sanctions without giving them a fair opportunity (and appropriate reminders/warnings) is not conducive to the goal of attracting editors.

This would be creeping bureaucracy, increasing rules and complexity which discourages participation from people outside regular editors.

Certain users are always going to edit-war over what many consider the most trivial of entries; adding further rules about the specific areas does nothing to resolve that problem - in fact it is likely to cause further wasted time arguing over the nuance of the specific rules.

Let people discuss the issue as much as they wish, in an appropriate and cordial manner - indeed encourage such discussion. Use appropriate existing measures to stop edit-wars and deal with those who cause disruption across articles in an appropriate manner.

In general, admins can be too keen to stomp on anything that causes them work; they would do well to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to present knowledge, and while it is important to prevent disruption it is not to prevent reasonable discussion.

There are over 9000 similarly 'trivial' topics of frequent and heated discussion, and discretionary sanctions should be reserved for use only when absolutely necessary to prevent disruption.

This sounds like a measure proposed to stop the actions of one (or perhaps a few) disruptive and persistent individuals - I can appreciate that it may make it easier to deal with those specific cases, but I fear it is at the cost of imposing unnecessarily draconian laws upon a great many other users. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Point of order - is there any admin action still being requested? If not, this discussion should be closed. Discussing changes to policy/guidelines can take place in the appropriate places; AN isn't one of them. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realise, firstly, that general sanctions are always established at AN. This has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, so please stop. No one will get "smacked with discretionary sanctions" unless they behave disruptively. Give that you're a likely sock, I don't think it is really worth engaging with you further. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish that personal attacks such as that were actually dealt with appropriately. Sir, if you think I'm a sock, you know how to deal with such a matter - SPI or GTFO.

I know that general sanctions can be established at AN. Is there still a request for such, or have we moved on now to a discussion of policy/guidelines? If it's the latter, it no longer belongs on AN - I hope you'll agree. I believe, at this point, this discussion is unlikely to result in any admin action; if there is an admin action requested, perhaps it could be clearly stated and !voted upon. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No "admin action", whatever that is, was ever requested. We don't need an administrator to set-up these sanctions. I couldn't give a damn about the policy or guidelines. This is not a request. Presuming that the discussion is closed in favour of establishing these sanctions, they will be established. Said "action" was endorsed by a great many users above. The only dispute has been over the wording itself as proposed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Any process needs a well advertised RfC to show that there is a consensus for the process. This is not a well watched page and the score of editors who have expressed an opinion to date can easily be described as "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" (WP:CONLIMITED) -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS:, in response to your first question, WP:UNIT says that articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric. No "RFC" is required. Why is it that no other general sanctions were established by RfC? Why is it that they were all established at this noticeboard? Why is it that this proposal is somehow an exception to the norm? Why is it that something that does not affect everyday editors is considered so significant? RGloucester — ☎ 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is a real consensus for such sanctions then that will be reflected in the outcome of a widely advertised RfC. Quite frankly it concerns me that "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" can bring in sanctions which may then get a person banned for a year. I would suggest that all such sanction proposals should be subject to a widely advertised RfC. This one in particular is badly defined and potentially affects 100,000s of articles and hence could involved almost every editor unless they restrict their editing to a very narrow field of topics

I can not find anything that says "articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric" please quote the sentence in WP:UNIT. I think you are misunderstanding the first two sentences of the guideline. Because if it were true then for example the box at the start of the article on France need to have the imperial measurements removed, as does the article on the Republic of Ireland. I also think that it opens up an interesting consideration, in that if the language is in a national verity of English why would one switch units depending on locaiton? Do Americans suddenly understand the metric system when reading about the weight of a Frenchman but fail to understand a weight expressed that way for an American? -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, if you want to force RfCs for all general sanctions, please go gain consensus for creating such a policy. It does not exist at present. No one will "banned for a year" unless they cause such severe disruption that they would've been blocked for a year anyway without the sanctions. The uninvolved administrators that can issue sanctions are held to account by logging and by appeals to WP:AN. It doesn't affect any editor that does not systematically change units or disrupt unit-related discussions. That's a very small niche of editors, and even then, they must first be notified that the sanctions exist before having to worry about sanctions. If you read WP:UNIT, you will see that metric is specified as primary in instances of articles not related to the UK or US. I think you're misinterpreting my words, anyway, because conversions are always given in such cases, as it says at MOS:CONVERSIONS. The dispute has never been over whether to use metric or imperial without conversions. Conversions are a separate part of the guidelines, MOS:CONVERSIONS. The dispute is over what unit is primary. In articles not related to the UK or US, metric is primary. The guidelines are clear. RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester If one person proposes general sanctions on an issue on this page, and no-objects then would you say that a consensus exists for those sanctions? -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. That's not what has happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Then how many editors do you think make a quorum? -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: I don't think we have "quorums" here. We have discussions. If, in the course of a discussion on a public noticeboard, the majority of editors who participate support the enacting of some proposal with adequate justification in policy and guidelines, that proposal should be enacted. It isn't really that complicated, and is how practically everything on Wikipedia works. If you'd like to establish a rule on "quorums", please go do so. There is no such rule, and I've never seen a case where some abstract notion of a "quorum" was required for anything on Wikipedia. I also do not understand how this affects the proposal I've made. Instead of dealing in the abstract, please explain, as I've asked, how I can make this proposal work for you, or, if you have another proposal, please tell us. I'm being quite generous, here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1. But you have just agreed that one is not enough so you do believe in the concept of a quorum, and the number of editors who have commented here is very small given the number of pages that are involved.
2. You have not been able to define the scope as you seem incapable of defining what the UK means, this is particularly problematic for articles on history. For example does it include British India? Does it involve the American and Australian colonies before independence/dominion status? Does it apply to the Duke of Wellington as he was born in Ireland before the act of Union, does it apply to the Battle of Waterloo?
3. "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said that it is not about changing the values from one system of measurement to another, but about altering the sequence in which they are presented.
4. "any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said this is nothing to do with the MOS, yet if it is not to do with the MOS then how does one defined a "clear consensus" Usually changing articles to comply with the MOS is seen as following consensus broadly defined, so what is your definition for "clear consensus"?
5. Edit war does not cover your concern over people moving from one article to another systematically rearranging the order.
6. uninvolved administrator, as nearly every British editor and many other editors will have edited the "topic area" (as defined in WP:UNINVOLVED who exactly do you think are going to be the administrators to enforce these sanctions?
7. " bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
8. "Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." What does "Notifications" mean?

At a practical level there must be at least 100,000 biographies about British people on the system, 10s of thousands of articles about places, I can not even guess how many history pages, who is going work out to which talk pages to add templates? You can not use British English templates that already exist because they do not relate to the UK (eg Berlin Victory Column). If there is no warning template presumably the sanctions do not apply.

-- PBS (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No talk templates would be necessary. Notifications would be issued to editors who change units from value to the other in UK-related issues. These notifications would be the same as for any other general sanctions, no different. I know you are familiar with them, as you've issued them before. The process of notification is described at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The notification would be logged. Then, if they caused disruption as specified by the sanctions, an administrator could sanction them. "Consensus" refers to talk page consensus, which the MoS defers to in matters of units. If you took the time read the MoS section on units, you'd see that talk page consensus is more important than the guidelines. In the event of a dispute over what units to make primary, it says in a footnote, discussion on the talk page should decide what units are appropriate. The "topic" is units of measurement in the United Kingdom. I'm fairly certain that you're aware than at "uninvolved administrator" is one that did not partake in the dispute, and there are plenty of administrators who do not systematically flip units around. In fact, I've never met one that did. The scope is clear. Articles with strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries. That means that articles that only have strong ties to the UK, such as Edinburgh, would be covered. Altering the sequence is changing the values. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm giving some thought to closing this thread, simply because it has gone on at length and I don't see what is going on at that requires continued discussion at this page. Perhaps participants could move it elsewhere voluntarily? Or show why it absolutely has to be here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

General sanctions are always established at WP:AN. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, but the best that can be said on that score is "no consensus" at present. You need to build some support, and that's not obviously present right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps one idea is for you to ping them, and the others who have expressed support or oppose to various versions, to come back and re-engage to see if there is consensus on your most recent language. I think it needs to be seen that there is broad agreement to the same thing. Because some of those !votes are three weeks old, and a lot of discussion has passed since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Wee Curry Monster:@Nyttend:@Roxy the dog:@Blackmane:@Eric Corbett:@VandVictory:@NebY:@Lesser Cartographies:@Michael Glass:@NE Ent:@Kahastok:@Sjones23:@The Rambling Man:@Waggers: Per Wehwalt's suggestion above, I am pinging all editors that have participated here. Please evaluate the newest wording proposal, at the top of this section. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New ping per above: @Callanecc:@Psychonaut:@Boson: RGloucester — ☎ 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support—The value (in my opinion) lies not in how many tendentious editors will be blocked, but rather in putting up a big, red, rotating sign that says "Danger, don't poke here." Perfect language to do this doesn't exist; the current proposal is more than adequate to communicate what needs to be communicated. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Its one editor who has not experienced the particular frustration of being in the middle of two warring parties who has spun out what was a clear consensus for this. There has been a desperate need for some measure to stop the nuisance of constant battles over trivia. Long overdue. WCM_email 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I basically agree with Lesser Cartographies and Curry Monster, but would make further comments.

I think that PBS does raise some good points. In most circumstances we would consider aligning an article with the MOS to be editing with the global consensus. While RGloucester is right that the MOS does encourage talk page discussion and deliberately leaves room for exceptions where there are genuinely good reasons for them, there is the question of what happens where there are not, and whether we should just freeze those inconsistencies in time (and note that this is an open question - some have advocated this independently of these sanctions). I also think that a specific reference to switching the order of units may be useful as this is primarily what we mean when we say "changes values from one system of measurement to another". Most measurements in most cases should have a conversion regardless.

But in other areas I think PBS is not right. Strong national ties is a fairly standard description, and ultimately what matters is what rule is being applied. If the UK rule is being applied, then the sanctions may apply. If consensus is that the UK rule does not apply, then normal editing conditions apply. If people are disputing as to whether the UK rule applies or not, then we can apply sanctions if they are judged to be appropriate. Sanctions are not going to be applied by bots but by admins who (we would hope) can tell if/when somebody is deliberately interpreting this point too broadly or too narrowly. Worst comes to the worst, we can discuss the individual case here.

All in all, so long as we are clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" includes switching the order of units, I feel that my concerns are outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and thus I would support. Kahastok talk 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" means switching the order. I can't think of any better way to word it, and I think it is clear. If you have a concise alternative wording for that phrase, feel free to propose it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There's just too much being invested by disruptive editors in such a small matter as this. Having lived in the UK, I've found that most people will use one or the other simply through familiarity, personally I learnt to convert between various imperial and metric systems out of courtesy to others even though by trade I deal with metric measurements. Wikipedia should be catering to all readers regardless of their preferences. Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support That wording is fine, good job RGloucester. WaggersTALK 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support VandVictory (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Sanctions are needed, as discussed above. The wording is adequate and viable. NebY (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as long as it is clear that swapping the order per User:Kahastok is covered. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to put the words "(including switching the displayed primary unit with the conversion)" or something to that effect after "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another"? It makes it a bit longer and I think it's understood now that it's included but I think it's worth making it explicit. Kahastok talk 11:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps any editor who changes the order of presentation or systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ... - as an aside we keep using primary and secondary which I think signals the wrong impression, the MoS also has the same issue. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think recent changes to the MOS have actually made those words a bit more prominent, and I think you may have a point about them. I would be happy with your wording - but do we need to get ensure that "systematically" applies to changing the order of presentation as well? Kahastok talk 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're making it more complicated than is necessary. This is clearly what the existing text refers to. Remember, it is not the editor's interpretation of the text that matters, but the uninvolved administrator's. There is no chance for Wiki-lawyering, and anyone can refer to this discussion to confirm it if it necessary. The text of this discussion becomes the "community decision" that authorises the sanctions. There is nothing unclear about the present wording. Please don't get further bogged down in details. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RGloucester but I'd put it more strongly; if we carry on re-drafting, we will never have these sorely needed sanctions. The current wording is adequate for the task. It's futile to seek perfection; other sanctions aren't perfectly worded either, but they work nevertheless. NebY (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is one thing I have learnt on this topic, and in observing other sanctions dealing with editors liable to Wikilawyer, it is that it is very unusual for there to be genuinely "no chance for Wiki-lawyering". It helps if things are tied down and it helps if admins wanting to enforce the sanction don't have to wade through this much text.

If there is this much resistance to a change in the wording, perhaps an alternative would be for the closer - if they find consensus for the point and if they find that this interpretation has consensus (and no-one has objected to it so far) - to mention the point explicitly in the close? Kahastok talk 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kahastok: There is resistance for a few reasons. Firstly, it will make the wording extremely complicated and clunky for no good reason. Secondly, we are not writing a constitution here. We should mirror what other sanctions use. There is no need specify every little thing. Thirdly, such "re-draughting" is only likely to result in further delays. Fourthly, it is quite clear what the existing phrasing means. There is absolutely no ambiguity. However, I somehow managed to think of a clearer wording that might satisfy you, and have implemented it. It is "who systematically changes the system of measurement used to present a value without clear consensus". How's that? RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: please restore your post of 18 October 2014 to its original state. It is that wording which others have discussed and for which they've expressed their support or opposition. Changing it now makes parts of the subsequent discussion incomprehensible and renders it difficult if not impossible for any closing admin to evaluate the expressions of support and whether they are still applicable. NebY (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The text has undergone many changes, and has been evolving constantly. There is no change in meaning with my edit, but it merely clarifies something that multiple editors have asked for clarification on. The text must be able to evolve. I've been making incremental changes since the start of this discussion, to bring it in line with the ideas that people have brought to the table. I don't even remember what this text look liked on 18 October. I'm sure it looked very different. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: you had made no changes to that text since you pinged editors on 28 October 2014 except for wikilinking "consensus".[16] You have been here long enough to know that you should not refactor discussions. Kahastok's suggestion for the close is a good one; let it be. NebY (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I posted it first on 18 October (not "28 October"), and have made multiple minor changes since, as far as I'm aware. If you want me to go through the edit history and find them, fine. I don't even know what "refactoring" means. If you'd like to revert it, go ahead. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, because they both mean the same exact thing. I'm getting fed up with this bureaucratic nonsense, however. Editors need to be more flexible and pragmatic. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I checked from 28 October because that's when you pinged editors to respond per Wehwalt's suggestion and they began to respond. Do read WP:REFACTOR. NebY (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec with both above) TBH it still reads to me like it could be Wikilawyered as excluding switching the order of units. I've seen it insisted before that nothing in policy or guidelines - including in WP:RETAIN and at the top of WP:MOSNUM - suggests, implies or otherwise indicates that there is any problem at all with switching order of units on UK-related articles on an industrial scale solely for reasons of personal preference, so I am particularly concerned about this. You have to expect Wikilawyering in this area and pin the wording down to prevent it. Now, we all know that this is the behaviour we're talking about, but an admin not familiar with the ins and outs of MOSNUM might not, which is why I suggest that a reword or a comment in the close might be of benefit. Note that no redrafting is required for a comment in the close.

Part of the reason I mention the closer is because in a previous - particularly poisonous - discussion where I felt the result was going to be Wikilawyered, I asked a set of questions for the closer which were duly answered in the close. With the answers right there, at the top of the discussion, anyone looking at the consensus could see what had been agreed, and that it was quite different to what the Wikilawyer-in-chief was already claiming that it was. This gave me a lot more confidence that the result would be robust and harder to Wikilawyer. As it happens, touch wood, we've never revisited that discussion. How much this is to do with the questions answered in the close and how much to do with the indefinite block of said Wikilawyer-in-chief a month later is impossible to say. I suspect the latter, but the greater confidence that the close gave us was still welcome. Kahastok talk 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest in saying that I see a bit of (perhaps warranted) paranoia in your replies here. There is no perfect wording. No one will confuse this. It is very clear that any disruption of this kind would be sanctionable. As I said before, though, what MOSNUM says is quite irrelevant. This is not about enforcing MOSNUM, but about stopping disruptive behaviour. Consensus here has determined that such systematic changes are disruptive, and hence sanctionable. I'm fine with the idea that closer should mention this. If you'd like me to revert to the old wording, I'll do it. Regardless, even if this was somehow portrayed as "not referring to switching unit order", it would still be sanctionable under the "who otherwise disruptively edits". The only way to appeal such a sanction would be at WP:AN, where it would be easy to make clear whether whatever such an editor did was disruptive or not. There is literally no room for whatever "Wikilawyering" is. There are too many protections in place, such as the necessity for an WP:AN appeal, and the clauses about "general disruption". RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with not changing the proposed words. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Process

• Comment as this section is fairly short I have turned this into an RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought. I have done this rather than start a new section for a RfC as it is unreasonable to ask those that have expressed an opinion within the last 24 hours to do so again. -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this unilateral action by you, PBS, to turn my wording into an RfC. I've removed the template. RGloucester — ☎ 12:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

From the history of the page:

• 13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!

The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.

If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that there has been enough participation in this process (only about a dozen users have commented on the most recent wording). I wanted the RfC to encompass the opinions already expressed, but unfortunately RGloucester is opposed to that, so I have started an RfC in the hope that it attracts many more participants, so that if these sanctions are to be imposed that it is clear that they are broadly supported by the editing community. See below:

• #RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another

-- PBS (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately RGloucester has now unilaterally closed the RfC I opened in a new section, having already twice closed the RfC when I opened it in this section. I have ask an uninvolved administrator at ANI to revert the close as I do not want to edit war over this issue. I am disappointed with this behaviour and I am not at all sure why RGloucester is so hostile the seeking a broader consensus (either for or against this proposal), however I would ask anyone considering closing this section to consider if the actions of RGloucester are in the spirit of consensus building and do not conclude that the views previously expressed here necessarily reflect a wider consensus that might be generated by the Rfc. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You're really pushing it, aren't you? No general sanctions have ever been established by RfC. No RfC is needed to establish general sanctions. The proper procedure is a discussion at WP:AN, and that's what we've done here. I've spent weeks engaging in "consensus building" and modifying the proposal as appropriate. I've spent weeks asking you for things I could do to resolve whatever concerns you have. You've not aided me in that regard, and instead have started forum-shopping and filibustering this proposal, going on and and on about "wider consensus". No "wider consensus" is necessary. This is a public noticeboard, and the standard one used for establishing general sanctions as it says at the guidelines on such matters. Your personal desire for a "wider consensus" does not override the existing guidelines, nor the existing procedures that exist to establish general sanctions. You have no engaged in consensus-building, only bulldozering. Every time I attempted to work with you, you failed to work with me or others to address your concerns. You have no ground to stand on. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The closure of the RfC has been endorsed, praise God, by an uninvolved administrator. Now we can all get on with our lives, sans the incessant disruption of a one Mr PBS. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The extraordinary wall of text above, as an example of what goes on, makes the need for sanctions in this area fairly clear. GoldenRing (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Please move your comment to the above section, with the other comments on the proposal. This section is only for process-related stuff. You can delete my comment when you move it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

How to disengage?

This is related to the Gamergate controversy but I am not looking to bring up any other individuals' behavioral issues directly as none of them to me can be qualified as admin actions, only my own participation and behavior. I have been struggling to keep the article in what I feel is the right neutral tone that meets WP's standards but been getting stonewalled. In terms of dispute resolution there is currently an ArbCom case, but the likely result presently is going to be them denying the case until sanctions have had a chance to be tested, so at most in a couple of weeks until the case will be reopened.

In the meantime, I am finding myself to a degree consumed by trying to keep the talk page discussion going about neutrality and facing multiple editors that simply aren't going to change their mind (but otherwise doing nothing that is ANI-worthy behavior at this point). I'm at a point that I feel I just want to disengage myself from the discussion at least until the ArbCom case can be reopened, but I need help disengaging as I feel if I look away, the article is going to get much less neutral than it should be. I need advice how to do this (arguably I could just unwatch the pages) or any other recommended steps or advice. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you already stated, you could just unwatch the articles. You would probably need to unwatch a lot of the dispute resolution forums (such as AN/I and WP:BLPN). If you don't think that's enough to force you to disengage, would you be willing to accept a topic ban? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Disengaged is all you can do. If I had followed that advice in the past? I never would've gotten my 13-month forced vacation. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Just give up, abandon the article completely. It is not worth stressing yourself out by endlessly arguing against entrenched viewpoints on a talk page. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've found myself having to do the same before, unwatch the page and anything remotely linked to it, including some user's pages. Quit cold turkey, then limp away. It is very possible to care too much, about the right things, and have a desire to do good things, yet have it consume you so much it can bring out the worst in you over time. It is discouraging at the time, but often the best solution for everyone involved, including yourself. Dennis - 2¢ 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Sad to say this (because of the specific topic), but I agree with the others - just unwatch and leave. Unlike most, you understand that there is nothing that can be done there - and I'll add further that several of the most problematic users there have gained a bit of immunity, so there is nothing that can be done here either (or, well, more specifically at ANI). So, bad as this sounds, accept the inevitable and drop it before you get into trouble, and go clear some of those admin backlogs that are inevitably piling up elsewhere. ansh666 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Off topic comment was redacted, apologized for, apologized for again. Requested this be collapsed.

As, as far as I know Eric has not been editing that article so it's a bit rude to bringing his name up here. Given the last block on his account remained until it timed out, perhaps we can end the "immunity" nonsense? NE Ent 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC) That is how drama gets started, casting aspersions at someone who is completely uninvolved in this. Dennis - 2¢ 00:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I would like a good explanation from you Ansh666 as to why you brought my name up here. Eric Corbett 01:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Jesus, people, it clearly has nothing to do with...sigh. I give up. I'm sorry I mentioned it. ansh666 03:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) So why did you mention it? My analysis is that you believe me to be some kind of barbaric entity, and you attempted to leverage your belief, which you supposed would be shared by many others, to blacken the character of another editor by comparing him to me. I think that's shameful. Eric Corbett 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC) The comment was not a good idea. It has been redacted and apologized for by the editor who made it. Perhaps we can stick to the topic at hand and not digress further. Chillum 18:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC) That's your idea of an apology? Why is he sorry he mentioned it? Why did he attempt to blacken another editor by comparing him to me? Has he apologised for that? Eric Corbett 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) If you feel this needs to be discussed then please take it to the users talk page, this is not the appropriate venue. And yes, "I'm sorry I mentioned it" is an apology. Chillum 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No, it's not. It's an expression of regret at having done something, not an apology for having done it. Eric Corbett 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) If you redacted one of your personal attacks and said I'm sorry I would drop the matter for you too, I imagine most admins would. Again if you want to discuss it take it to the users talk page. Chillum 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) What you're trying to hide is a despicable attempt to blacken other editors by comparing them to me. You may believe that to be acceptable, but I don't think many decent people would. Eric Corbett 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I'm annoyed that I'm back here, but I guess I should clear this up. I have absolutely nothing against you, Eric, and I apologize to you personally for unintentionally involving you in this matter. As far as why I said it, I've sometimes browsed the admin boards when bored for years (which in retrospect has always been a bad idea so I should really stop doing it), and on occasion have run across discussions in which others maybe express that you are "some kind of barbaric entity". I don't believe I have participated in any of these discussions (nor have I seen the last one that NE brings up, apparently), and if I had it clearly did not leave a lasting impression. As such, my experience is second-hand, without any of the vitriol which, as is now evident to me, exists in the community about this issue. I was attempting to make an objective rhetorical comparison, and, clearly, I did get my point across, but it was in a much-less-than-ideal way, and I am once again sorry for that. I hope you all accept that I was writing in good faith, and we can get back to the main point, Masem and Gamergate. If nobody objects, I'd also suggest that someone collapse the entire comment thread after my original statement. ansh666 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Consider it like being in love with a female, who isn't in love with you & considers you only a friend. What's best is to walk away. Don't do anything for her, unless she does things with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this an actual fucking joke? Protonk (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • A touch of light humour from RL experiences. But, if you wish it deleted, I will oblige. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The page title "Cross-country skiing (sport)" restricted to administrators

Per the discussion on the Cross-country skiing article's talk page we wish to create a new article about the FIS-sanctioned sport using text from this sandbox. When I try to create Cross-country_skiing_(sport) I get the page titled "Permission error" with the text "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators...." I'd be grateful if an admin could lift this restriction. I based the titling on examples like Swimming and Swimming_(sport) but if someone knows of another convention I'm open to suggestions. --Cornellier (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That title is not protected, nor has it ever existed. Are you sure you have the correct casing? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I just created Cross-country skiing (sport) for you, so go ahead and edit it as you please. If it was actually not the correct title, let us know and we'll check it out for you (and redirect/delete the title I just created). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cornellier: Something doesn't seem right here. It sounds like the message you saw was MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, which appears when a page matches the title blacklist. However, there's nothing on the title blacklist that matches that title. Also, it looks like you were able to create Cross-country_skiing_(sport) yourself, since the first revision is yours. Are you sure that was the same page that gave you the error, or was there a slight difference in the title? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, Salvidrim created it; an IP tagged it for deletion, and RHaworth deleted it, apparently without paying attention to the context. Since it was necessary for overriding the technical problem, I restored it, but RHaworth wheelwarred to re-delete it. I can't explain his wheelwarring, but I've given him a stern reminder that wheelwarring typically results in arbitration. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: That's not what I'm confused about. I'm confused as to why there was ever a problem creating the page in the first place. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice any warning at the top of the page saying that only admins could create it because of the blacklist, which I expected to see if the page was somehow flagged as a false positive. My only guess is that Cornellier somehow did something wrong and that we fixed it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since when have placeholders been allowed on Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since the ultimate goal should be the creation of content; if there's a rule against placeholders, well, you know what do to with rules that get in the way of content creation, right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(cough) WP:STUB (cough) WaggersTALK 11:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks error

When I try to access Reflinks, I get "Internal error: The URI you have requested, /fengtools/reflinks/, appears to be non-functional at this time." --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014/04:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

nothing AN can help with, and all appears to be working. In the future, contact User:Zhaofeng Li. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply - Actually, I have left a message on @Zhaofeng Li:'s talk page. The website is now taking forever to connect to ("504 Gateway Time-out - nginx/1.5.0"), despite having errors yesterday. I have also left a message on WP:VPT which has also received zero response. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jax 0677:  Fixed for now. The numerous requests from people who have the toolbox script installed were overloading the server. I've moved the script on-wiki. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 03:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tharthan harassment and edit-warring

The user Tharthan has been edit warring on two articles, violating 3rr, the first being Yo Edit History (which also included a personal attack in an edit summary) and the second is Erewhon Edit History. I stopped after two edits, but this editor seems to be unable or unwilling to let go of his own prose and style, writing in a distracting and overly-indulgent tone and language (just see his User Page for his manifesto on his affected wordchoice (e.g. he insists "whilst" is perfectly normal for North America whereas every single style guide suggests avoiding it, even for British/Commonwealth speakers/writers, including both while and wiktionary:whilst. JesseRafe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, I posted on his Talk Page a formulaic warning about personal attacks (cf. "callow fool") in case he had a history of these and he erased it, which I assume is a user's prerogative to whitewash their bad history. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

P̶a̶r̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶?̶ ̶I have already apologised to you for the personal attack (which I, again, apologise for), explained why I removed the unwarranted template "Welcome to Wikipedia" talk page post, and also attempted to start a discussion with you at your own talk page regarding the issue at hand. However, I was at school when I wrote that post, and now that I come home I see that you have suddenly started a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard of all places over a relatively minor and easily resolvable issue. If you truly thought that it was a bigger problem, it would have been fairer to have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard than to so swiftly take your concerns here.

Furthermore, whilst I do apologise for getting a bit heated up earlier, I would appreciate if you did not yourself act so hostilely towards me.

Finally, I was unaware that I broke 3RR. I was almost certain that these edits had taken place over the period of several days. If I am incorrect on this point, then I sincerely apologise.

In addition, the reason I maintained that we keep "whilst" on the page in question was because it was not confusing, it was the wording of the original writer of that (myself) and it had no real reason to be removed other than a dissonance of style.

EDIT: I have also responded to your response to my response on your talk page.

EDIT 2: Also, I never claimed that "whilst" was common across North America, I merely said that it had use in North America, and it has plenty of currency in my local dialect.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So is this not the place where these matters get solved? I was under the impression that 1) Edit-warring, 2) 3RR, and 3) Article ownsership were still frowned upon. If not, I'll gladly re-reverting if there's no solution to be had here. Thanks? JesseRafe (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Something strange that I noticed that happened during new pages patrol

Stir-fried ice cream
steam minced pork
Fried Dace with Salted Black Beans

3 articles about chinese cuisine created by three different users. Am I being paranoid thinking sockpoperty (or mybe a class project O.o) ? I have never seen something like this during my patrols. Avono♂ (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Judging by the user name of one, User:T04Group2, I would assume class project. Sam Walton (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't regularly patrol new pages, but sometimes I see themed creations by a group of users. I got really curious the last time, as it was a large group of apparent SPAs who created a substantial number of nearly identical pages on Quebec writers. I was going to bring it up here, but then I figured it'd be more diplomatic to just approach one of the editors and politely ask. It turned out to be an organized editathon-type situation where interested parties were attempting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of notable authors. The person I contacted was friendly and forthcoming. All in all, I think it was a success: the new users were encouraged, my curiosity was sated, and I was able to nudge the articles toward greater MOS compliance. It can't hurt to leave a polite note when you get curious about these sorts of things. I think it helps to also include an offer to assist the user(s), as it makes your message seem less suspicious and more welcoming. Generally, I think the polite approach works best; you can always go with warning templates and ANI notifications later, once you feel its warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell ID

Does anybody have any idea as to what is going on at Cell ID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Basically since the end of September there has been nothing but SPAs reverting each others edits. This includes both IPs and named editors. I've blocked the latest named editor and protected the page for 6 months. Here's a list of what should be all the editors involved:

I think I've notified all of them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Bizarrely enough, they also revert themselves. I don't know what's going on here, and it is likekely nobody ever will, but blocks for all should be appropriate. KonveyorBelt 23:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the edit war in the last 3 days: two companies from Sweden and India are fighting over top place in the list. The IPs (which happen to be from Sweden) are putting the Swedish company first place. User:PrithiviRajWiki (who appears to be from India, and is the same as User:Unwiredlabs) is placing the Indian company "Unwired Labs" first. Looks to be a simple case of WP:COI to me. Stickee (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem was seemingly exacerbated by the fact that the companies were listed by numbers of unique cells, or something like that — such numbers can easily change as people begin or end service, and it's really hard to substantiate the precise numbers, so either company could claim that it was ahead of the other company. It's a lot simpler to order alphabetically, so after getting CBW's permission, I've alphabetised them; hopefully we won't see more disputes of this sort in the future. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And based on this I'm going to reduce the protection down to semi and see what happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves/history merge Request: Periglacial => Periglaciation

At Talk:Periglacial in March of 2014, I observed that the article title violated WP:NOUN and proposed that it be moved. Absent any comment I did a cut and paste move in May of 2014, ignorant of the proper procedure, to Periglaciation. Another experienced WP editor noted that this was a "bad merge" and restored the content. That user recommends that the matter be resolved through a history move, since the matter arose from a deprecated action on my part, not because of editorial disagreement. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:Requests for protection. Admins with a bit of time on their hands could help clear it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

IP adding random images to articles

Will need eyes on 94.8.201.210 (talk). This user has been adding a lot of inappropriate and ill-fitting images to articles listed in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs ranging from book covers or book logos for biographies, paintings or event shots for hotels, cosplayers for manga and anime, products for factories or companies, etc. —Farix (t | c) 03:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop. I've checked a bunch of the IP's edits, and while several of them were misplaced, none of them were inappropriate. Several of them were indeed helpful, e.g. the one at Bullwinkle (oil platform) helps us understand what kind of platform it is, and what were you thinking with "Image does not identify subject"? This is very far indeed from vandalism, which is the impression I got after reading your statement. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Authority to topic ban?

An admin can topic ban a user at their own discretion if and only if discretionary sanctions have been authorized for the topic; see the banning policy's section "Authority to ban". If there are no DS, topic bans can only be done via consensus on AN/ANI, which is in practice pretty difficult to achieve, even in cases where … well, never mind, forgot what I was going to say. Anyway.

I bring this up in relation to a situation where I have blocked a user for two weeks for personal attacks and battleground editing on and around a certain article. The user has requested unblock and unambiguously offered to stay away from the topic for six months in return for being unblocked to work in other areas: "I would like to be unblocked on the condition that I stay away from [article name] and related pages (for at least 6 months)." My whole TLDR block rationale and all details can be found here and the complete unblock request here, but they don't really matter, as this is a question of principle. I would like to comply with the request, but I would need to be sure of the status of such a topic ban. I need it to be as tight as a T-ban as defined at WP:TBAN; the user's proposal is made in good faith, no doubt, but I still don't want to end up with an unenforceable ban. Can the user's own offer give me the authority to topic ban them, which I don't otherwise have per WP:BAN? I hope so; it would presumably make the user happy, and me also. In any case I'm not going to request a community topic ban, it's too much of a hassle and timesink and would make far fewer people happy. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

In theory, no, in practice, it's not that uncommon for a user to accept an informal ban in order to get unblocked. Given the user has suggested the condition, I don't think community ban discussion would be that big a deal -- don't see why anyone would oppose it. NE Ent 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, any sanction given as a condition of unblock is an enforceable sanction, as long as the user agrees to it before being unblocked. Because they are voluntarily accepting it, you are just acting on behalf of the community by inacting it Like all admin actions, it would be subject to review and the community could override or revert your decision, but again, that is true of everything you do as admin. This would be a self-imposed sanction in lieu of remaining blocked. If you KNOW the community would accept it, then there is no controversy and you are just saving the time of the community. Just as when you block a vandal, you know the community would vote to block them. While it isn't written down in policy this plainly, the spirit of policy supports it, so WP:IAR backs you. It isn't extremely common, but it is done somewhat regularly for serial edit warring and the like. I would log it like any other tban. Dennis - 2¢ 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with NE Ent above (technically no, in practice yes), I bet we can get community consensus that any topic ban voluntarily accepted as a condition of being unblocked is authorized by the community (maybe with some maximum time limit). That would solve it in theory as well going forward. --obsidi (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is tested frequently enough to be confident that the analysis by Dennis would always apply—my feeling is that a wikilawyer could justifiably say that an unblock cannot include a logged topic ban. However, it's a model unblock request and I recommend simply accepting it with a request that the user follow their offer to stay away from the topic for six months. There is no need to point out there would probably be a bad outcome if there were a future problem regarding the topic in less than six months. That is, a voluntary offer accepted with an unblock is as good as a topic ban in practice. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen should not worry that much about an unenforceable ban. What if Elvey happens to make a positive contribution to that topic? The user may be playing with fire, but it is possible; would an administrator block because of positive contributions? Let the user make a disruptive edit and the decision will be easier. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As a practical matter you can warn an editor not to do X, because you are afraid that if they do X, they will get themselves into trouble. If the editor then does X in a harmless way, you ignore it, but if they do anything slightly malicious, you can be very strict. Effectively, this functions like a topic ban, but I recommend not calling that or you'll get people riled. Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen unblock away. The agreement isn't going to be binding as a topic ban though. Blocks are for short term disruption. "Promising to end the disruption by staying away from the topic area" is an unnecessary added condition to just "promising to end the disruption." On it's face, it appears that the editor is offering more but in reality is offering less ("I won't edit war or personal attack in that Topic Area"). Really, the unblock should happen on a general promise to stop disruption and the bar for reblock would be very low for the behavior, not the topic. Don't even bother with the topic area as it's really just a reason to appeal a future block for the same behavior in a different area. I like the idea of the conditional topic ban offer and it should be tracked so that future disruption is a very low hurdle but in the end it's a simple block for disruption. --DHeyward (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, the user offered to stay away altogether from the topic area for at least six months. The other things they wrote — I'll AGF, I'll be civil, etc — clearly referred to their future editing elsewhere. (The small topic area we're talking about is far from being the user's only interest on Wikipedia). Anyway, I've offered them an unblock on the conditions they themselves suggested. Thank you all for your input, it was helpful. Going to bed now. Bishonen | talk 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC).

As an alternative take on this; admins were elected to represent the disciplinary will of the community. When an editor makes an offer of a voluntary topic ban and the admin chooses to accept the offer and unblock based on the strength of that commitment, it should be viewed as a community endorsement of the topic ban and that violations of said topic ban should be dealt with in the usual way. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• This unblock request has a negotiable, voluntary covenant. The user has agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock. If they violate the conditions, the unblock is void by their own agreement. There's no harm in returning the block when they violate their own agreement. No one is making them agree to the terms; they're quite allowed to just stay blocked. Doubly so when they proposed the conditions of the covenant themselves. Unblock, and if they violate their own proposed terms, block them back again. Simple as that. --Jayron32 01:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  No, that is not right. I have seen time and again editors violating their bans with some absent-minded gnomish and trivial change. To say that the editor has voluntarily agreed to a set of conditions for their unblock fails to recognise that it is under duress. It just becomes an end run around the restrictions on placing bans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  "My word is my bond", If an editor agrees to a contract and then breaks it, then (s)he is not acting in good faith. I think the original block should be reinstated with interest for the breach of good faith. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the authority here is the user's own word and their own account. This was particularly iffy with regards to self requested blocks, because they show up in the block log and cannot be expunged. However, in this case, it is a self requested action--with guise to unblock so the authority comes from the user's responsibility and urge to be unblocked, and your willingness to AGF in that action. They themselves take up the restriction, which does bring some accountability on what policy to enforce it upon, a weird conundrum... Tutelary (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, but in all fairness, if an editor later has "buyer's remorse", they shouldn't violate the agreement, they can always appeal it at WP:AN. So they can refuse to agree to begin with and try to discuss an unblock with another admin, plus they can choose to have it reviewed at any time. It isn't like they don't have options. This is why I was saying that in the past, I've noticed the community seeing these as reasonable, as long as the terms by the admin are reasonable. To be honest, they may get a better deal by calmly working one on one with an admin rather than putting it at ANI for a drama debate. At least they can talk back and forth and try to reach a compromise, such as a time limit on a topic ban. Dennis - 2¢ 01:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor requests speedy G7 after dispute

Resolved

 – RGloucester was fine with deletion and immiediate recreation, so this is what's been done. Number 57 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester recently created House of Assembly of Jamaica. I added a couple of templates, categories and a see also to it. He then removed one of the templates, which I restored. He then deleted it again. After I posted on his talk page, he then nominated the article for speedy deletion via WP:CSD#G7. I contested the deletion, but he has reinstated the speedy request.

Several questions arise here:

1. Can an admin decline a G7 request if it's clear the topic is notable
2. Would my addition of categories, templates and see also count as "susbstantial content" and nullify the G7 rationale
3. Was RGloucester allowed to reinstate a CSD request after it was declined
4. Can I delete the article and just start a new one with the same text?

A quick answer would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Page design is important, and I refuse to be associated with poorly designed pages. I wrote all the "content" in the article. Adding a template hardly counts as content. I want the page deleted, per that criteria and WP:KIBOSH. Then, Mr Number 57 can add whatever templates he liked, without my name being dragged through the mud in the process. I hope Mr Number 57 realises that he was acting as an editor on that page, and that that means he is "involved". God, please chastise me for recently reading a book on Morant Bay, and having the gall to create a page on the House of Assembly of Jamaica. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester it says at the bottom of each edit page:

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.

RGloucester you write "I refuse to be associated with poorly designed pages", but it is not permissible under the licence to claim copyright like this, or WP:OWNERSHIP of a page in this way. If you are not willing to allow you contributions to be mercilessly edited and redistributed, then you should not edit in Wikipedia article space (Wikipedia:MERCILESS is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia).

@Number 57 as you point out it is debatable if G7 applies as you too had made what could be seen as substantial contributions to such a small article. However I do appreciate that that in itself is a matter of judgement. I think a more critical issue is that the recreation of the article without its history, as AFAICT this is not allowed for copyright/licensing reasons (see WP:ATTREQ and WP:RUD and the section following RUD called "Userfication"), so I suggest that the simplest course of action is for you restore the full history to the article. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

An admin can decline a G7. I have declined them in the past. G7 is not an absolute right. The content that is in the current article is a copy of the content that is in the deleted. It is technically a copyright violation and needs to be attributed to the original author. GB fan 00:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The smart thing to do is delete it, and rewrite a new two-sentence blurb, which should take no more than three seconds. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The smart thing to do is leave the article as written and restore the attribution to that version. GB fan 02:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I too have on occasion declined G7 when it appears that the material is helpful to the encyclopedia, or the person is not the sole substantial editor. Certainly nobody has the right to refuse to be associated with an article if others edit it as well. The only way to avoid being connected with an article is to never edit it. The word "irrevocable" in the TOS is pretty unambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. I have restored the whole history. Number 57 09:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a sad day, indeed. It seems mandarins conquer, and poor peasants whimper. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is now an RfC on the original dispute. Number 57 20:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:01, 9 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 00:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nigger of the Narcissus

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 create a redirect from this page to The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'.

This is pursuant to

Permission error

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do not have permission to create this discussion page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

• Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard
• You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.
• Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
• If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 17:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

More admins at CFD, please

WP:CFD has a major backlog - going as far back as early August. Some help out there would be useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I second this. A couple of admins spending an hour or two on this would clear it today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Any takers? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/User:PBS - Admin misconduct

I'm short of time and need to leave on a trip where will not have any internet. I put an RFC together on my talk page with the precious few minutes I have. I'm several hours late departing for a fairly long sabatical and did not have time to do the whole process. Please be kind, I don't deserve the treatment I've received.~Technophant (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In my absence I authorize my friend and esteemed colleague User:P123ct1 to edit this RFC/U and answer question on my behalf. He has over 25% of the total edits to the ISIL page and has been instrumental in helping me curate this article since we both started in May of this year. (If this RFC/U could get transferred to it's proper place that would be best.) Bye for now.~Technophant (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency or timing of this request, honestly. If you're leaving, and won't be able to even edit for several days, a week, or longer, why the rush to have interaction bans imposed in your absence? As near as I can figure out, that's all you're requesting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not consulted about this. I only learned of this RfC/U half an hour ago via an email from Technophant and this delegation of responsibility was not mentioned. I have been given a responsibility I was not asked to undertake. This will have to wait for his return. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that policy permits one person to speak for another anyway, at least to this extent. WP:Power of attorney is a redlink.... Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to come back from your trip, then start a Rfc/U & avoid proxies? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Given P123ct1's unwillingness to be the proxy, it won't be possible for this RFCU to happen. And I agree, it would be quite a bad idea for us to have some sort of POA system. "Can you do X for me" is appropriate if you're asking someone else to take responsibility, and I doubt if anyone would complain (on principle) if you say "Can you copy/paste what I wrote", but making one person responsible for another person's actions is confusing and really ought not be done. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with it. You're going on a trip and can't edit Wikipedia in that time frame, so you make sure someone trusted--who you know shares your concerns drafts it--that's fine. He's not blocked, so it's not 'proxying', he's asking someone he trusts to edit the page with the concerns since he feels it's urgent enough to warrant it. No problem with that, and I don't know of any policy/guideline that prohibits it. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary: Have you read my comments? I was not asked. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Even with your acceptance, it wouldn't matter. Speaking hypothetically, what if you then go and vandalize articles, make personal attacks against a bunch of people, then delete the front page, and claim you were doing it on his behalf? That is the problem, the concept itself is completely flawed and will never see the light of day in any policy here. Dennis - 2¢ 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's outside of the view that the user tried to guise him to do. There's a whole difference between that is 'Hey, I'm going away for a few days and I believe that this RFC/U is urgent enough and I need someone to draft it for me. X user has permission to do so.' versus blatant vandalism, personal attacks, and the like. How so, Dennis? You're going to the maximum extreme in this sort and I don't like it. It's common sense. When you tell a user to draft something for you, and they then go vandalize and try to blame it on you, that's a Competence is required problem, not a 'who can I pin my trollish antics on' problem. And yes, P123ct1, I did, I was referring to the general idea of it. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Extremes are used to demonstrate points. The main point is that no where at Wikipedia is another editor allowed to speak on behalf of another. Even with his permission, no policy authorizes it. Dennis - 2¢ 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

...no policy disallows it either. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a rather slight precedent for having other individuals presenting information in another person's name, even to ArbCom. I did that once myself regarding an arb regarding an editor named Mattise or Mattisse or Matisse or something along those lines. Granted, I have no direct knowledge if it has ever been done any other time though. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference is relaying information/text (something I've done myself) and making decisions without their ongoing knowledge for another user. That has no precedent that I know of, and I can't see the community remotely allowing that to happen. Dennis - 2¢ 22:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was restraining myself in my comment. The behaviour is unethical. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; your opposition to the idea (as opposed to simply not feeling like helping) was evident in your first sentence, and I agree with you. If you want someone to undertake something big for you, by all means you need to get the person's consent well beforehand, rather than asking at the last moment and assuming a "yes" answer. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat, I was not asked, and the RfC/U itself was never discussed with me before it appeared either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC/U isn't set up appropriately. If not certified in 48 hrs it would be deleted. He list it as certified on his talk page but it doesn't seem to be so.It seems he feels it's active.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a proper RfC/U. However, I'm not sure an Admin has the power to say "You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum." (for 24 hours). User:Nyttend, [[User:Dennis Brown]], User:TenOfAllTrades, what do you all think? Can this be done under General sanctions? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no do not get me wrong, I'm only mentioning that it wasn't set up properly. I'm just mentioning this so that if in 48 hours nothing changes in regards to it it can be deleted.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the immortal words of a fellow editor, I'm out of here! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[ec] We could say it properly, e.g. "Your behavior has been so disruptive that you are not...forum, or I will block you". Of course it's easily overturnable by any other admin, not to mention commmunity consensus. Never got into general sanctions (whether requesting, enforcing, being subject to, etc.), so I can't speak to that. Haven't looked at the RFCU page, so I can't comment on the substantial bits. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As Technophant say (s)he has gone way on a fairly long sabatical then as far as I can tell, there is no need to keep the ban in place as I only imposed it to reduce the tension between two editors. So I intend to lift the ban on both of the editors immediately. -- PBS (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I lifted the ban at 22:34, 9 November 2014 (diff) Technophant makes an edit at 22:52, 9 November 2014. -- PBS (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And User:Kww has blocked him indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In all this time I have again been badmouthed above and have not been able to comment because of the ban. The whole thing is horribly wrong. Misrepresentations and an apparently partisan application of Wikipedia's rules by Technophant and other logins have been the trend and their detrimental effect is still deeply embedded in a related trail of edits. I think that a suitable penalty for infringements like sock-puppetry should be the creation of back edits through the offending editors history. Otherwise the sock puppeteer wins and can just get a new login at a later date. Reading above I wouldn't be surprised if this was partly what was planned.

On many occasions I have found Technophant's interventions to be of a greatly disturbing and troubling nature and, perhaps, this is epitomised by final content of a thread I started entitled: #Genuine_concern. In relation to the long span of this ongoing dispute I would like to commend the conduct of P123ct1 who has, in everything I have seen, acted in an exemplary way making great efforts to facilitate peace. These are very evident both on my talk page and elsewhere. This has been a three character Wikidrama which P123ct1 has continually tried to defuse. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As the sanctions state "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." I retract any suggestion that PBS was wrong to ban Technophant from discussing someone. Sorry about that! Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Appeal of broadly construed three month 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.

---

On the 8th of October I was topic banned for three months from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and broadly related pages by the user PBS for being "disruptive"; the two justifying diffs were supplied as this and this. Note that the latter entry appears to have a refactoring of another's comments but that was dealt with and recognized later as a mistake. As evidenced by PBS's template and subsequent text he deemed that my disruption was created by not acknowledging or abiding by a unilateral moratorium on a topical discussion he suggested on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Subsequent to the objection of myself and several other involved third parties, as evidenced across talk pages, PBS stated that my three month topic ban was timed to coincide with his concocted moratorium which he deemed was to last until "the New Year".

I understand how ArbCom rulings work. I understand what disruptive editing looks like. I even try to consciously remind myself not to be melodramatic in the face of perceived slights or injustices. Nonetheless, this topic ban is not only undue in it's very inception but the length is arbitrary, unjust, and far outside the normal parameters associated with this ArbCom ruling. In fact, the length of this already unjustified topic ban seems to be entirely the product of an arbitrary timeline for a topical discussion PBS unilaterally decided upon instead of any logic based upon my actions here or my overall editing history.

My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors. That PBS would interject his own whims upon a non-pointy discussion (without any actual main space article changes) and then topic ban a user in good standing for not "abiding by" what was put forward as a "suggested moratorium" is quite outside the normal prerogatives we give to our admins. I would ask for a total rescinding of the topic ban without any prejudice. The ban is unjust and the underlying points of the discussion I was engaged in are perfectly legitimate in light of not only our naming conventions but the application of core policy. GraniteSand (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an odd ban to me. The admin placed a moratorium on name changes for ISIL, which, I think, shouldn't be done. (consensus is what make or breaks change , not by admin fiat ), and the two posts he pointed to were not disruptive, nor incivil. It was normal conversation on the page regarding the name. I'd say that ban needs to be shot down, and the admin needs to be , at the very least, counseled that he cannot rule by fiat the way he's attempting to do on that page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I initially suggested a moratorium when closing the RM on the page (Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2014). When that was ignored, I posted a more explicit message (Revision as of 18:10, 7 October 2014) Warning that it was no longer a suggestion and was now a warning by an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions that apply to that talk page.

Revisions to User talk:GraniteSand

• Revision as of 19:11, 7 October 2014 (diff) — Sanctions notification specifically mentioning new sections initiated by GraniteSand since the last RM. Includes the line "If you have any questions about this post then feel free to ask me."
• Revision as of 22:20, 7 October 2014 (diff) GraniteSand removes Sanctions notification (prof or reading).
• Revision as of 10:28, 8 October 2014 (diff) Topic Ban
• Revision as of 23:47, 8 October 2014 (diff) In response to a posting by GraniteSand on my talk page Revision as of 21:22, 8 October 2014 (diff). This explanation includes the diffs mentioned above by GraniteSand note that the Rabbit line is incidental, one has to look at the bottom of the diff to see its relevance to this topic ban.

The reason for the ban is fundamentally a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I outline in the last bulleted diff presented I had been quite clear on this issue, but the two edits made by GraniteSand to the article talk page (see initial diff 1 and diff 2) shows that GraniteSand had either not understood, or was wilfully ignoring my disruptive posting. GraniteSand made no attempt to ask me for clarification either on the talk page (where GraniteSand made the two postings below my "moritorium/disruptive" statement) or on my talk page.

The length of the moratorium is three months this is customarily recognised as the minimum time between RMs whenthe participants of an RM have discussed the issue thoroughly--and with four RMs in the proceeding 2 months + a host of other sections on the talk page about moves had discussed the issue thoroughly and exhausted the RM process. The length of the topic ban on GraniteSand ties in with the next date that there will most probably be discussion on moving the page so that GraniteSand can participate in that discussion.

This is not a user account block or a general ban, GraniteSand still has literally millions of other pages to edit during the topic ban. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:

• Made a suggestion, that no one took you up on
• Made that suggestion a rule. With nothing else except your status as an admin to back it up
• Then proceeded to block someone for not being incvil, but rather for violating the rule you added in
  
  

That's an bad block and it needs to be reverted. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the debate PBS wasn't involved in (until he suspended it) but here's some background on my edits in response to new and more explicit accusations of disruptive editing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is predicated on the assumption that the parameters of the discussion and the accompanying justification have mostly not changed, that you're just beating a dead horse. When it comes to naming conventions surrounding the Islamic State, there is an active and robust discussion going on in academic and journalistic circles. In the days leading up to my topic ban there had been an empirical shift in what these independent reliable sources had to say on the topic, as I demonstrated on the discussion page by compiling a list of entirely new sources on the topic, some less than a day old at the time. Additionally, most naming convention discussions had taken place prior to ISIS changing their name to Islamic State and had therefor largely been a matter of semantics between ISIS and ISIL and not a discussion on whether the new IS was preferred over the previously settled upon ISIL. This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources. That is nothing to be discouraged, much less topic banned for, and is not a case of disruptive behavior, even if some editors didn't like it or disagreed with my interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The user refused to consider consensus and was very combative against PBS and other involved users. He seemed to be looking for a fight. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This appeal has now gone unaddressed for long enough that I've had to unarchive it. GraniteSand (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon, you say "The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them" - no of course they don't, they were never meant to be that specific. They are about behaviour, in this case behaviour in that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller That sentance (mine ) could have been written better, but yes, you're correct. General Sanctions, as well as Discretionary Sanctions are meant to be specific per General Sanction guidelines. They state:

When general sanctions are employed, they are specifically detailed instructions by which community consensus or Arbcom motion has empowered administrators to act single-handedly to sanction editors who are not complying with general behavioral or editorial guidelines and policies. .

In this case, a suggestion was made that was not instituted as General Sanctions of any kind, it was merely a suggestion. A suggestion can be taken or not, with no penalty to refusing. In this case, the suggestion was not taken, and the user was blocked for it. It looks, to me, like the admin overstepped his bounds, and I still believe the ban needs to be reversed. Not to be a dick or anything, but if the sanction had already been in place, and then violated, Granite Sand would have no leg to stand on, but that didn't happen, again, he didn't take a suggestion given to him, that's all. Reverse the topic ban and do what's right. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, User:KoshVorlon, take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions and tell me how this sanction is basically any different, and what details instructions are lacking in it that are present one of our most frequently violated sanctions, those on Israeli-Palestine articles. That sanction says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (full text)." The Syrian civil war sanction says (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Identical because this sanction is meant to mimic ARBPIA sanctions. I don't know what you mean by "if the sanction had been in place". Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Dougweller. Yes, I agree with you that there are indeed sanctions on this page, and yes they mirror ARBPIA, but none of those restrictions show anything about starting a discussion, they state the article is under 1RR except for obvious vandalism. Yes, Granite sand was warned about those same sanctions here however, please note , again that those sanctions do not include starting new discussions about changing the name. That was a suggestion made by the blocking admin [here , and note this was a suggestion not a sanction, just a suggestion that was in no way covered by discretionary sanctions at all. After this suggestion was made, it was not accepted ( note the discussions below concerning changing the name ).

Now, we all can make suggestions, if they're not accepted, it's pretty well known that it's poor form to try to force that change through. Or said another way, if I had been the one to post the suggestion "Hey let's not talk about renaming ISIL again until next year" and no one took me up on it, and I decided to take action by deleting anything that mentioned such a rename and pointed back to that suggestion, I'd be in some hot water, and it would be well deserved. That's just what this admin did. His suggestion wasn't taken, consensus went against him, so he decided to try to force it through | here as "Discretionary Sanctions", but note, that Discretionary sanctions don't cover this, it's not a blank check for the admin to push his way through and ignore consensus, which is just what he did.

Unban him, it's just that simple. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) _{yeah, I know, TL/DR, sorry about that ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)}

User:KoshVorlon - Sorry, you're still confused. Sanctions and 1RR are separate things. The sanctions have no specific restrictions, they are about behavior:"if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Behavior can be in article space, on the article's talk page, or in fact elsewhere if it concerns the subject covered by the sanction. The fact that it involved a move discussion is immaterial. To repeat myself, they cover any discussion relevant to the sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sanctions are pretty clear: "Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate, my appeal has nothing to do with the scope of an uninvolved administrator's prerogative in using discretionary sanctions in the instance of what is perceived as disruptive behavior. My appeal is based on the facts and circumstances of PBS's judgment in invoking that prerogative in this particular instance. I maintain that my behavior was not disruptive, that PBS lacked the consensus he asserted here, that his behavior was unwise and unilateral, that the scope of my editing doesn't warrant a topical ban, and that the term of my topic ban is far outside the normal parameters of such bans. I'm disturbed that no administrator has yet taken this up. I appreciate Dougweller's and RGloucester's discussions on the finer points of ArbCom rulings but they're not relevant to my appeal. Also, RGlouceseter is rather involved in the subject at hand. GraniteSand (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: Well, I what I meant by the bolding of that piece of text was that you should focus your argument on whether PBS's use of these measures was "reasonably necessary". He doesn't need "consensus", because community sanctions give him power as an uninvolved administrator to unilaterally take "any measures reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". The question here is not whether PBS had the authority to do what he did, but whether it was "reasonable". You'll have a much more effective argument if you take-up that angle. Why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to issue the moratorium? Following that, why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to impose a three month topic ban? Answer these two questions, and you'll be in better shape. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not consensus on the application of the topic ban but an assertion that there was a universal agreement other than myself on his "moratorium on discussion", which was not the case. I thought he made the assertion here but, upon review, he did not. I'll try to find the diff but the larger issue of my appeal doesn't hinge on the assertion of consensus for the moratorium because it clearly doesn't exist anyway, as has already been demonstrated. Nobody asked for it and when he "suggested it" nobody took him up on it. I think that I've already made clear that my edits were not disruptive and that others on the article talk page were not only involved in discussing my position in a constructive manner but then went on to say that they found PBS's unsolicited moratorium unnecessary and my topic ban excessive and inappropriate. It would appear that instead of PBS issuing a topic ban to prevent the disruption of the project he issued a moratorium on discussion and then banned me simply because he had decided what he thought was the right answer to the topic at hand and was tired of seeing it come up, regardless of changes in the form and content of reliable sources on the subject. I would also think that my appeal inherently infers PBS demonstrated unreasonable behavior. Bringing up brand new reliable sources making assertions about a dynamic topic of frequent and substantive discussion and talking about how our policies relate to what those sources say is not disruptive. Then, aside from the application of the ban, the length is an unreasonable outlier all on its own. The other topical bans issued under this set of sanctions last for days not months. His topic ban lasts for the length of his unsolicited and ill-formed moratorium when topical bans should be reflective of the scope and severity of the "disruptive" behavior. Regardless, there should have been a substantive response made to this appeal by uninvovled admins some time ago. I know there is a reasonable hesitancy to overturn other admins decisions but this seems rather clear cut to me. After all, I know most admins aren't afraid of saying "no" if they truly feel that's the right answer. GraniteSand (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, then, do you plan to abide by the moratorium in the event that your topic ban is lifted? Or, on the other hand, do you plan to challenge the moratorium as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the moratorium itself is unreasonable, which is why I asked for this decision to be overturned "without prejudice". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; it's rather wikilawyer-ish and an old bad habit of mine. Were the topic to be totally stale, which is to say the subject wasn't fluid and the body of reliable sources not changing, then community consensus alone would be enough to simply refer new queries to previous discussions, making a moratorium superfluous. The reality, though, is the opposite, which makes the moratorium unwise and stifling to the nature of the project. How can we disallow the discussion of a relevant topic in a fast changing subject? It's antithetical to what we do here. Now, of course, if my appeal is overturned and the unilateral moratorium not then I won't disregard it, that would be belligerent and unwise. The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere. GraniteSand (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is best to do the following. Firstly, separate the matter of your topic ban and the moratorium. Secondly, agree to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires in return for the lifting of the topic ban. Thirdly, if you'd still like to continue your suit to appeal the moratorium, open a new thread at this noticeboard after the topic ban has been lifted. I believe that this is the best way forward. If you are willing to follow this route, I will support lifting topic ban. This thread here should only deal with the matter of your topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's entirely reasonable. GraniteSand (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: – As you were the sanctioning administrator, would you consider lifting the topic ban in line with the procedure I outlined above? I think this is a good compromise. First of all, it will confirm whether the moratorium is justified in a new thread, and secondly, it will allow for that moratorium to be abided by in the mean-time. It strikes me as being better to try and resolve these disputes, rather than to let them languish, and I do believe that GraniteSand has no particular ill-intent that is so worthy of a three month topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A list of 9 sections on the talk page about the page name over the month before the moratorium

"New name" started 21 August, Panam2014, last comment 1 September 2014 (closed 3 October) "Move request - 6 September ", Kingsindian closed 30 September "Requested move 17 September", Gazkthul closed 3 October 2014 "Alternative name" 20 September, Panam2014, last comment 1 October 2014 "How much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State?", 30 September, GraniteSand, last comment 3 October 2014 "English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change", 1 October 2014 GraniteSand, last comment 2 October 2014 'ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"' 2 October 2014, Gregkaye, last comment 3 October 2014 "A good reason not to use Islamic State", 2 October 2014, Legacypac , last comment 7 October 2014 "An RM to ISIS?" 7 October 2014, Gregkaye

All those sections were on the talk page at the time I imposed the moratorium. It has long been accepted practice for RM processes to draw a line under move discussions, for a time between discussions, to stop endless discussion.

GraniteSand has written in this section:

1. "My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors."
2. "This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources"
3. "The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere".

This is a continuation of the behaviour for which GraniteSand's topic ban was imposed.

It is quite common administrators who close RMs to put time limits on when the next one can be held, so my actions were not unusual; and limits on RMs can also be found applied by administrators under various sanctions (eg Talk:Liancourt Rocks).

RGloucester you write "I think this is a good compromise" is a rhetoric construct, as it implies that there is a compromise to he had and that this is a good one (it also implies that you are a neutral actor -- you are not "No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already." written by you directly before my moratorium statement [17]). It is also no compromise at all because it allows GraniteSand to fill the talk page with debates about the moratorium and "that it should be overturned because..." Something GraniteSand has made clear (s)he will do in this section.

Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at WP:AN, as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand you're aggravated, however, by calling your suggestion and discretionary sanction, you've given the appearance of ignoring consensus and forcing your will in. Therefore, in a show of good will, I suggest you drop the ban. As my contribution history shows, I haven't posted on that page at all, and have no stake in whatever name consensus decides, so it's not like I have a side I'm on here (as far as naming goes ). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS has seemed to have gone through a daily edit cycle without responding to either KoshVorlon or RGloucester. While I very much appreciate the input of admins and editors so far, an entire week has gone by and no uninvoloved admin has rendered a judgement or opinion here. This is ridiculous. Therefor I'm going to take the rather unorthodox step of reaching out and requesting the input of three admins whose opinions and judgement I greatly respect, even though I've often found myself in disagreement with them at various points. These editors are @DGG:, @Acalamari: and @BrownHairedGirl:. This could very much be viewed as canvassing but all three are of independent mind and I don't expect any particular result. At this point any result would be adequate, even if it's "no". I just want some resolution here so I can move on to the next step, one way or another. GraniteSand (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not respond to KoshVorlon because the time stamps on my post do not support the assertion. I did not respond to RGloucester because I think that I have already answered the points RGloucester raised. I have started an RfC on the Moratorium on the talk page of the article (See here) -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked for an opinion. As I see it. the disruption is the continued focus on the pagename of the article. Such repeated discussions are in my opinion not conducive to editing articles, which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. I support unblock if he is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one. (If on is brought by someone else in good faith, I think one brief comment there would be allowable, but I very strongly advise that nobody open such a RfC--it is counterproductive to the concept of the moratorium.) I think the moratorium was a very good idea. I would in fact be very much in favor of a considerably longer one, except that the actual situation in the RW is itself unstable. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@DGG:, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. GraniteSand (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why, after two admins the only admin to participate so far has conditionally supported the lifting of my ban, I suspect @PBS: has put the cart before the horse and stared the RfC now. I would guess he sees the potential for my topic ban being lifted so he's trying to have this done without my participation. Unless I'm wrong, and he, as the blocking admin, wouldn't mind my participation there. GraniteSand (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on GraniteSand, but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement "[GraniteSand] is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

{@PBS: The alternative option, PBS, is to change the topic ban. You can very easily narrow it to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article for xxxxx", as opposed banning him from ISIL all together. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. GraniteSand (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The bevy of previous editors who have brought up the topic should be advised and it should be advertised in relevant WikiProjects such as MILHIST, IRAQ, SYRIA, and TERRORISM. I'd also expand the RfC subject classification. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not inform individual editors. I have added a heads up to the WT:MILHIST, WT:IRAQ, WT:SYRIA, and WT:TERRORISM. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• My view of it, for what it is worth, is that the topic ban was correctly added. There was a request to change the name, there was a consensus in opposition to changing the name, and GraniteSand continued to make edits changing the name and insisting on brining up the issue right away. That violates WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Given this was under discretionary sanctions PBS was free to institute the topic ban as an uninvolved admin. That said an exactly 3 month moratorium shouldn't be done without consensus (which the RfC seems to be providing from what I have seen of it so far). But GraniteSand was not waiting even close to a reasonable time before proposing to see of consensus had changed, and that's disruptive even without an explicit moratorium. That said I would support limiting the scope of the topic ban to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article" until the RfC for the moratorium closes and then for the length of any moratorium, outside of a single vote and a maximum 300 word reason in the RfC on the moratorium. --Obsidi (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your view is worth a lot, thanks for taking the plunge and participating. Now, for what my two cents is worth, I'd like to point out that the consensus you sight was merely a snapshot. If there was a consensus to not reexamine naming conventions then the page wouldn't be seeing a flood of requests to do so. The consensus you're talking about consists of two, at best three, editors who are heavily involved in the article space. Not that I'd say it constitutes ownership but it's definitely some what of an echo chamber where those few editors quickly band together to shoot down new voices concerned about naming conventions. COncerns pop up, these couple of editors play off each other to shoot it down, rinse and repeat. It was for this reason which I wanted to put together a well advertised RfC on the subject, so as to establish an actual consensus, which I was topic banned for suggesting. Also consider that much of the "old history" used to justify this moratorium was based on the semantic argument between ISIL and ISIS, one that I agree has been resolved. My concerns are about the recent renaming of the group to Islamic State, which is only a few weeks old and has so has a much shorter history. I also introduced brand new sources on the topic which has only broken in the past two weeks, thereby demonstrating that what independent reliable sources had to say on the matter had shifted. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This appeal is now two weeks old and only one outside admin has weighed in. Come on, admins. GraniteSand (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived for a second time. GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the three-month ban based on the evidence presented to date. I also urge GraniteSand to closely read and follow RGloucester's advice of 20:20 on 27 October, which I think is more likely to be productive and get results of the kind GS wants than continuing to unarchive this discussion. Personally, I tend to think that this repeated unarchiving could on its own be seen as potentially problematic behavior, something along the lines of beating a dead horse or tendentious editing, and further efforts to continue in this line could lead to the sanctions being expanded or lengthened. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

hack in progress?

probably paranoia, if else my suspicions will be recorded in the archive Avono (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
for some reason my account password changed even though I did not get a reset request in my email. I am not exactly certain that I forgot it but could a checkuser check my IPs incase my old password was compromised (was able to have my password changed)? Avono (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Most of us administrators aren't checkusers, so I've requested assistance from one who is. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) It would make it easier and more timely if you could provide the IP address of the reset that would be given in the email. If you can do that, it would help. Thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I just reread this...I didn't see anything concerning the first time around but I'll check again. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) @DeltaQuad: I don't know how important it is, could have been caps lock ..., is password change and knowing the Committed identity enough ?, thanks for the reply (I only remembered that gmail has this function for suspicious ips) Avono (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) but was one of the symptoms of this that you edited the ArbCom case request page for GamerGate? If so, that's pretty scary. Tutelary (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) @Tutelary:thats why I was getting paranoid, probably just was IRL stress :) (wanted to log into Huggle and suddenly couldn't) Avono (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I'd--just to be safe, change your password on some other computer or your phone (preferably the phone, because the liklihood of your phone getting a virus is kind of low, especially if you're on iOS) to make sure that they don't have access to it still. Clean the computer with anti virus software and the like. Of course--bleh, it needs manual examination as there's all sorts of way it could propagate and the like. MBAM auto scan and quick scan methinks would be beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) No, they usually have a Dev scramble your password and email address in the database so it looks normal on this side. Then when you log in as an IP to say that is your account, they block you for impersonating. Or socking. Or something else. I think they have a big wheel they spin, and they just use whatever reason it lands on.... Or maybe they don't do any of that. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) yeah, probably was paranoia, will be closing this. Avono (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Denim Demon

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

---

Can an admin delete this expired prod, I'm editing with my work computer and this page is somehow blocked with my work filter. Thanks Secret ^account 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The Honest Company

I have recreated The Honest Company and want to make sure that it seems to be sufficient, given that a prior version was deleted less than 30 days ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It was speedied under A7. Tony's current version at least passes that low bar. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No problems that I see. The entire pre-A7 contents, written by User:Nmarte, were The Honest Company is an American company that sells eco friendly diapers and a natural line of bath, skincare, home cleaning, and organic nutritional supplement products. The Santa Monica, California based company was established in 2012 and currently remains privately held. Founders include Jessica Alba, Brian Lee, Christopher Gavigan, and Sean Kane. You've demonstrated secondary source coverage, including (significantly) something from almost half a world away from the subject of the article. Completely different and entirely free of A7-worthy problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I found this [18] useful article, but the dogs won't quit bugging me long enough to turn it into proper prose. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Should requests for comment user conduct be abolished?

Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do Away with RFC/U. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tools down again/still

Who runs tools.wmflabs.org? When will they fix it? Sometimes it works, sometimes it does nothing at all, sometimes it produces a screen where everyone has zero edits. Is this incompetence? Does someone keep breaking something? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread on this topic at WP:VPT: see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#So... -- Diannaa (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Userpage being vandalized continually

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but my userpage is being vandalized by socks. Apparently, I (legitimately) reverted this person's edit while I was thoughtlessly machine-gunning vandals with Huggle, and s/he got angry, started vandalizing my userpage, and created a sock farm to continue doing it. I requested protection of my userpage at RfPP, but I've received no reply. I'd like to request that any admin passing by semi-protect my userpage and block the accounts belonging to this person. If you want more detail, this page history speaks for itself. Thanks, --Biblioworm 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done GB fan 01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Biblioworm 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi, if there are any CheckUsers out there, SPI is backlogged. Some reports have been sitting for 2+ weeks. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate notice

If any administrators uninvolved in the Gamergate matter are interested in helping enforce the general sanctions that exist for such pages, please keep an eye of this page, where users may request enforcement. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, we can use all the help we can get over there.. Dreadstar ☥ 01:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a request there now. It would be nice if someone could pop in and deal with it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add a American English Editnotice to Pediatrics

Can an admin add the American English Editnotice to the Pediatrics page? There have been consistent problems with people adding British English and some debate about it on the talk page. Thanks! EoRdE6 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI abuse

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 help me. I am at my wits end. I make a report at ANI. I want to see it reviewed. Others report the same editor at ANI. Instead of reviewing the report, I have admins and Gamersgate minutae drawing and drawing and drawing off me, not because I am going around breaking the rules, but because they are getting entertainment out of me. They are bullying me. The report, the diffs of the editor, have not been discussed at all and the thread is now four pages long in my browser. Rather than review the diffs, I am being told by an admin that they are going to block me for WikiHounding, for having the gall to continue to post in a single thread and to make that thread about an editor who I have encountered 4 or maybe 5 times in as many months and literally pursued me to harass me.

I need help. I am not getting it from ANI. The bullying is making mew feel sick. I do not want to interact with anyu of the contributors again. But I cannot let them control the site contrary to its goals and purpose. I mean, please someone uninvolved help me where is the best place for this to go? I do not lick up to a deck of admins to shield me. I am me, all alone. I am not very important, but I have been wronged repeatedly by a prolific wrong doer. That puts a duty on me to report. I need help. I am only being attacked on ANI. ~ R.T.G 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really it's desperate. I feel ill. I am not trying to do anything wrong. Nobody is trying to make me change or understand. They are just attacking me. It's horrible. ~ R.T.G 12:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that bad, close this window, switch off and walk away from your computer, and go do something else in real life for a few days. This is only a website, disputes here are really not that important in the scheme of things, and this is nowhere near "desperate" compared to what happens out there in the real world. (I say that with no knowledge of the dispute and no judgment at all on any party - I just think it's sensible advice and might help you see things in proper perspective). Best wishes, Neatsfoot (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Neatsfoot - the solution here is dead bloody simple. Walk away. There are millions of other articles to work on, if you are so inclined, and the vast majority of them do not involve interaction with Ryulong. The proposed interaction ban isn't an indictment on your actions, or theirs - it's an acknowledgement that whenever you two interact, drama ensues. Life is too goddamn short to waste on people who get you as upset as you describe. Take a deep breath, have a beer, and find something else to do. I guarantee it - you'll be much happier. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thirding what Neatsfoot and Ultraexactzz wrote. Walk away, turn off your computer, do something else that you enjoy and forget about Wikipedia for a few weeks. Come back after you have put everything in a perspective and work on something else. Pursuing justice on Wikipedia will only end in tears.- MrX 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark triad ~ R.T.G 16:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fourthing what the others have said. This WP:FORUMSHOPPING isn't going to get you anywhere. Wikipedia operates on community consensus. If that is making you ill stepping away is the best answer. I assume it is now a tetrad. But we are giving this advice in good faith. MarnetteD|Talk 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize that your experience here has been like this - however, perhaps as others said a small wikibreak could help you. Take some time off, let us handle the rest, and come back when you're feeling a bit better. Perhaps the time away and cooling off period for you and the user you have a dispute with could mend things and each of you can go onto different areas of the project. Forcefully bringing up a subject or forumshopping as Marnette said above is frowned upon, and the roles can be reversed whereas you're the one who gets into a bit of hot water. Take the time off, trust me :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominations for the 2014 Arbitration Committee Election open

This is the second reminder that the nomination period for the 2014 Arbitration Committee Elections are open from Sunday 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC) to Tuesday 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Candidates may nominate themselves by following the directions at the candidates page.--v/r - TP 19:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation by user 37.53.192.157 on World Chess Championship 2014

Reverts #1, #2, #3 and #4. Note that #4 occurred after user 37.53.192.157 was duly given a 3RR warning. This edit warring prevents other editors from being able to see the two versions so that they can reach a consensus on the talk page.

Please note that 37.53.192.157 has only been editing since today, yet this user appears to be a highly experienced editor. On the article's talk page, I have asked him to properly log in to avoid the appearance of sock-puppetry.

Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• User ArtSmart already violated 3RR rule two times today. Five his reverts: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] He must be blocked because he added unneeded nbsp into the article. Note, no any consensus in favor of his source code. No such format in any chess articles (2012, 2013,...). I only removed unneeded "nbsp". It was unreadable source code with that nbsp. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I ceased reverting once I was duly warned. 37.53.192.157 continued reverting after he was duly warned. His reverts have prevented other editors from seeing both versions so that a consensus could be reached on the talk page. I don't care that much which version is adopted. I only care that other editors get a chance to reach a consensus. 37.53.192.157's edit warring continues to prevent that consensus from being reached. I have also asked him to log in properly, since 37.53.192.157 has been editing only since today. This gives the appearance of sock-puppetry. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• User ArtSmart can use sandbox in his namespace to show his own version to reach the new consensus. Now consensus in all chess articles to show moves without nbsp option. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• That last statement is false, as can be seen here, which is linked from within the referenced article World Chess Championship 2014. You can see that no chess moves are broken across two lines. But that fact is irrelevant to 37.53.192.157's 3RR violations. No action has been taken from this noticeboard to enforce the 3RR against 37.53.192.157, who not only continued edit warring even after I repeatedly requested that he take our dispute to the talk page, but also continued edit warring even after he was duly warned of his 3RR violations. Because of that inaction from this noticeboard and its lack of enforcement of the 3RR, I no longer wish to waste my valuable time and effort to give the referenced article a more professional appearance by eliminating awkward line breaks. More importantly, I am also loathe to make any improvements to the referenced article, out of fear that 37.53.192.157 will revert my edits purely out of spite. If he can so flagrantly violate the 3RR with impunity, then no one is safe from his vandalism, least of all me. He has successfully bullied me out of further editing. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 08:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• To admins. Please, give a mark to this edit by ArtSmart. [24] I think he must be blocked for this edit violated WP:ETIQ. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• NOT AN ADMIN: May I ask why this was brought here instead of WP:3RN? The latter would seem like the more appropriate place for resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible organised disruption

We have just received an e-mail at OTRS alerting us to this page:

http://pastebin.com/60iFkCX5

Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a continuation of known outside influence to attempt to sway an ongoing ArbCom case request regarding the Gamergate Controversy. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff which is likely directly related to this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is all connected. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this, but it looks to name/target specific editors. A heads up is probably in order: @Ryulong: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @Tarc: @TheRedPenOfDoom: @TaraInDC: @Gamaliel: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @RGloucester: @Dreadstar:. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't {{ping}} take multiple parameters? And we've known about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it's about ethics in video game journalism. Possibly my favorite part is the use of the word "collusion" as if working with other people to write a collaborative Internet encyclopedia is a punishable offence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There is a backlog of 10 days (and eight templates) at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. It would be good if some admin happy in the template arena could look at these. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Note: I believe they are all implemented in their sandboxes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

CfD backlog, again

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is in serious need of TLC. We've got discussions there that are a month old and have had clear consensus for weeks that are still open. Somebody needs to go in there and close them. pbp 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Automotive lighting

Last 10 edits of the article automotive lighting appear to be initiated by lobby or personal interests enforcing an opinion against proofed and verifiable information. See last sections of the talk page: Talk:Automotive lighting. The issue may be caused in interests of manufacturers. It is about to remove information that differs between technical reliability and undecided acting by drivers. Articles in the WP do not have to rate, but have to provide information. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

iBan suggested

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 other day I closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong.2C_cannot_be_stopped_breaking_rules, a complaint about Ryulong by RTG, with "no action" since I did not see enough support for an iBan (and certainly not for any action against either one, no matter how disruptive some of their edits are). Looking at it again I see that I missed Mdann52's support, so that makes four, along with Richard Yin, Ivanvector, and Knowledgekid87. In my opinion that's still not enough to seal the deal, but after clicking through the diffs cited in that report, and after Ryulong pointed out a previous thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#RTG, I'm beginning to think that maybe an iBan is not a bad idea. I have plenty of problems with Ryulong's editing, but in these threads and in some of the linked conversations RTG is even worse, and I think that for the two of them to be kept separate is a good idea.

So I'd like you to consider this proposal anew, an interaction ban between Ryulong and RTG. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this could be imposed by an uninvolved administrator, if appropriate, under WP:GS/GG without the need for a discussion here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright--am I uninvolved enough? (Mind you, I'm not sure it's all GamerGate-related!) Drmies (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You've not edited the subject matter, so I suppose that makes you uninvolved. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - the thread where this was originally proposed went stale when RTG started a new retaliatory one further down the page, but the concerns in the original thread remain. As someone mostly uninvolved in the topic area these disputes seem to come from, it's clear to me that these two editors cannot get along, and they blow up any talk page or noticeboard they cross paths on, dragging multiple editors into personal disputes which have no hope of resolution here. Keeping them apart is best. Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  By 'retaliatory', you mean a bit disillusioned with the fact that Ryulong can get away with 15RR when any other person couldn't of? Maybe we read a different section of it, because the wording of the original seemed a bit to be blunt and maybe misunderstanding WP:TPO (you can remove posts from your own talk page without response) but that's not a reason for an iban. Being a bit disillusioned by asserted double standards isn't much 'retaliatory'. I oppose any interaction ban, one party or reciprocal or otherwise. This needs to be unambiguous 'hounding' and demonstratably with diffs. It seems that to me that the user above took to the noticeboards because that's the only place to report user conduct, and that people didn't necessarily see it that way. I don't see a need for an iban in this capacity. This should be closed in leiu of waiting of another noticeboard discussion, and if necessary, I will be the one to propose an iban if this continues in the future. Otherwise, seems to be just an instance of editors trying to punish other editors for reporting things to a noticeboard--that's what they're supposed to do. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  RTG has no right to be on my ass about anything unless it directly involves him. This goes beyond the WP:AN3 reports considering these have nothing to do with that report and are instead examples of RTG jumping into a dispute without any knowledge of anything. [25], [26], [27], [28].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  And now I've just seen this message he left me at Jimbo's talk page. Is this the hounding you wanted to see Tutelary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Is every comment that he makes on you an example of 'hounding'? Jimbo's talk page is incredibly public in itself and since his 'open door' policy, even Russavia comments on stuff there. (unsure of what the ArbCom case on that amounted to) On the talk page issues, you're allowed to request him to not post on your talk page and I believe he's required to adhere to such per WP:NOBAN. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Did you actually read what he said to me? RTG had never edited Jimbo's page until I left that message early this morning. This is hounding plain and simple. I can't believe the mere fact it's marginally related to the Gamergate shit blinds you from this fact. And regarding the noticeboards, I made a thread requesting that he be banned from me because of all the harassing messages he sent me on my user talk. Four in a row that had nothing to do with him. And then after two days passed and he didn't bother to even defend himself, but he did find the time to edit the AN3 thread, I sent him another message, and that's when he made the larger retaliatory thread that got shut down by Drmies. This is hounding. This is unnecessary behavior. Other than the time I went to the Archive.is RFC after RTG disrupted the Instantnood SPI case I have done nothing in regards to RTG. I can easily abide by any necessary interaction ban with him. It is obvious that he now has this need to get me off of the project at any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not every comment on a page is hounding, even if an editor has never been there before. Besides, Jimbo's talk page is usually and correctly regarded as a special kind of place; I see no reason (if it weren't for the general disruption we're dealing with here) why they shouldn't comment there after you did. RTG, this supposed 15RR of Ryulong's is getting tedious: if no action was taken after it had been brought to every one's attention, then maybe there's less to it than you think: dropping such comments too frequently is in fact a kind of harassment. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Supossed!!!??? I will be back for one more post. A link to recent archives. And then please do not address me again in this thread wether you find such a request lacking in respect or not. If you chose such lack of respect to taint your views, so be it. I certainly am not getting any respect. Where is the review of my report you linked above? ~ R.T.G 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This ignorance illicited my concern when compounded with a number of other concurrent incidents, particularly the interference of others comments. Thanks a bunch for checking. ~ R.T.G 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how Dreadstar would feel about their close of that obviously stale report being called "ignorant"? Drop the stick, dude. Ivanvector (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I support this explicitly as a community action, but RGloucester is also correct. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors are very much allowed to criticize other administrators' actions. Or is any dissent not allowed in any capacity? Tutelary (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support I have been watching this for some time, at first I thought Ryulong may just have not liked someone complaining about him, but it seems to have gone well beyond that. Its one thing to bring up your complaints and see if the community agrees, but it seems to me that RTG's behavior went beyond that. --Obsidi (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would note that support for an IBAN was also expressed by User:NinjaRobotPirate in the archived thread here. My own support has already been noted. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me (yes), but since when was "not knowing anything about anything" an anything? Jimbo explicitly requests that questions be answered for him on his behalf, such as when he says a thing, and a load of hopper onners go, "yes it is..." "No it isn't..." "Yes it is..." for days. Anyone ever been to Punch and Judy? It's a farce, and that requires response. I have totally agreeable interaction on Jimbos talk page over the years. It amounts to about half a dozen or more long threads, mainly conversational. Ryulong does behave in an injurious manner without bridle, everywhere in W-space. I do respond to unbridled discontent with the principles of the site. I do not make it my purpose to single anybody. I do not clash content with said offender, bar pointing out a minor grammatical error to the Gamergate dispute article which they apparently will now own if they do not already. My only notification of this review was the fact the User:Dmries linked my userpage. I, unlike some, consider such threads as this as serious in nature, yet I am to be held in contempt of it. Thanks a lot. I cannot support this "iBan" as it would not be content related. Conduct issues must be treated as such, if you please, ~ R.T.G 22:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: In all of the times I have purposely drawn attention to an event in a wild manner, and I have done that believe me, a widespread ban has not been a serious issue. Now when a toxic editor takes it upon themselves for having the gaul to question them or a thing they are involved in (not gamergate or any of that, you ask, they did it), so for drawing my attention, prompting me the ability to post which heretofore I did not have, I should be punished. If that is the case a warning should be on said users userpage not to question them, particularly more than once, regardless the situation, because if I am not mistaken... my report of Ryulong was not reviewed in any shape or form except to question my personal validity. Questioning personal validity is a form of personal attack. I may respond to a wall of diffs or a shield of snow, but in other case, with the reminder of my protest of ignored reports, my input is again all done. ~ R.T.G 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an IBan, it doesn't stop you from continuing to edit any article you wish and it applies equally to Ryulong as it does you (I don't think this is a one way IBan that is being suggested). If Ryulong does bad behavior, I am sure other editors will report it. --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. This has nothing to do with content. I have made only one report of said user. I can understand what these other editors must see, but I cannot find it. That means it is coming, weather or witch, a distinct example. See, I don't always make sense, and I believe in nice-to-be-nice, that philosophy is misunderstood... I have a type, and usually that type does not illicit frustration. Usually they are busy and move along in the face of such mistakes in their direction, but sometimes... just sometimes... one of them looks right at you and moves their head without moving their eyes. It makes you want to hit them worse. Ban me all you like. There should be no misunderstanding. Look, please don't address me directly here anybody. I consider my input complete. A similar request led to this, but I will not take fault when I am not at it, when I have so much fault already. Further input from me is not necessary at this point, is it? ~ R.T.G 00:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. As mentioned above, I voted to support an interaction ban in one of the other threads about this drama. My rationale is in that thread, but, basically, I think that RTG is starting too many threads about Ryulong and involving himself in unrelated discussions simply to annoy Ryulong. I don't much care whether it's one way or two way. Just get it in place so that we can stop seeing this all over the place and I stop getting pinged about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That "many" is one. Find me another. Gah! Let me go! I didn't do it. I will not say I did. My report was not reviewed. It is possibly the only report I have made to ANI that was not a straight vandal or spammer or such. ~ R.T.G 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You had started one on AN after you had one on ANI. Noteswork (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be a lot of high strung nerves and histrionics going on. Blackmane (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drmies is right about this. While not GG-related, an interaction ban will stop the problem in its tracks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Without assigning blame, this seems like a good way to reduce the amount of drama around here significantly. --Jayron32 12:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Few threads on ANI have been made about these issues recently, Iban would solve this conflict. Noteswork (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Just a few hours to go for Arbs nominations

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

---

As a heads up to anyone still thinking about running, the nominations will close in less than four hours. There are 9 seats to fill in this election and only 14 candidates (6 of which are non-admins). If you want to be an Arb, 1) you're crazy; and 2) this is the year to run. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oh! It's past that time now. Well. Maybe next time. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please delete user 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.

---

User talk:Rudics, out of projecct scope, also userpage can be out of projext scope, thanks--Musamies (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MFD is what you want. Blackmane (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No point in adding extra bureaucracy with a MFD listing, Deleted as U5, not a webhost Secret ^account 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You may also want to check their other contributions --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Did You Know main page

Can an admin take a look at Template:Did you know/Queue and update the main page. DYK has missed its last two updates and is coming up on a third. There's already a backlog of submissions and this doesn't help. Fuebaey (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The first Prep area, which would normally be moved to the first Queue and then to the main page, has had its first hook (the one with the picture) removed for copyright / close paraphrasing concerns, and then the replacement first hook was removed for being factually incorrect. This doesn't help in getting timely updates (but it can be debated whether a high turnover rate at DYK is really a good thing anyway, considering the too common problems with and sometimes lack of decent scrutiny of the hooks). Fram (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you put into checking nominations but that doesn't explain why mechanisms have to grind to a halt for a full day. Given the number of nominations we have the hook could've easily been replaced and dealt with later. Thanks anyway to Crisco 1492 for updating the queue. Fuebaey (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at DYK a couple of times before but it's all a bit opaque and there are no clear instructions for wat admins are expected to do there. I can see that some bits of it appear to be automated and others less so, and that there's a backlog - but it could do with someone writing down a step by step guide for admins to follow. I'm happy to help but reluctant to do so as I'm not sure what I need to do there. WaggersTALK 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The backlogs are the fault of those who care about rule enforcement for the sake of rule enforcement, rather than for the sake of encyclopedia-building. Some time back, some people started complaining that we had too much backlog, so they imposed a requirement that self-nominations (the large majority of nominations) must be accompanied by a review of another nomination. Guess what, some nominators made too-hasty reviews that didn't catch problems, so the same complainers started objecting about insufficient reviews, so they imposed long, detailed requirements. Guess what, the whole system became absurdly complicated, a great example of failure to follow the WP:NOTBURO standard, and guess what, the backlogs continued to become worse. Following the rules gets in the way of building an encyclopedia, so I'm no longer contributing or wasting my time helping (except on simple requests like this, if I see them), and just waiting to see if we decide to stop listening to the nattering nabobs of negativism or if they end up destroying it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Arbitration Committee internal procedures

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a change to it's internal rules and procedures regarding arbitrator requests for self-assignment of CheckUser or Oversight permissions. The proposed motion can be viewed on this page, community members are invited to comment on the motion in the appropriate section on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at WP:RPP

done a few - connection is a bit slow so a tad tedious for me waiting. Much appreciated if someone else can chip in. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Article taken from sandbox

Without sounding overly dramatic, what is the process when somebody steals an article from your sandbox? I'm talking about Jack Harper (footballer) which has been entirely lifted (via C&P) by Meeneunos10 (talk · contribs) from User:GiantSnowman/Jack Harper. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still in your sandbox. The other fellow merely copied what you had & beat you to creating the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And in the process, 'merely' omitted to note the source, thereby violating copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my issue, Andy. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A histmerge should be performed. I've tagged the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of these two pages but I would like to hear GiantSnowman's opinion. You must have had a reason to keep the draft in your sandbox without publishing it, so maybe it should be moved back? De728631 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It remained in my sandbox because he is not (yet, in my opinion) notable... GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he replies. In all his edits he's only posted once to a talk page. I'm not fond of non-communicative editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I don't approve of copying content from other people's user space without asking for permission. As to notability, I'd say Jack Harper is borderline notable given that he's been covered by multiple reliable sources. But I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Could WP:CSD#G7 apply here? GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just move it back to your sandbox and delete the redirect? Number 57 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit flummoxed by this, so for clarification - Has this guy just nicked a draft article from Mr. Snowman and passed it off as his own? Are there no policies about this sort of thing? Can't we give him a good slapping behind the bike sheds? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was copyvio. I've been bold and moved it back (and fixed the categories so they show but don't add the article to the categories). Hope I haven't upset anyone but I think that's the best solution. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I thought should be done, but I wasn't sure (hence why I raised it here - and when it happened previously, with a different user, we went through AFD). GiantSnowman 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

NeilN left a good msg to him, I've upped that ante, so they should get the message. Dennis - 2¢ 20:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Doug. I think this is the best solution. But just like GiantSnowman I was thinking along the lines of an AfD. The latter should then preferably have resulted in a move back to user space. But if we can spare some bureaucratic act then that's all the better. De728631 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More generally, if editor A writes a drat in their sandbox, and editor B thinks it is ready to be an article, or that they can contribute to it, editor B is perfectly entitled to move it to user space, or to draft space, or to edit it further. Nobody owns an article. All contributions to WP in any space are irrevocable ,and anyone may use it for any purpose, including the creation of a wikipedia article. sandboxes and draft space are there for protection of incomplete articles against deletion, not to create a private space.

Attribution is of course necessary, and is best provided by moving the page. We routinely move drafts from user space to draft space (formerly, to AfC). I have a number of times moved user sandboxes or unsubmitted drafts to article space if I think they are ready, but the user is not working on them. (It is ofcourse courteous to inform the user if the user is still active)

If the move is by copypaste, the attribution can easily be provided inseveral ways ; a history merge is preferred from a sandbox, because the earlier material might be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is correct... but I think there ought to be a behavioral standard that calls for at least a user talk message prior to moving a draft someone's written entirely themselves to mainspace. Sometimes editors sit on drafts for awhile, for instance because of sourcing concerns, and may even start working on something else (while this has happened to me, I'm not complaining about any specific instance since I'm ultimately fine with the choice of the editor who made the pagemove). I just think that, particularly where the creator is active, and the draft isn't so old as to be G13-eligible, the creator's input (though not necessarily permission) should be sought before moving it out of userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on this thread, excuse the intrusion. Unfortunately the discussion has taken my rather irrational but troubling article creation phobia to a whole new level. It was my understanding that a sandbox was a private user space, a workshop, a garage, where one could create and tinker in peace on work. Editors may not "own" articles but individual editors create the article concept. That is an individual, not a collegiate process. So one could one be working on an article, have the cites, pics, text 90% ready, and then it is taken? How does this explain the scores of "Articles I have created" lists on the talkpages of some of our most prolific content-creators?. There does appear to be an original conceptual "ownership", until an article is released onto mainspace, where it does indeed become common intellectual property, to be worked on by all. I find this concept mildly disturbing. Irondome (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Irondome: is that a thinly veiled accusation of OWNership aimed at myself? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I quote the intro to WP:OWN — Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Yes, you have the legal right to copy someone's sandbox into mainspace, but you absolutely must attribute it, and if you don't (e.g. this situation), you've committed copyright infringement. Copying it to mainspace, with proper attribution, is legal, but it goes against our community norms, and in most cases it's definitely not respectful. The answers to "Is X legal" and "Is X appropriate" are very often significantly different. Nobody's likely to complain if you move content to mainspace from the sandbox of a user who's been inactive for a long time, but (1) you still ought to leave a talk page note, in case the user comes back, and (2) that's because good content ought not be forgotten simply because the user's no longer active. This is quite different from when the user is still active; even if you think its writer has forgotten it, you should simply leave a talk page note, not copy the content to mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the user's page, moving something from someone else's user space "is like a stranger walking up and eating food from your plate at a restaurant, without asking." Even if done with attribution, it is still a rude act. While it doesn't break any copyright policy if done properly, as a behavior, it should be discouraged. You should ask first unless you know the user is no longer active. While none of us owns our user space, there is no question that we each are granted a higher degree of control over it, and this should be respected. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something very wrong about this situation. Until the article is released/published by the author and placed into article space, it is not an "article", and thus is protected by copyright. If it's not that way here, then it should be. OTOH, if an editor is creating an article in their userspace and they allow other editors to help them develop the article, then they share in that copyright, but it's still not an "article" until released, and it is the right of the original author to determine the time of release. We really need to ensure that the author maintains control until they are ready, or they release control voluntarily. They need to give permission.

If a hunter, knowing a fellow hunter was stalking and about to shoot a deer, then shot the deer first, some blows might ensue, or even a grave found later in the forest for such a misdeed. Poaching an article or a deer is a very offensive crime.

We should make it a behavioral policy that poaching someone else's work is sanctionable. We don't allow legal threats between editors for such, otherwise illegal, actions, but we do have other ways of sanctioning misdeeds here. What is illegal and wrong outside of Wikipedia should usually, to some degree. also be considered wrong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I can't see any issue of Copyright since no user owns their talk page or anything else on WP. Also, since only free content can be included on WP then it is impossible to claim copyright on something that no one can claim to own. If I come upon your sand castle on the beach and knock it over, I am a jerk, but I haven't done anything illegal. It would appear that the only real problem here is the notion of who creates an article and who gets credit for actually creating an article. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a debating forum where we explore the meaning of liberty and ownership. The entire issue is that building the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community, and if an editor is slowly developing an article in their user space, then another editor is being disruptive if they choose to move the page or copy/paste it with attribution. Sure, if the author takes a long wikibreak and messages on their talk result in no feedback, it might be appropriate to move a draft from someone's user space. However, the issue here is entirely to do with fostering a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just bloody rude. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethical issue aside, it sounds like you don't understand the copyright situation. You're required to to dual licence all your textual contributions to wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. It doesn't matter whether something is an "article" or not. This includes anything you post to your user page, user talk page, and talk pages. Your comment that I'm replying to for example. This is a fundamental pillar and there's zero chance you're going to change our copyright requirements for contributions. People who want to develop content without freely licencing it are welcome to use their own webhost that allows that, remember wikipedia is not a webhost. (I should clarify I'm not suggesting people should move something someone's developing in a sandbox without asking, but simply that there's no copyright or legal issue. Although people should remember whatever we do here on wikipedia, there's nothing stopping someone using the content somewhere else if they obey the terms of the licence.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A similar situation

Please forgive me for butting in, but I have just discovered a similar situation and am not sure what I should do. I have had a page for a Japanese baseball player in my sandbox for a long time. The page is at User:Athomeinkobe/Kato. Most of it is my translation of the corresponding Japanese wiki page, plus some other facts I have found. It is not ready yet, as I have not finished the translation and want to find some further references, including english references if possible. But I have just discovered that the player in question is no longer a red link Kosuke Kato. I can see that the first version of the page is a direct copy and paste from my sandbox, including all of the untranslated Japanese text. I have advanced my work since then, but nothing substantial has happened to the main article. What should I do? Your advice is appreciated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the article will qualify for WP:CSD#G7 as I'm not sure that [29] quualifies as a substanial edit. Alternatively, perhaps a friendly admin will be willing to do a histmerge, moving the article back to your sandbox and deleting the redirect, e.g. @Dougweller:. As it stands, the article is a copyvio as it doesn't attribute the content to you. If no one does and you finish your sandbox in the meantime and it's ready to be moved, you could request a histmerge from any admin from your sandbox to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is technically a copy vio and you can CSD tag it for G12, pointing back to your copy. You could add a summary pointing back to your sandbox, but if you delete the sandbox, all attribution is lost. You can also histmerge it, which combines them. Regardless, you might point that editor to this discussion. What he did is flatly against policy. I'm not inclined to block over a first time mistake, but making a habit of it would get a block. Dennis - 2¢ 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. I will contact Dougweller when I (finally) finish the work. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I just restored a number of threads, including this one, which had been archived to archive 266 by the bot, and then unarchived, but not restored here. They simply disappeared completely! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Granada#Merger_proposal

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.

---

Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion as am unable to enter into a dialogue. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster didn't attempt to enter into a dialogue. There was no consensus. The original poster proposed a merge, and promptly implemented it, and was reverted, and implemented it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster proposed the merge, and implemented it, and move-warred to implement it again. The claim that there was no attempt at dialogue is literally true, in that the original poster made no attempt to engage in dialogue, but moved-warred to implement a controversial move. (The merge is probably correct, but did require dialogue and consensus.) Recommend a short-term block so that move can be undone while proposed merge is discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There was no move at all; what are you talking about? There was a merger, involving a redirecting of the second page (Timeline of Granada into Granada), which Bye for now reinstated once. What we have here is a simple edit war in a very early stage, with both participants at 1R right now. The claim that Bye for now "made no attempt to engage in dialogue" is absurd – he proposed the merge, with all required notices, and then waited five days, during which no objections were raised. The poor conduct is on the other side: the other editor involved, M2545 (talk · contribs), reverted the merger with a pointer to "WP:CONSENSUS" and "WP:BRD", but in fact didn't point to any such consensus, nor to any attempt to establish such, nor did he make any contribution to the "D" part of "BRD". The failure to engage in dialogue is plainly on his side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do see now that five days did elapse. I don't see any discussion by either party. Was there a Request for Merge or a Request for Comments? Some method of Dispute Resolution should be used. Can this thread be closed with the issue taken either to moderated dispute resolution or an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple content disagreement that doesn't require outside intervention at this stage. If M2545 wishes to raise objections to the merger, they'll simply need to do so, i.e. actually state why they object to it; if and when that happens, the further path of dispute resolution can be considered. In the absence of any such reasoned statement, the issue is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I created the Timeline of Granada article on 5 November 2014. The article as of 11 November 2014 at 9:28 was still at the stub stage, and not given a chance to develop before it was "merged" into the main Granada article. -- M2545 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, on 6 November 2014 on the talk page I objected as follows: "Some events in a city's economic history may not be dramatic, but can be notable nonetheless. See Timeline of Paris for an example of a city timeline with lots of economic, political, cultural, etc. detail. Instead of simply deleting content, please use Template:Relevance-inline or similar tool. Thanks." -- M2545 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the editor Bye for now did not really "merge" timeline content into the Granada article (see revision comparison) but simply deleted it instead. -- M2545 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there are many lists like this (see Category:City_timelines) does not seem to me to necessarily be a reason to keep this one. In fact it might even be seen as a reason to merge/delete some of the other ones. My reasons for removing things like "1910 - Cafe Futbol in business" were explained HERE but they were reverted anyway so I'm not sure of the relevance. As explained on the merger proposal: Anything I consider useful has been transferred to this article from the "Timeline of Granada" so that a redirect to this article can now be implemented. If other editors wish to transfer more information to the main Granada article then I don't see that being a problem as long as they can can justify it to other editors there (sourcing/notability/relevance etc). Anyway we now seem to be agreed, in principle at least, on the merge. --Bye for now (PTT) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement. Timelines complement prose articles. The deleted Granada timeline stub should be restored and given ample time to develop, with contributions from mulitple editors. -- M2545 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe moved to a sandbox page until its creation can be justified? In particular, the Lead section needs to be addressed, as was brought up the the timeline's talk page. --Bye for now (PTT) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the newly-created page "Granada_chronology" should also be covered by this merger proposal. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That page is going to need a history merge with Timeline of Granada. The resulting page should probably be moved to Draft: space so you guys can work on it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - though it will need the agreement of M2545 of course. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, moving to Draft: should be open to discussion, but since Granada chronology appears to be copy-pasted from an old revision of Timeline of Granada, they have to be history-merged, to satisfy attribution requirements. An admin will need to do that, I don't have the tools. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone advise, please, on what happens next? Will an admin now make a decision as to whether or not the two list articles Granada_chronology and Timeline of Granada are to be redirected to Granada#History? --Bye for now (PTT) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I was just going to tag this for history merging, because I forgot that we could do that. Duh. But I see that the new page has now also been redirected (creating a double redirect). @M2545: What is your goal here? Are you abandoning the timeline idea, or do you (and/or Bye for now) want to work on it?

What I'm thinking is, after the histories are merged (important first step), the page can be moved to, say, Draft:Timeline of Granada, and you (both if you're interested) can build it out until it's ready to be moved back to the mainspace. Or submit it through AfC if you prefer, maybe that's not a bad idea. Or, if you're planning on abandoning it, then please tag Granada chronology for G6 or G7 deletion (admins' call) to solve the history split problem. Ivanvector (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivanvector and others, for your attention to this matter. Obviously I think Wikipedia would benefit from a Timeline of Granada article, but am reluctant to continue building it given Bye for now's unhelpful and destructive edits in the past week. I would rather spend precious time and effort working on content that will not be deleted. -- M2545 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a general consensus that these "timeline" historic events lists are a beneficial addition to the encyclopedia, and it looks to me like you're both generally agreed that it can be built out in Draft: space. I think any disagreements here can be chalked up to good-faith misunderstanding, but if I'm wrong about that, best to say now. I interpret that Bye for now has no opposition to building out the list in Draft: space in anticipation of it eventually being moved to mainspace to complement the Granada article, rather than simply being merged into it, based on the discussion above. Am I wrong about that? Ivanvector (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - I have no objections, in principle, to lists in general or to "historic timelines" (which I consider to be a variant of a list). The edit history shows that I did spend some time trying to improve the list but, in trying to reconcile the list creator's objections at Talk:Timeline_of_Granada and adding maintenance tags, I came across this: Ivanvector adds: from WP:LEADFORALIST:

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

and Is the article worth it?.

"Before placing templates on a page it is worthwhile to consider whether it should in fact be included in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Some articles can be tagged for speedy deletion or marked as an article for deletion."

The problem I have with this list is that the lead does not specify what should be included/excluded, leaving it wide open to becoming a magnet for unsourced and/or trivial material. This would inevitably lead to an unbalanced view of the history of Granada city's history wrt relevance/significance/coverage etc. If it were to go through the Draft/AfC process then I can see how these issues would probably be resolved. I can see that - if done well - a Timeline of Granada would then actually complement the article. However I can imagine that, once it were "released into the wild", it would quickly be modified to be the same as all the others. After all, it would be unfair that contributors could add their favourite cafe in Barcelona to WP but not one in Granada, etc. Consequently, unless these others (some examples are amongst this list ) went through the same process, it would probably be a waste of time for those involved. I raised this issue because I was looking for a decision/answer rather than as a job application. If the decision/answer is that these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP then fair enough - I'll just try to stay clear of any topic that involves the history of a city. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) edit: what I meant was if these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP in their current format. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, not to cut you off, you've got valid points, but let's deal with the history merge first, then we can talk about the issues with the article on the article talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The situation right now is that not only has the merge been undone but, as a special bonus, pretty much every edit I made to this list-article has been reverted.[30] But at least I now have the answer/decision, which is: basically, everything I did was wrong. So I'm probably not the best person to contribute anything further to this topic, which I think can be closed now. Please accept my apologies for having wasted your time. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible COI query

I would like to archive all the closed request at WP:RFC/N but, I have either commented on or closed the remaining requests. Would there be a COI issue with me archiving them, doesn't seem to be but, just want to be sure before I do it. Thanx Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do it. I was going to do it, but it's a ridiculously bureaucratic archiving methodology. NE Ent 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

lol :P doing ! Mlpearc (open channel) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tag team uncivility by User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat

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

---

This is a continuation of the saga of the same three (?) editors again disrupting an article's talk page, this time for Stanley Kubrick's, with the same mockery and violation of various WP guidelines, including PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership as they did in a previous ANI. SchroCat and Cassianto have only recently made a few edits to Stanley Kubrick, apparently setting the stage.

• Similar ANI discussion in Sept. 2014.
• Recent continuation of violations in Stanley Kubrick's talk.

As Kubrick is a widely read article and an important director, I'm hoping this kind of disruption can finally be prevented. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: the previous ANI in Sept. was announced on their respective talk pages, but was immediately deleted. So this time I'll just add the notice to the Kubrick talk page instead. --Light show (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide difs for all these serious allegations? Reading the dispute on the Kubrick talk page, it seems like you are in a content dispute that you are losing in. Secret ^account 19:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the majority of comments by the three users violate one of more the the guidelines. I'd be diffing almost all their comments, which would take them out of context. None of the problems for this ANI are about content, they're about behavior. --Light show (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see on that article is the behavior of Light show. Bludgeoning, digging in, unwilling to consider other perspectives. All this gnashing of teeth and digging in when everyone disagrees with you is a waste of time and does no service to the reader. If you can't constructively edit an article, you shouldn't get in the way of those that can. Even dragging a content dispute to WP:AN (and not even WP:ANI), shows a desire to ramp up drama more than solve problems. You are right, there is a behavior problem on that page, but it seems the problem is you. And the backhanded sockpuppet claims simply because everyone agrees that Light show is wrong is an ad hominem attack. I would support a topic ban here, just to be done with it. If you can't work with others on an article, go work on something else. Dennis - 2¢ 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend some serious research into this matter. Okay, Light show isn't the good guy here. But it is a familiar pattern to me to see all thee show up when you have a conflict with just one of them. The Banner talk 23:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Research away Banner, I think you'll find three different IP address's which will counter your unfounded suspicions. And then you can look as stupid as Light show does now. Cassianto^talk 10:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing IP addresses is simple nowadays. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are you accusing one or more of us of being the same person, Lightshow? Please have the decency to stop making snide comments hinting at it, and just come out and say it. – SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this your only user name? --Light show (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not that it is any of your business, but yes, this is my only name, and my only account. I have also met Cassianto (along with four other editors, two of whom are admins). I have not met Doc Blogeld, but I know that he is neither me, nor Cassianto. – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP policy makes it everyone's business. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the admins he is referring to, I think. I am happy to confirm that SchroCat and Cassianto are not the same person. Wehwalt was the other admin present, on a trip to London earlier this year, and Tim riley and Brianboulton were also present for a very convivial drink or four. Light show: when in a hole, stop digging. If you want to dig further, then tunnel over to WP:SPI, if you really have any evidence. Otherwise you're just making yourself look very silly. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

By ignoring all the issues for this post, you and others imply that anyone requesting that teamish editors abide by WP guidelines to act civily, to avoid PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership, is going too far and looks silly. It's not silly, but sane, in my neck of the woods. --Light show (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Light show. Isn't it obvious? I'm not commenting on the behaviour of you or anyone else on that talk page because, knowing Schro and Cass socially, I don't think I ought to take sides. I'm certainly not going to give you a reason to complain about the growing consensus by joining in now. Your nonsense allegations about sockpuppets should have been dropped by now. Period. Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • When you make an accusation like this the "serious research" is up to you. If you don't, or can't, provide evidence to support your statement there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to it. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • [31]] for instance, And the saga around Kilmurry Ibrickane where a completely valid article about a Roman-Catholic parish was merged because the lads preferred an article about a civil parish but, to my opinion, had not enough content to do this. The Banner talk 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah I was wondering last night how long it would be before you turned up Banner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. User:Cassianto 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)" --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think that Cassianto and myself are the same person don't you? LMAO. I'm pretty sure Tim riley would laugh to high heaven at anybody who thought that. It's almost as nutty as thinking Tim and Brian Boulton are the same person... Would I review my own article here LOL. I don't think you honestly think that, you just find it hard to believe multiple people think you're a shoddy editor. Myself, Cass and Schro have a pretty similar sense of humour and generally seem to have a similar outlook on here. And we don't tolerate editors who don't know how to write articles and make those who do feel guilty about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been asked twice whether you use other user names, and both times chose not to reply. And again, this has almost nothing to do with content issues or even Sellers, who, BTW, was a great actor. It's about a blatant failure to act civily, as explained in the first sentence above. --Light show (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's about a blatant failure to act civily, " Exactly. And you blew it as soon as you started bringing up Sellers on the Kubrick article and assuming bad faith before I'd even begun. Virtually every post of yours had a personal attack on the work we put into it. Your attitude towards the hard work we put into the article is disgusting, even if you don't think anything of it. If from the get go you'd been like Masem or somebody none of this would have ever happened. You really need to take a long hard look at yourself. This is going to be three different bans now. Keep up the way you act and edit and I'm sure that before long it will be a full ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have enough evidence to take this to SPI, stop making accusations. There are more than 10 of us who have supported the proposal. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets too.... We hope (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Light show, shudder the thought, but have you ever considered that you may be related to us? Does that make you a sock puppet? Cassianto^talk 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this how you treat a long lost cousin - having them banished? --Light show (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about that before you brought your vendetta to the table and tried to put me off improving the Kubrick article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since I thought I was posting an incident in the right place, but it isn't, I can move this discussion if requested, or someone else can. --Light show (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's already here, we won't be slaves to format, but that doesn't address the issue that you present on that talk page, of being a combative editor who, if he can't have his way, will stand in the way of others. I've never edited that nor any article like it, and reading through that talk page, that is exactly the impression I get, someone using obstruction as a tool to get their way. And you keep dragging up this Sellers article, what is that about? Dennis - 2¢ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Light show would bring us to ANI over "behaviour" when he showed the worst kinda of bad faith towards my intentions to develop the article even before I'd started on it! I genuinely meant it when I say if he showed good faith and willingness to work on it together to the benefit of the article I'd be up for it and treat him more decently, but it's basically the fact that he takes a swipe at the Sellers article on every post that is terribly annoying and counterproductive towards development. He's obsessed to the point it's taken over much of what he does. It doesn't stand a chance while he's around. When I got to this article BTW it was a massive 190kb of mainly quotes. He's best kept away from Kubrick articles in discussion and in contribution. Any editor who thinks his Sellers article is superior to the current FA has no place editing wikipedia and is an obstacle to quality development. He just doesn't get what a quality article should contain and read like to the point I think he's not compatible with editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Light show from Stanley Kubrick related articles

There has been clear evidence of a vendetta targeted towards Dr. Blofeld that has carried on from the previous Peter Sellers' article. The following revisions suggest that Light show is unwilling to assume good faith whilst editing on this topic, and this is also suggesting that he is trying discourage Blofeld from editing it whenever he starts again.

• [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

He even removed 15 kb of the text Dr. Blofeld wrote on the Kubrick article recently. This appears to be part of his tactics in order to frighten away Blofeld from resuming editing. This is clearly disruptive behaviour and proving to be a major obstacle to the improvement of the article:

• [41]

One final diff here, this shows that Light show is attempting to sabotage another "good-faith" edit made by Dr. Blofeld through criticism:

• [42]

Light show also insists that Blofeld, Schro and Cassianto "totally ruined" the Peter Sellers article by taking it to FA and believes that his version of the article here should be restored. In comparison, look at the the current article! It's obvious now that there is a vendetta going on, and with that this will impede any development of the Kubrick article as well as labelling positive quality improvement as "ruining it". This behaviour is clearly disruptive, several admins including John and Masem have expressed concern with Light show's editing patterns (notably excessive quote farming). Therefore I propose a topic ban on all Stanley Kubrick related articles indefinitely (provisionally), however I think it's more suitable for a sysop to decide on the length. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef - I've been reading through more diffs, I don't think persuasion is going to work here, and my first duty is to the article, not his ability to edit it. Indef doesn't mean forever, just until the community decides it is wise to revert itself. Dennis - 2¢ 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I think this is the next step. --John (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef This is just part of a larger pattern- indef at Peter Sellers, indef at uploading images. Anyone who doesn't agree with him has to deal with this type of behavior from him. We hope (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I have no alternative but to support the ban. I tried to get Light show to collaborate and discuss the article but he can't avoid taking a swipe at Sellers and its contributors on every post.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef is the next best solution for now, Ofcourse as Dennis says indef doesn't mean forever so all can be changed providing you edit in a constructive manner but till then topic ban it is. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the knowledge that the ban can be lifted at request at some point in the future with evidence that disruptive editing has ceased. Also suggest that perhaps other articles being edited by the individuals involved be watched to see if disruptive behavior carries over into them. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef -- Wikipedia is a very difficult place to be when Light show is around, as this boomerang has proved. Dr. B has spent a long time working on Kubrick in his sandbox for the good of the project, and along comes Light show to get in the way. I think this ban is needed in order to allow Kubrick to develop into something good. Cassianto^talk 22:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. People should be able to work constructively on an article without such harassment: let Doc B do what he has to do, and then constructively help in polishing, tweaking and re-working a few bits, not engage in mass edits of his work and block any work being undertaken. I can't see that being the case here, as there seems to be a lack of good faith in Light Show's approach to Blofeld's work. Next time, please notify people on their talk page: I do not have Kubrick watchlisted, so it's only by chance I looked in on the talk page. I'm also troubled by the grossly unfounded and snidey accusations of sockpuppetry, which happened in the thread, and here: provide proof, or withdraw. Finally, if you're going to accuse people of their behaviour, provide diffs. You haven't done so, because there is nothing to report. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As with the Peter Sellers article there is far too much wikidrama and wikilawyering emanating from Lightshow. I am not sure when this theory that "consensus building is the same thing as tag team ownership" of articles came about but that simply is not the case. MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reviewing applicable talk page. NE Ent 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Open the pod bay doors, HAL. Er, support, per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• What's happening, there's so much drama and dust I mean, Support, also per above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that Lightshow is on his/her way to being banned from a second article. How many articles -- or groups of related articles -- is a person banned from editing before we consider a community ban? (I'm not advocating for a block of anyone at this time, but this is a possible outcome everyone -- especially the original poster -- should consider at this point.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. Interventions / sanctions should be the minimal possible that might do the job (WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment). Obviously if the behavior is repeated on a third article we'll likely be have a much shorter / quicker discussion. NE Ent 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LS does have a history of adding quote farms to articles and image problems of course, but the main problem with this is that he's unable to drop the Sellers grudge whenever he interacts with any one of us. I don't have anything personally against him but I think it's very clear he's attempting to put me off editing the Kubrick article and like Sellers I think it's more to do with OWN issues than real concerns about degradation of quality. It's not acceptable. He doesn't like editors removing quotes he's added or rewriting into a proper article with flowing prose. He's under the impression that wikipedia biographies should consist mainly of quotes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Update the ban discussion link for David Beals

Could someone update User:David Beals to point to the archived discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#David Beals)? I feel a bit weird making an edit request on his talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you —Soap— 04:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Need administrator eyes

It would be nice if more administrators could watch WP:GS/GG/E, and help respond to requests for enforcement of the Gamergate sanctions. Thanks for your potential future assistance! RGloucester — ☎ 05:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone close this please

The move discussion has at Talk:Blonde_bombshell_(disambiguation) has lasted 11 days now, instead of being closed after 7. Five say "support" or "rename", while no one has said "oppose". Dream Focus 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A move request or CfD being closed in a timely manner. LOL. That's been one of the casualties of the admin exodus of the last couple years. While we're on the topic, there are a couple of category discussions from October 12 I'd like an admin to close. pbp 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Moved from WP:ANI

 – NE Ent 23:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There were many edits made after consensus.[43]-[44]-[45]-[46] I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Wikipedia by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 0RR seems unreasonably restrictive, as Fut.Perf. points out it gives the upper hand to the POV warriors. Wouldn't full protection have been better? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. I would ask anyone commenting here to take the trouble to read the actual restrictions I imposed, which are at Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. They are written in English, in plain text, so this should be easy to accomplish. If, after reading the actual restrictions and not the very poor summary presented above, anybody has any concerns, they should message me at my talk as stated there. Since the restrictions were placed on 20 October, a grand total of 0 editors have done this. Not even the two editors I have blocked so far have complained. Coming straight here to complain about my (successful) admin actions under a misleading summary is a strange thing to do. I am a little concerned that User:Arthur Rubin's actions (which include an out-of-process full protection) here arise from some more sinister motive than lack of competence but for now I will assume good faith and put it down to that. --John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple editors assumed that you would respond to the multiple requests for your involvement on the article talk page. This discussion on this noticeboard seems a good way to clear up the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John: I did read your wording of the restrictions before I commented here, and my criticism above does apply to them as worded. A "no reverts" and "no major edits without prior consensus" rule is a recipe either for slow degradation or standstill of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John, your snide and sarcastic "they are written in English, in plain text" is the sort of thing you would (rightly) have taken someone else to task for. Lead by example. 216.3.101.62 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• fwiw, i had just recently started editing the article when the 0RR was imposed. i objected, as did Bobrayner and as did] Yobol, and when John remained firm, I said I would not participate under a 0RR condition. I stopped watching it (although I did pop in to !vote in an RfC that I saw notice of). Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors raised concerns about the 0RR restriction for precisely the same reasons as noted above, with unfortunately little direct response. I have also largely ignored what has been going on on that page due to said restriction. Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem without driving off experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair I did not read John's restrictions before I commented above, but I have now, and I stand by my comment. Other editors' concerns about what's considered a revert are valid. If I'm working on a page where anons are repeatedly inserting nonsense claims, and any corrective action I take comes with a reasonable risk that some admin is going to interpret it as a revert and block on sight, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Besides, isn't WP:0RR meant to be applied to seriously edit-warring editors, not to pages? Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Arthur Rubin, under the circumstances, imposing 0RR was a mistake. Fully protecting the article was responsible a decision, and modifying the restriction to make it 1RR would remedy the situation. Alternatively, Fut Perf's restrictions could be be implemented instead. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• "No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR" is what User:John put in place. That is an unworkable restriction on most articles, and certainly not one about a pseudoscience. A 0RR restriction places the crackpots on an even footing with legitimate editors, and that prevents building an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about others, but this page has to do nothing with pseudoscience. I was notified about zero revert soon after I had edited. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me.[47]

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I get the picture. I see now that the ArbCom tag was added here on 30 October by User:Roxy the dog, one of the problematic editors at that page, well after I had become involved in keeping the peace there. I later had to block said editor for repeatedly insulting other editors there. Then just now I get an ArbCom notice from User:QuackGuru, (diff above) another problematic contributor who I have also had to block. The problems there, quite apart from any perceived COI involved, is that the question whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not is one of several things the two entrenched camps have been arguing about for ages. If the tag is to stick there, I might step back and let Arbcom administer this as that is what they are paid the big bucks to do. I wonder though whether Roxy and QG need further sanctions for this game-playing and battleground behaviour. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just about fell out of my metaphorical chair when I read that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Their 'thinking' cannot be found even among the smallest minority. Sadly if someone is convinced to think that 2 and 3 is 4, and keeps repeating the same miscalculation, we should seek solution. Page was created 10 years ago and there was no discussion about pseudoscience on its talk until last month. Only RTD believes and his intention is to plaster the article with 'this pseudo scientific claptrap', it is possible that he would receive some support from the editors who haven't researched. Bottom line is that they cannot really form any compatibility, nor there is any comparison with any other pseudoscience. No expert would agree. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That the current practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific would appear to be beyond doubt. Surely you aren't claiming that there is any sound scientific basis for it?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Then those scientists become pseudoscientists if they have plagiarized Ayurveda or any Iron age and older practices for making a new form. Depends upon research. నిజానికి (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the person who described the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.... We are not here to discuss article content, but thank you for making your position clear on that. I myself am strictly neutral on the article content and will do whatever I can to enforce proper editing and decorum there. If 0RR is felt to be unhelpful by neutral admins such as Fut.Perf. and PhilKnight we can strike that. We can of course still block for edit-warring. The more serious question is should an editor who is involved not just in editing the page but in insulting those he disagrees with, be allowed to add this tag while the article's status is being discussed? Should it be allowed to stay? I haven't seen this situation before and am genuinely curious how other respected and neutral admins think it should best be handled. --John (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• e/c I find it rather sad that for the third time today I have found John to be dishonest in his edits. His actual reasons for my block, per the log, are, "harassment and personal attack" and as he himself stated in the discussion following said block ""when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"". For the third time this evening, we expect better behaviour from our admins. I might also add that a fellow admin of John's stated that "I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. - It is time to examine your own behaviour, John. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Roxy the dog, calling others a fringe editor is not personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Blades, just so you know this isn't a personal attack, it is very nice to see you here. I would just like to point out that I'm a fringe editor too. Best regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sounded like fringe advocate when you were referring to others. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Blades, what an interesting comment. If I may be allowed to make a polite observation on it, you do indeed appear to be advocating fringe theories both here, and on the Ayurveda Talk page. Would you not agree? Be safe. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes you have a point there. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, my position is quite clear: we are here to make an encyclopedia. We certainly have battleground articles, and it's important to make certain that some behavioural norms are adhered to. That does not include making it simpler for people to portray myth and superstition as if it were science, and that's what a 0RR restriction does: it treats the two as being equivalent. Our goal here is to ensure that we maintain civil discourse while ensuring that reality-based edits prevail.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you said it yourself, we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight pseudoscience. An article in a permanent state of edit-warring deserves 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ensuring that pseudoscience is not described as factual is an essential component of being an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would be best done on the talk page instead of turning the article into a battleground. -A1candidate (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problems could have been solved in a single day, if we were going to follow the consensus and the long discussions that have been made about hardly 4 issues. But what I have seen is that even if 10 people are in agreement, there is always one, mostly Roxy the Dog, who disrupts the process. John is actually correct if he claims that Roxy the Dog is gaming and battling. I would like to add that this page never had any edit conflict before 18 October, this year. One day, Dominus_Vobisdu had removed long standing content from this article, with the summary "This whole section is unsourced, but comparisons to real medicine are egregious OR and POV)",[48] yet there was no OR and POV and section was actually sourced, all he did was remove the translated terms. After I added more citations to each,[49] he reverted it again[50] without even reading the citation and said "Must be MEDRS sources", same thing was done by Roxy the Dog,[51] "None are WP:MEDRS". Though none of these required MEDRS, and when I brought it to talk page, I only had a one-liner from Roxy the dog, it was "e/c none of those comply," I had to bring it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, where the consensus was established to include these terms, yet, both Dominus and Roxy the dog had started to edit war, they were not discussing about the removal of this longstanding content. That is why the page had to be under 0rr restriction. Today Roxy tells that there was no consensus[52] but he is alone opposing these edits, at least since 18th October. Whenever Roxy the dog was asked about the reasons behind his opposition to this kind of common information that has been cited with reliable sources, he could done nothing about it but refer to comments of Dominus Vobisdu,[53] though they lacked any policy backed rationale, and approached Wikipedia:DONTLIKE. Roxy is ignoring that clear consensus on Medicine project, still pushing that irrelevant comment of Dominus Vobisdu and telling others(Jayaguru-Shishya) to "stop being disruptive",[54] right after coming from a block. I have never seen even a single edit from Roxy the dog, that could benefit the page. All he has done is revert others' edits and distort. Of course some kind of sanction is needed for Roxy the dog. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think sourced text should be in the article:

The talk page discussion is not helping. Click here to read the text and sources.

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as Francis Zimmermann, Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected". In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead. Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects. Quackwatch states "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe." References

• The talk page discussion is going nowhere. Maybe a group of admins can decide what should go in the article. What do others think? The 0RR restrictions are not helping with improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• With the majority of editors disagreeing with those changes, including the last 2 newly proposed paragraphs that have been rejected a few times. It seems like you believe that consensus is based upon how much you have misused the noticeboards or how much you rebelled for your preferred version. That's why John highlighted your battlefield approach. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a specific disagreement with the proposal based on WP:PAG? I don't think so. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying what I said before. Because you are pretending that you have skipped every single explanations that has been provided to you by number of editors on the talk(page) and you need an explanation here, I wouldn't be copying that whole to this noticeboard. I have rechecked the relevant section and multiple editors were involved in building up a summary. You can help there, after reading and reviewing that discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lifting 0RR restriction

It's pretty apparent that the 0RR restriction has very little support. Since John refuses to lift it (see User talk:John#Ayurveda restrictions), what's the mechanism? Ivanvector, Arthur Rubin, Fut.Perf.?—Kww(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I think Philknight can suggest something good. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Though John really put the hammer down it does seem he had a call for action. How about mandatory BRD? After the revert don't add it back without a consensus. Bold, remove, and discuss to get a consensus, if you can't get a consensus on the talk page take it to one of the multiple venues for dispute resolution. That along with some of the other restriction John set in place: No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to an uninvolved Admin or to WP:AN/I. All business on this particular article. No trash talk, just content. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've got no objection to a "no trash talk" restriction, but enforcing BRD isn't very different from 0RR. The conclusion from our Arbcom decision on pseudoscience is that we needed to take measures to ensure that our policy of neutrality was not manipulated to favour distortion of reality.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• BRD seems very different to 0RR to me - BRD is effectively 1RR (it has an "R" in it), and that's a mile away from allowing quackery to be added and not reverted without discussion. Given that the onus is on the contributor of content to justify it, 1RR/BRD seems to me like the limit of what is sensible in terms of revert restrictions. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's agreement among neutral admins here that 0RR has no consensus, and John refuses to acknowledge or suggest an alternative, I think another admin is warranted in overriding John's restriction. Though I'm not an admin myself and personally haven't encountered this situation before. But what should it be lifted to? Full protection? PC/2 doesn't have consensus for use, and I don't think would help here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please lift it. John doesn't appear to be able to look at his decision to impose 0RR in an objective manner, nor look at options: User_talk:John#Ayurveda_-_At_your_request. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well how about 1RR with the additional restrictions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:The BRD isn't different from 0RR, except that the editors are able to edit the article. Challenged stuff goes out. It can't go in without a consensus. Honestly there will be little effective means to take measures to ensure that pseudoscience isn't used to as you say distort our reality(you made me laugh there.) There's stuff to do but none of it's guranteed to work and I'm not sure it's in our ability here to do them. Such as we could set up a review committee with specific instructions. It just seems to me though that we can trust some of the systems already in place. They ain't perfect. The main thing that comes to mind with that suggestion is that it ends the disruption, it encourages working towards a consensus, and it does give room to work. I lean to the presumption that if you can't get a consensus it might not need to be in the article. There are pitfalls to this presumption but we do have a consensus based system. The system has the potential for abuse but most any system does. The (for lack of better term) partisan fringe editors could go to a world is flat article and challenge the mention that it was once thought that the world was flat. Pretty much though that is Pointy and pretty much just a bad faith negotiation tactic. That would suggest to me that such an editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia to me. There would be enough rope here for one to hang themselves.But honestly I'm just offering an idea to forward this conversation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming John's restriction is under the aegis of arbcom discretionary sanctions, as (as far as I know -- someone please provide a link to policy if I'm wrong) an admin can't unilaterally place restrictions on a page unless it's under General or Discretionary Sanctions. As described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, an overturn discussion requires a clear consensus of admins here (on AN) or AE or ARCA. Rather than wikilawyer over whether "ANI" counts as part of the "AN" clause, I've simply moved the discussion here. I agree with Kww et. al. the 0RR should be overturned for the reasons they give but my non-admin vote doesn't count, of course. NE Ent 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent That arbcom sanctions template was added by Roxy the dog,[55] after 12 days when John had imposed 0rr.[56] Bladesmulti (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't determined whether an article is in the scope of the sanctions or not. It isn't required in order to issue sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct and article was always under Wikipedia:ARBIP because it has WikiProject-India. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to wikilawyer either, but technically all of the comments in this thread prior to NE Ent's at 23:27 14/11/14 were made at AN/I, not at AN. You just moved them here. Sorry, you brought it up. I'm also in favour of overturning as a non-admin, fwiw. I'm in favour of either the 1RR or enforced-BRD proposals, although I think they are functionally the same. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing there about 1RR vs. enforced-BRD. Since the discussion about what to do with the article is proceeding on the article talk page, and John is participating, let me leave this with a comment that I am opposed to 0RR in general per the above, and a suggestion that we close this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to close this thread before the 0RR is replaced by a potentially helpful restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To suggest that John is participating at the Talk page is over egging the pudding by a considerable margin. He has posted once since October 19th, has never answered questions or pings, and has stated that he does not watch the page.Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'd hate to see what 'not participating' is -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He posted today, slightly modifying his restrictions. Still, he's essentially said there can be no edits without consensus, and reverts only under strict conditions, yet the page is not full-protected. It's even more of a mess than 0RR - now nobody can really be sure if their revert is going to be considered in violation, or even if their edit is going to be considered a revert, or if they're going to be considered part of whatever team the admin decides is edit-warring, and now it's all also subject to WP:ARBPS enforcement so editors can be handed a long block after barely a warning if their edit falls afoul of these open-to-interpretation restrictions. If I were an admin, I'd be afraid to sanction anyone for fear of being dragged before Arbcom for misinterpreting John's conditions. There's a consensus that 0RR should be removed, and technically John did that, so I guess he can do what he wants. I'm not going anywhere near that article, personally, but I hadn't been going to anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a diff from John's talk page, following a comment from John on my talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff above does not say what I thought it said. It seemed to support all the behavioural evidence presented. I apologise for misinterpreting. I have attempted to strike my comment above, but it looks kludgy. I would welcome anybody editing that to show me how I should have best done it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been misbehavior and deviation from Wikipedia policy on this article all around, by both sides of the dispute and by John. The article needs a reboot with an influx of new editors and new administrators. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell 0RR was imposed by John without the authority to do so. Only ArbCom or community consensus has the authority to impose a general sanction such as that. As such there are no valid extra restrictions on Ayurveda beyond standard discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." He has now removed the 0RR restriction (as per Talk:Ayurveda#Update), the 3 restrictions left I believe the first two are not imposed by John but just standard WP policy (WP:Edit warring, WP:Civility) imposed on all pages (And through discretionary sanctions can be enforced by any uninvolved admin). I have questions about the last restriction added "Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand." This does not appear to be standard WP policy. Normal policy is Bold, Revert, Discuss. While I agree its usual for major changes to be talked about in the talk page first, that is not usually something that an admin can impose through discretionary sanctions. As such I wonder where the authority to impose this comes from? --Obsidi (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Re: 0RR was imposed by John without the authority to do so. As you mentioned the article is under standard discretionary sanctions which specifically says, "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That part is about sanctions of individual editors, but you are right in policy under Page restrictions at least as it applies to the 0RR. Still page restrictions are not as broad as "any other reasonable measure". It does talk about the "addition or removal of certain content", I guess its at least arguable that this applies (the addition of major changes), although that seems to be focused on specific content not so generalized. --Obsidi (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Close Review Media Viewer 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.

---

I request a review of the close at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I am the author of the RfC.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. No action had been taken on this outcome. Many people were demanding respect for consensus itself, and demanding this RfC reach resolution.

I attempted discussion with the closer here on his talk page. The closer immediately invited me to take it to Administrator's Notice board. Nonetheless I attempted to pursue positive discussio ns with him because Policy says that's what we're supposed to do. I even defended him when someone jumped in with a hostile comment. The closer simply decided ignore me, without even the courtesy of informing me that no answer was forthcoming. Brief discussion resumed after I accepted his invitation to take things here. I now understand he disengaged because of the intruding hostile comment, but he still should have shown me some common courtesy.

RfC Question 1 ended 64 Support 32 Oppose. This is an exact 2-to-1 outcome, 67%. The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

"Reaffirm June_2014_RfC": This involves evaluation of whether the previous RfC was valid and whether any intervening events had invalidated it, establishing that it was a standing outcome still awaiting resolution. If it is deemed to be a standing result awaiting resolution, then it is merely question of community choice to issue a statement of affirmation. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

"Implement June_2014_RfC": The RfC question and the RfC arguments were specifically requesting that the original RfC be resolved. This is significant. Many people were focused on the principal of respecting and resolving an established consensus, rather than focused on Media Viewer itself. This RfC explicitly contemplated that participants may have cast an Oppose on the issue of disable-by-default, while supporting this RfC because they insist upon respect for carrying out an established consensus. This RfC explicitly considered participants might have Supported on the issue of disable-by-default itself, while believing there was cause not to follow through with that RfC under the current circumstances. The issue of wanting Consensus to be respected and the issue of preferred media viewer setting are not trivially interchangeable. The RfC was explicitly intended to allow people to cross the lines on those two issues when participating. The questions invite different arguments, and those arguments need to be properly evaluated as such.

I want to make a comparison here. An anonymous IP can wander onto the talk page of a protected article, spot a standing consensus-edit-request that has gone unresolved, and simply go over to Administrator Noticeboard to request an admin grab their mop and carry out the routine maintenance task of implementing that still-standing protected-page-edit-request. Carrying out a standing RfC result is a routine maintenance task. Consensus was applied in creating that standing result. A request for implementation of a standing result needs no consensus, it can be a request by one person. This RfC is seeking a routine community-consensus to issue a formal call for an admin to step up and complete that pending routine maintenance task on the previous RfC. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

Any change to the close on RfC Question 1 clearly triggers a reevaluation of RfC Question 2. Question 2 should be consensus support, or consensus support except bullet point 6. Bullet point 6 was poor drafting on my part. 6 was not intended to have any effect itself, it merely intended to reflect the expiration of the 7 day hold on implementation from Question 1.

A final note on the situation. The June_2014_RfC is a standing result, which any admin might step forward to fulfill at any time. Given the percentages in the community there is zero likelyhood of establishing a contrary consensus in the foreseeable future. That result is going to stand indefinitely, until someone does step forward to implement it. An affirmative close on this RfC as a whole imposes a mandatory 7 day prohibition on implementation, and a mandatory attempt to work with the WMF on to resolve this. Alsee (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close This was closed a while ago and the close was within discretion. Moreover, there was no policy rationale that was given for the WP:Vote that was held by Alsee in her/his nominating statement or otherwise (see, WP:CONLIMITED), and it expressly contradicted the plain language of WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never participated in a close review before, is customary for participants in the RfC itself to be casting Endorse close?? And is it also customary for them to essentially copy-paste their RfC Support/Oppose comments here? I was hoping the process here might involve..... I dunno.... maybe consideration of why I assert the close was incorrect. Alsee (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

endorse close in this sense means endorse the closing rational in this situation. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understood that. What I was wondering is why we don't simply save time and copy-paste all of the participant Support/Oppose comments here. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. To overturn you must show an abuse of discretion, which usually involves a breach of policy but since your proposal had no policy rationale there, you cannot make any such showing. I certainly did not analyse the closer's discretion as a participant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was applying, but did not quote WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. For example this goes directly to "The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses", "Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold", and "close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated", and probably other points. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There does not appear to be a misunderstanding, nor does any of that cure the defect that the proposed vote had no policy rationale. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "abuse of discretion". No one is suggesting abuse of any sort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

What? "Abuse of discretion" is a common phrase, it means did someone act outside of their discretion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. When there's a 2:1 ratio against the close, the closer has an obligation to explain why the predominant conclusion had such a weak foundation as to be disregarded. There's no problem with closing RFCs against the popular count, but doing so with a vague handwave is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note Question 2 has been archived here.

Overturn close without prejudice. Speaking for myself I looked at that debate, and because I saw the overwhelming support decided not to vote on Q1 (IIRC). It seems to me that the Q1 would require a closely reasoned close to be "no consensus" especially when "no consensus" has the same effect as "oppose". It also seems (without close examination) that Q2 might reasonably have a no-consensus close, but it should be given a proper close, even if Q1 fails because it speaks to community resolve. In other words, we may wish to say to the Foundation "The community believes that due to changed circumstances it is now acceptable to have MV as the default, but we wish to make it clear that we still believe that we should have the final say on configuration done through wiki-pages." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

the main issue with overturning the close is that there is no possible result from doing so. Yes, we could ask the foundation to do so, but WP:CONEXEPT will come into play (as a policy on this sort of issue, I weighed it accordingly). If the close is changed, it's only to cause more friction with the WMF, and the accompanied dramafest. I've explained the rest of my rational for the close already in various places, if people want to know more, then I'll try and explain. However, if people get hostile, then I'm not going to engage further. This did include the events after last time, showing there is no positive resolutions to come out of this for either side. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann you say you explained your rationale in "various other places". Could you point me where to look, aside from your talk page? I would also appreciate it if you would explicitly address my Review Request reasoning. You have not even indicated that you disagree with it, much less given any reason you think it is incorrect.

The only argument I see you adding here is a desire to avoid drama. I would like to note that your closing statement explicitly contemplates another RfC and multiple Oppose statements explicitly provide justification to start another RfC extremely soon. This RfC had 67% support. Leaving this closed as no-consensus 'with a three percent justification simply imposes the drama of yet another RfC, making supporters even more pissed off at the repeated denial of consensus. Alsee (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes; A future RfC where there is a possible outcome. There is no outcome, nor any means to show one; The WMF responded to the oppose points, which is something else that affects consensus; If someone improves an article at AfD, to the point where the issues no longer exist, would it still be deleted? WP:ROPE seems relevant here - if they improve it, then it's for the better, otherwise we can discuss this after the latest rounds of improvements are finished. There is no way we can (or will be able to) implement the consensus. Also, please stop vote counting; This was an RfC, the clue is in the word "comment", so it is not a vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, the problem is that you are giving extreme weight to an argument that is completely bogus: if the software isn't in acceptable condition now, it shouldn't be default now. If the WMF actually comes up with something useful in the future, then they can discuss making it the default at that future time, but what they may do in the future has no bearing on what we should do today. Overriding numerical counts is certainly acceptable, but your reasoning for doing so is without merit.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, no. Mdann52 was required by WP:CONSENSUS policy to take the views of the WMF into account - so the characterization of 67% is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, a 2-to-1 outcome is a damn solid consensus and a closer needs a damn good reason to deny it. You cannot tell me to "stop vote counting" when your given justification for refusing a consensus close was that 2-to-1 was 3% short of bogus 70% threshold. I explained on your talk page why 70% was invalid, and you stopped responding. After filing my Review Request I indicated on your talk page that I was curious to hear your response to it. You didn't answer. I asked you above to explicitly address the review request reasoning. You have failed to do so. That is three times you have failed to deny it was clear error. If you do not state that you disagree with the cause for review and give a reason, then I am going to change my Overturn Close reason to "Closer does not dispute that he mis-evaluated the question and incorrectly applied a 70% threshold for consensus". Either change your close to reflect consensus, or participate productively here and explain how 70% is valid. Alsee (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

70% is a generally accepted threshold elsewhere (eg. RfA) for showing clear consensus. Here, as it is less than 70%, I looked into the reasoning a bit deeper than I otherwise would (this is standard practice I use elsewhere too). 70% is not a brightline, rather an advisory I use for working out rough consensus. Overall I base my closures on the discussion, not the ratio of !votes or whatever. In this case, including what the WMF said, there is not a consensus to do this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page you justified the 70% because "Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support". Maybe I'm reading waaay too much into your latest comment, but does your more general explanation for 70% here reflect an acceptance that the close statement should be directed to "Reaffirming and Implementing June_2014_RfC" rather than "implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer"? I would consider that a meaningful step up in accuracy. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you took CONEXCEPT into account and gave it significant weight, your close is defective. If you look into the rationale for the policy (which, by the way, was added by an employee of the WMF without discussion), it's to prevent the community from demanding something contrary to fundamental principles or demanding something with unreasonable technical costs, neither of which is the case here. CONEXCEPT has NEVER been applied in this manner before. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm presumably the alleged WMF employee being insulted here with implications of underhanded behavior, I will point out that CONEXCEPT was created two months before my first edit, and that it was discussed not only at the time of its original addition but also later, e.g., here, and always reaffirmed (and often improved).

I have never had any reason to edit any policy in my capacity as a non-employee independent contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation. What you are falsely calling my addition is almost word-for-word what Ring Cinema proposed on the talk page, and Ring's words were discussed here in Archive 14, just like my edit summary said they were. There were five editors involved in that two-thousand-word-long discussion (which is more than typical for a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS), and nobody involved in that discussion was working with the WMF at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. 70% threshold for consensus was not within reasonable discretion, and other reasons listed in review request. Alsee (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Clarification: Closing policy provides for things such as cause to discard improper votes and policy arguments to trump nonpolicy arguments. I meant simply assigning an arbitrary 70% threshold in a close that fails to provide a dang good rationale is not within reasonable discretion. Alsee (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overturn close It was closed against consensus and it doesn't appear Conexempt would apply KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn - I almost voted to support yesterday, as I tend to give a lot of leeway to the closer, but when you are closing against the count, you have to explain better. I've made the same mistake at least once, and I voted against this particular close, but my conclusion here isn't based on what his conclusion is, nor do I want a second bit of the apple, I just want a close that takes the time to explain itself, and supports itself in policy. Whether his conclusion is right or wrong, we really don't have enough information to know how he came to it. Closing a contentious debate like this needs a pretty solid explanation, particularly when it goes against very strong numbers. On the technical aspects alone, I think it goes against our expectations and should be revisited by someone else. Considering it spawned an Arb case, it wouldn't bother me if a panel of 3 closed it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely overturn close - I fail to see any proper reason to close it as "No Consensus", besides fear of or faintheartedness towards the WMF. I know, the WMF has acted quite forceful, one could even say very hostile, against the communities in enWP and deWP, without any proper reasoning, without any need for speed, just because they could. As long as they don't behave in a proper way, they should be reminded of their misconduct by the community, they seem to hope for it to settle without any consequence for the perpetrators. This was a clear vote to reaffirm the first one, no doubt about it. The WMF has to say something to it, it should not be made possible to hide behind improper closures. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ask the closer for a detailed explanation or overturn. "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio, however along with the arguments for and against, no clear consensus has emerged." is not an explanation (real explanation should be much more detailed). Somewhat more specific explanations in the closer's talk page include a claim "A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval."(Special:Diff/632836952) that looks suspicious for many reasons that have already been mentioned (66% is rather close to that 70%+; shouldn't enabling the MV count as "A major change in software" as well?). But more importantly, what was that "support after arguments"? Yes, I get it, it is not the vote count. But still - what was it equal to? How was it calculated? Can we recheck it?

By the way, " I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." (Special:Diff/632802362) looks especially wrong. The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community; opinion of WMF (or anyone else) shouldn't count for anything here, not just "have less weight". Other comments by closer (like Special:Diff/633909415) also seem to be rather inappropriate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "represent"? Even ignoring the plain language of WP:CONSENSUS, anyone with an internet connection may comment in the RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, did WMF actually comment in the RFC? It would seem to be rather hard, because WMF is not really "anyone with an internet connection". It is not an "anyone", a human being, as it is an organisation. And since organisations are not allowed to have accounts, I don't see how they can participate in an RFC.

Now if it was said that opinion of WMF representatives who did express it in or "near" the RFC was taken into account - as opinion of individual users - that would be different. But it was said that an opinion of WMF - an organisation that did not participate - was counted. And, apparently, it was given more weight than the opinion of many of participants. Of course, it is hard to say how much, since we have no detailed explanation, but I read that "less weight in my decision then the communities votes" as giving opinion of WMF just less weight than 100% of participants. Perhaps 90%, perhaps 80%... Anyway, I'd say that would be far too much weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents. The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law. 100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents." - well, in that case, what weight would you give to opinion of United Nations? Or of European Union? Sorry, but your position leads to too many conclusions that are questionable at best...

"The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law." - yes, they do make some decisions. It does not mean that their opinion counts as, let's say, opinion of 10 or 100 or 1000 users. It is true that in some cases consensus does not achieve much, but it doesn't mean that WMF opinion is the community consensus. And closer of RFC is supposed to find out what that community consensus is, not what will actually happen next. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other." - I am not sure what you are saying here... My comment about "90%, perhaps 80%" concerned the weight that was given to opinion of WMF. The statement I quoted might mean that opinion of WMF was given as much weight as 90% or 80% of participants would have. Although it might be that no weights were actually calculated and the closer just based the decision on his feelings (it would explain why no detailed explanation has been given)... That would be unfortunate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where. Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts. Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other. By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic. The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS. Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where." - well, if you meant that organisations mentioned in policy can have their opinion counted in RFCs, then you should have said that. Anyway, I do not remember any policy that actually says so. Nor do I remember some "precedent"...

"Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts." - once again - policy or precedent, please.

"Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other." - OK, what did I say and where? Can you cite it? The closest thing in this discussion is "The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community;", but that is not very close to what you are arguing against...

"By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic." - did I say it is?

"The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS." - which just so happens to be a policy that describes consensus as used in Wikipedia...

"Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy." - well, I guess we can look at the policy itself, but in this case the important point is that in that case "I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." is still inappropriate, although for a different reason.

In fact, I do not see how your arguments are supposed to support your claimed opinion "Endorse close". If WP:CONEXCEPT applies in the way you claim it to apply, the close "No consensus" is still wrong - it should have been "Consensus doesn't matter". Giving weight to both "communities votes" and WMF would still be wrong.

So, please, less outrage, more arguments. And more quotations (of policy, precedents, other users). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What outrage? I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia. The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What outrage?" - none, if you say so.

"I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia." - you have certainly linked to policy (although not to some precedents or something that would actually support your interpretation of it), but I do not see you actually quoting from it. Or quoting anything else. For, you see, I do quote you in each response for a reason. It does make it easier to avoid misrepresenting your views. And, since you did seem to misrepresent my views a bit too much, I would recommend you to try to quote me as well.

"The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter." - I am afraid that is one more case when you misrepresent my position. I am not saying that we have to "reclose" the discussion ourselves. I am saying that, if your interpretation of policy is correct, no close that is not equivalent to "Consensus doesn't matter" is going to be compatible with the policy. Furthermore, the close uses lots of reasoning that is incompatible with your interpretation of policy. Thus I think that if you actually care about the policy (instead of just avoiding the fight with WMF), it is rather inconsistent for you to endorse the close. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the policy, so WP:Consensus does matter. I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy and voting is irrelevant, so there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes. (also, look for quotation marks) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Such a short comment and yet it includes so much! We have: 1) equivocation between "consensus" and "WP:CONSENSUS" (especially strange after you have accused me of such equivocation - "The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS."), 2) straw man argument ("there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes" - I am not arguing that it should be overturned just because of "vote count" here), 3) "proof by assertion" with failure to address the arguments against that assertion ("I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy" - I have just argued that the close is incompatible with your own interpretation of the policy, not to mention interpretation of others)...

Though, of course, your position is rather hard to defend without fallacies... I guess this discussion could give the closer enough reason to give your "vote" a proper weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to (yes - I pointed you to WP:CONSENSUS because that is what is relevant - not your claimed undefined consensus). No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn. The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden[tial]" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to" - it has little to do with what "equivocation" means. I meant that you are using "WP:CONSENSUS" (policy) and "consensus" (something described by that policy) as if they were the same thing. They are not. The section you point to is even called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". If you argue that it applies here, then consistency would require you to argue that, yes, the close is still against the policy and the right close would say something like "Consensus doesn't matter." (of course, if you point to policy without actually quoting what it says, it becomes less obvious).

"No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn." - right here I am arguing that if the policy is to be interpreted as you wish, the close would still be wrong. It has nothing to do with vote counting.

"The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden[tial]" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after." - I have to say that I do not understand what you are saying here other than that it has little to do with what the word "precedent" means... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your misuse of equivocation is your fault not mine - the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, which is the definition of consensus that matters on Wikipedia. Your the one who argued for an imagined consensus of editors by exalting vote percentages - and I pointed you to CONSENSUS policy - which says what has "precedence" with respect to its formation - WP:CONSENSUS gives the "precedence" to the acts and decisions of the WMF - valid formation is by definition only according to that policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I obviously do not think much about those your arguments, but perhaps now we can leave everything to whoever chooses to close this discussion... There should be enough evidence. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took part in the RfC, so I will refrain from putting in an official !vote on the closure review. But Mdann's comments in this thread cast a serious doubt in my mind as to his/her impartiality in the closure. His/her comments in regard to CONEXCEPT and relations with WMF rather blatantly suggests to me that Mdann's closure was a supervote, instead of an attempt to summarize the consensus of the discussion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, just about everyone who gave such opinion here participated in the discussion... In fact, I wanted to add "as a 'voter'" to my opinion, but then I noticed that and it seemed to be rather pointless... I'm afraid that there are no more truly "uninvolved" users left (not counting the ones who wouldn't want to have anything to do with such discussions in the first place)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Just an update, at this time Rich Farmbrough, KoshVorlon, Hobit, Adam Cuerden, and Obsidi did not participate in Q1 which is at challenge here. I think Rich was in Q2, but the fact that he actively declined to participate in Q1 arguably gives him a uniquely proven willingness to respect any valid outcome on that question. Their 5 unanimous Overturns seem to be good evidence that RfC supporters aren't merely here to whine. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read a lot. The close was very poor. If you are going to go against numeric consensus (and there can be darn fine reasons to do so!), you need a better explanation. I didn't get the sense that the closer had internalized and was able to explain the arguments on both sides, let alone that there was some overriding issue that made the numeric consensus worth rejecting. Note: this is not the same as saying the close result was mistaken. If this gets overturned and someone else closes it, the close might have the same outcome. But hopefully for a clear reason. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn The close seems to be an assertion with no connection to reality. When you're claiming there isn't a consensus, then stating immediately thereafter "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio" - and have literally no argument why there's no consensus, your closure is bullshit and should be overturned. That not everyone agrees is expected - otherwise, why have the RFC? - but doesn't mean that the viewpoint of a supermajority should be ignored with no other reason given. The closer dropped the ball badly here, and doesn't really seem to be able to defend his views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn per Hobit. If the closer is going against numerical consensus, he needs a good reason to. KonveyorBelt 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

closer note I'm going through a few RL issues at the moment, so I'm lacking the time to give this the full attention I would normally do. I hope to be able to come back and leave a full analysis of my closure within the next 24-48 hours or so. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I am fine with going against the numbers if there is a strong policy requirement or if some of the !votes are invalid, but this isn't that. In this case, the closure went against the votes without any good specific valid reason why, as such it should be reversed. --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn As per others. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, I have prepared my full explanation, so please find it below. In order to do closes, I make notes and a rough tally of the points on both sides. In this case, in the "support" section, there appears to be a number of main categories - "I don't like it/it used to be better before" type comments, "consensus already formed" etc., "there are bugs/issues" and "see usability/approval numbers". In the support section, the main categories were "Not applicable, per WP:CONEXCEPT", "ongoing consultation/improvements/fixes" (also echoed by the WMF), "benefit for readers/easy to turn off if you want", "not really an RfC" (not considered) and "Better than before". The WMF also indicated that they were listening and making changes made on community feedback, including easier opt-out, and they will reconsider this once they have new data. Overall, with the full comments made, and the relevant policies mentioned (CONEXCEPT, m:Limits to configuration changes), and the history of this issue (bugzilla:67826 and previous RfC), that at this time, there is no clear consensus to carry this change out. Please let me know if you wish for me to clarify anything. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1.When the discussion is about software useability, arguments like 'it was better before' 'there are bugs' are perfectly reasonable reasons to disable something by default. 'Consensus already formed' is also a valid argument when the question is about 'should we endorse previous discussion'. 2.Weighting against that with the WMF's 'we are doing stuff that might at some point in the future lead to it being useful' is really really bad judgement on both consensus, and weighting/evaluation of evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hence I did not ignore it. Additionally, how is looking at the improvements/bug fixes "bad judgement"? If there was an AfD, and a participant was actively editing the article and fixing issues, would the article be deleted? Usually not, they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed to carry on (WP:ROPE). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that can pass for a "full explanation"? Sorry, but anything that can at least be similar to a full explanation must be at least ten times longer. If you do not want to write that much, perhaps you can simply upload your notes that you mention?

Frankly, the impression I get is that you read everything and then closed in the way you did just because you felt like it. Can you give some evidence that would clearly demonstrate that this impression is wrong?

Anyway, some specific questions that must be answered by a full explanation:

1. You have said that ~70% support would have been necessary. What number did you compare with that "~70%" (it had to be some number; it makes no sense to talk about thresholds without numbers)? How exactly did you come up with that number?
   1. What exact weights have been given to each type of argument (or participant)? Why?
   2. What exact weight was given to opinion of WMF? Why?
2. How exactly did you use "CONEXCEPT"? That section is called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". Do you think it applies?
   1. If the answer is "Yes", why did you try to determine consensus at all?
   2. If the answer is "No", why do you say it was "relevant"?

Answering those questions should get you started... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

70% was a rough figure, not a brightline rule. I'm not sure where it originated from, but it was a piece of advice I've received in the past from an admin to use while closing discussions, and how deep they need to be examined.

In terms of weight, I gave more weight to the community than the WMF, because of course the community is bigger. I give weight to arguments as opposed to participants primarily, but of course those arguments with more support are given more weight. After looking through this, the rough consensus was about 55:45, which to me is within the realms of a "no consensus" close. Note this does not overturn the decision of the previous RfC, it just says that there is no consensus at this time to reproach the WMF and try and get it disabled at this time.

Personally, I did not consider CONEXCEPT, as I mentioned in the close. As a relevant policy (as it covers RfC's just like this), I did give weight to !votes referring to it. The reason it may be relevant here is that as a decision of the WMF whether this is on or off, it is clearly a possible reply from the WMF, and a valid point to make. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn as per above. And since its been a few days now. Can someone get on and do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. Seems like a supervote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn result. We don't need consensus at this discussion to continue enforcing the removal of MediaViewer, because we previously had consensus to remove it. When a discussion results in consensus to do something, a later discussion must have consensus the other way for things to change: a "no consensus" close for the later discussion results in the continued enforcement of the first decision. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Mdann52 voluntarily withdrew his close on Question 1, and edited the RfC page to reflect this. This is a single multipart RfC, reopening it reopens the entire RfC. Part 2 is explicitly dependent upon part 1, and any close on part two needs to take into account the close on part 1. I edited the page to reflect a reopening of part 2 as well.

I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is. For what it's worth I have no objection to dropping the final bullet point from part 2 if the closer(s) feel the current !votes are too close for a sufficient consensus as-is, but I would hope such a close would be clear that the part 1 call-to-implement kicks in at the end of the 7 day hold. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance required in interpreting Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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.

---

Guys, I need assistance in interpreting two issues in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I'm listing them below:

• 1.The General Sanctions page mentions, "Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." Does this statement mean that if an article already has a page notice/tag/edit notice informing the editors about the presence of sanctions, there is no need therefore to inform a particular editor about the existence of sanctions and log them before imposing sanctions? For example, the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already has a page notice that mentions the presence of these sanctions. Does it imply therefore that any editor editing the page is assumed to ergo be automatically informed about the sanctions?
• 2.The General Sanctions page also mentions, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Does without warning mean that one can block an editor without informing him about the existence of sanctions? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Notifications and warnings are two different things. A notification is simply an informative message that can be issued to anyone. A warning is a sanction that presupposes misconduct. It is unfair to sanction someone without notification, but a breach of the general sanctions can lead to an immediate block without needing a warning. They are very similar, but subtly different. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are mixing up the WP:1RR with the community-authorised discretionary sanctions. To impose a discretionary sanction, editors must have first been notified with the appropriate template, and that notification logged as it says. However, blocking for 1RR violations does not require a notification, as it is not a discretionary sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. RGloucester, while my view is similar to yours, I'm not sure others think so. Also, what do you think of my first query mentioned above? Could other editors chip in with comments with respect to both my specific queries please? Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My position is this: 1RR is unusual and is authorised as a sanction under this general sanction. An administrator would not usually impose a block for a 1RR without first notifying the person that there is a 1RR on a particular page under sanctions, because it would be grossly unfair to block an account of a person who had no idea that a page was under sanctions imposing a 1RR rule. A warning placed at the top of on a article talk page is not sufficient warning of a 1RR as the editor my not have looked at the talk page before reverting for a second time.

The problem is that currently the general sanction states: "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." (my emphasis on must). and the specified template states "An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here."

To rectify this it will be is necessary to alter the wording of the sanctions so a warning on the talk page of a user by an uninvolved administrator, that informs the user of the SCW&ISIL sanctions page through a link, can be taken to be sufficient notification, to allow further action by uninvolved administrators should the user break the sanctions in future. Logging notification/warnings by uninvolved admin should not be a prerequisite to prove that a user has warned/notified (that can be done through the edit history of the users talk page). Also any editor who clearly shows that they are aware of the sanctions (for example by notifying another editor of such sanctions) should not need to be notified or warned of possible administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Guidelines already exist on this matter, and your proposals fly in the face of them. For discretionary sanctions to be issued, the notification template must be used to alert editors that the discretionary sanctions exist, and that notification must be logged. This applies to these sanctions, because they are community-authorised discretionary sanctions explicitly said to mimic WP:ARBPIA. Notifications need not be issued by administrators. They can be issued by any editor as long as he or she follows the appropriate procedure. WP:1RR is not a discretionary sanction. It is separate from the discretionary sanctions, and hence does not require a discretionary sanctions notification. However, like with all edit-warring blocks, a warning should be issued before blocking. Such a warning is not the same as the discretionary sanctions notification. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Let me summon an editor who was involved in the drafting of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree while "Notifications need not be issued by administrators" and they can be issued by any editor, for a user to be notified the appropriate procedure has to be followed. If a 1RR is only in place on a page because of the sanctions affecting editing of that page, then if someone is blocked because of a 1RR then the administrator who issues the block has used a discretionary sanction to make the block. -- PBS (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because the WP:1RR and the community-authorised discretionary sanctions are separate general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions require a discretionary sanctions notice, and various other procedures. WP:1RR does not. It has edit notices in place on the pages appropriate, and there is also this template, Template:Uw-1rrSCW, which can be used to warn editors about edit-warring on 1RR-affected pages. This is why, if you'll notice, the 1RR and discretionary sanctions are described in separate boxes at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe I agree with RGloucester. To sanction an editor pursuant to discretionary sanctions, a notification or alert must be given. To block someone for a violation of WP:1RR, no notice/alert is needed. That said, I generally don't block someone for violating 1RR if they haven't been officially notified/alerted. I've made exceptions, though, to my general practice when I feel it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

With few exceptions (username issues, legal threats), we don't block a user unless either (s)he knows that (s)he will be boocked if (s)he does a particulaer edit or group of edits and does it anyway, or (s)he is trying to be disruptive. In this case, if the user saw an edit notice, then we can assume that (s)he knows about it; otherwise, we can't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again guys for the comments. So for my understanding, can I assume the following for the articles coming under the sanctions?: (a) In the absence of an edit/page notice detailing the presence of sanctions on any particular article, an editor must be formally informed of the presence of sanctions before any sanction is issued against them (b) While no formal warning is required before blocking an editor violating WP:1RR, good form recommends that the editor may be notified of the existence of WP:1RR and allowed to take corrective action before a block is put in place. Wifione ^Message 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If one wants to impose discretionary sanctions, an edit notice on the page is not sufficient. The proper template must be issued to the editor to make them aware of the sanctions, and that notification logged at the sanctions page. Edit notices are only sufficient for informing editors of 1RR, not of the DS. To impose a DS, one must follow the WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts procedure. You are right about the 1RR bit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@user:RGloucester unlike 3RR, 1RR is not project wide. In this case the authority to sanction a person for breaching 1RR is derived from the wording of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (SCW&ISIL). Whether you choose to call that a general sanction of a discretionary sanction, if 1RR is to be invoked from SCW&ISIL then according to the wording of SCW&ISIL notification "must" be given. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23 if it is not a SCW&ISIL sanction to block an account for 1RR then why have you logged blocks for beaching 1RR at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014? About 70% of sanctions recorded for 2014 are for breaches of 1RR if they are not sanctions covered by SCW&ISIL then those entries ought to be removed. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It was this edit on 26 October 2014 by Bbb23 that changed the word "can" to "must" which is what causes the problem with the current wording. According to the edit comment "three changes per discussion at WP:AN" AFAICT this must be the archived AN section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:1RR is a general sanction, but it is not a discretionary sanction. You're getting the two confused. When one blocks someone for violating WP:1RR, that's not a "sanction". 1RR was established as part of the SCW&ISIL general sanctions, but it is not part of the SCW&ISIL community-authorised discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me where in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified. Please point it out to me. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the general sanctions guidelines, and learn what "general sanctions" means. There are multiple different kinds of general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are only one kind of general sanctions. Others are revert restrictions, article probation, and various other things. If you look at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page, you'll notice that there are two separate boxes in the remedies section. The first on refers to the discretionary sanctions, and the second to the revert restriction. Notice that it says "in addition a one revert rule is imposed". I.e. in addition to the discretionary sanctions, a revert restriction also exists. That's why it also says "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted by User:RGloucester, it would be hard to be any more definite that a block for 1RR violation doesn't require a preceding formal notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions. As it happens, you can read almost identical wording in {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Note the phrase "without warning". If you read the full text of the Syrian Civil War sanctions they invoke the ARBPIA sanctions as a model. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester I asked "where in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified" (my emphasis). But in general there are two processes that can be invoked either Arbcom initiated or community sanctions. Your argument that 1RR is not a community sanction because it is a "revert restrictions" is open to another interpretation, because it is imposed via [Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules]] "Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on ... particular pages, by ... administrator enforcement, or by the community ... General sanctions." These are not "administrator enforcement" because the blocks are being logged as a community sanction. So where is it made clear that 1RR is not a community sanction on the sanctions page (which was set up under the auspices of a community sanction)? -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} is the standard way that these sorts of Arbitration Enforcements have been worded for years. The problem is that this particular set of sanctions does not use such simple language. In it there is a difference between warning and notification and if a sanction is to be imposed (and logged on the sanctions page) then the sanctions page has stated since the 26 October 2014 that "Editors must be notified of these sanctions" (see my edit (above 20 November 2014) for the full quote in green). -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I did not say it was not a community sanction. I said it was not a discretionary sanction. The revert restriction is a community-imposed general sanction. The discretionary sanctions regime is also a community-imposed general sanction. However, each kind of general sanction has a different procedure. The discretionary sanctions require that one follows the discretionary sanctions procedure. The revert restriction does not, because it is not a discretionary sanction. That is to say, it is not at the discretion of the administrator, but simply a lower threshold for what is considered edit-warring in the usual way. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: The word 'sanctions' is being used for a variety of different meanings that we hope were clear to those using the word originally. Maybe in the future people who want to use the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' should never abbreviate it to 'sanctions' due to the risk of confusion. The sentence "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." certainly risks a misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that although these are nominally community sanctions and enforced by the community, they mirror arbitration sanctions, which makes everything difficult to word. That said, I agree with EdJohnston and have reworded two sentences at WP:GS/SCW: (1) the sentence "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." has been changed to "Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." (2) the sentence "In addition a one revert rule with the following specifications is imposed:" has been changed to "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed:". I hope that clarifies the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks brilliant. Thanks. I guess we can close the discussion here unless there are some other comments that don't agree with the above change. Wifione ^Message 03:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23's wording certainly cleans up the wording so that the wording is no longer confusing, but under what process was the 1RR imposed? In other words who authorised imposition of a 1RR? Secondly why are 1RR blocks being logged? -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You have an arbitration decision that authorizes discretionary sanctions (with a prior notice/alert) and blocks for violating 1RR (without a prior notice/alert). When you block based on a 1RR violation, you are doing so pursuant to the decision. The same thing is true here. You have community sanctions that continued and mirrored the remedies in an arbitration decision. Thus, when you block here for 1RR, it is pursuant to the community sanctions and must be logged. BTW, in my view, it's not necessary to notify an editor who has been previously sanctioned, as you did. There is language to that effect in arbitration decisions, if I recall correctly, and it also makes sense. I know the language does not exist in the sanctions page here, but when I blocked without notice for a violation of 1RR, I intentionally did not also notify the editor. The block notice made it clear that they were blocked pursuant to the sanctions. I dunno if others want me to add such language or not. Without some encouragement, I won't.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible rangeblock for Ararat arev IPs

An editor using many IP addresses has been edit-warring lately to push his ideas in articles related to Orion (constellation) and ancient Egypt, moving to new articles when the previous ones get semi-protected. The evidence that it's Ararat arev is at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt. See User talk:Dougweller#Ararat again as well. In the past couple day, the IPs have fallen within a range, e.g.: Special:Contributions/166.170.14.15, Special:Contributions/166.170.14.125, and Special:Contributions/166.170.14.88. I don't know whether that range is narrow enough for a rangeblock, but considering that the editor seems willing to evade article protection by moving to any article remotely related to the topic, a rangeblock seems worth considering. A. Parrot (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See for instance Hyksos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

166.170.14.0/24 is definitely rangeblockable, and it doesn't look like there would be much collateral damage. But the range looks to be part of a mobile network, so the block wouldn't be hard to evade... 199.47.73.100 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That sort of depends on how AT&T assigns IP's or proxies. Since he's been editing a lot from the same block, it seems possible and even likely, that it takes some effort to get around it. It's at least worth a try. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis has done the rangeblock. Thank you! A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is overdue again

Template:Did you know/Queue is currently eight hours overdue. Can some admin please update the queue from some of the five backlogged prep areas? And can we please figure out a way to keep this from happening all the time? After all, we're talking about the Main Page here. —Swpb^talk 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK requires a sysop with attention to detail. Many of us don't have that. I've tried updating it, but someone always catches something I missed. A few times, it's been very problematic like copyright concerns or slander. The problem is that we don't have a whole lot of admins who understand the finer nuances of content policy that is required to be placing content on the front page of this very large website. So - that's where the issue lies, despite nearly all the prep areas being full.--v/r - TP 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Prep 5 moved to queue. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there even currently any admins who regularly check the DYK queue? If a few admins became regulars at DYK, they'd catch up on the relevant policies pretty quickly (and didn't they have to be familiar with those policies to become an admin in the first place?) And if any admins are regularly looking at prep areas but hesitating to queue them up, it would be nice if they could share their concerns on the queue talk page. Otherwise, it just feels like the entire admin corps is abdicating one of its responsibilities. —Swpb^talk 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a regular at DYK, but see my comments in "Did You Know main page" above: people have imposed a plethora of rules to follow, destroying the simple idea of "decent new article, and long enough" for the sake of requiring compliance with the finer nuances of content policy, even for newbies. Not interested in helping anymore, unless there are emergencies like this one. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So ignore them; you're an admin. If hooks meet the basics (sourced, not copyvio, reasonably neutral), then they're good to go to queue. We need someone who will do the task, not excuses from someone who won't. —Swpb^talk 16:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Kindly look at queue five and tell us the username of the administrator who updated it in response to your request. Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that you solved the crisis this time. I appreciate that. What we need is a regular. —Swpb^talk 15:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

History merge request

Didn't realize there was some prior deletion discussion history for No Lifeguard on Duty before I created a new article at the full title for the book.

Can an admin please merge history of this article (and its talk page):

No Lifeguard on Duty into --> No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel ?

Please keep article at full title No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel, as there are some other works that start with "No Lifeguard on Duty".

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal of User:Oldpeople330

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 propose that this user is indefinitely banned and am inviting a consensus of editors below to back me up in this as per policy. My case is that they made a far from ideal first edit presumably as a joke here but clearly went onto make another WP:IDHT edit here in spite of having been given an only warning for the first edit here Katie Henry (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

These two edits were two minutes apart, so there is no guarantee they saw the warning before they made the second edit. We don't normally go straight to a final warning for a single silly edit (what I generally view as an "editing test", i.e. the person is wondering if it's really true they can edit Wikipedia however they like) anyway, unless it's a BLP problem or otherwise particularly problematic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning came the same minute as the second silly edit. Editor stopped editing after that. This ban proposal is ridiculous. Townlake (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A ~25 edit account Katie Henry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is calling for a community ban of a 2 edit Oldpeople330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account.NE Ent 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine then I suppose you can consider this closed due to it being a complete mistake on my part. Katie Henry (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

An RfC

In light of this debate, I have opened a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot close. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at TfD

The tireless PlastikSpork has done their best to keep WP:TfD up to date on their own, but a backlog is forming. Some assistance would be appreciated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account - User:Antandrus

After being around for 10 years, I now think that this admin account has been compromised. I'm sorry, but since yesterday, an IP wrote on somebody's talk page [57] [58] and reverted what seemed to be perfectly fine edits, it's a talk page anyway. He even replied to me as I posted a biting newcomers notice:

"He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too. But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)"

That link referred to a completely different user. Who must be unrelated to the edits I am talking about. He also said "You're banned - get lost" when blocking an IP. Can a CheckUser come in to see these IP's. In fact, how can IP users be banned under WP:BAN? How did he have any authority to ban someone, as an admin who is not part of ArbCom? Must be a compromised administrator account, check the contribs and you can see some evidence. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not template the regulars, and please do not make silly accusations at noticeboards, particularly when an explanation has been given. Making a fuss about WP:DENY reversions is a guaranteed way to encourage vandalism and long term abusers. Antandrus is one of Wikipedia's most respected admins, although I'm not sure where this report fits in at WP:OWB. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "defacto ban" component of WP:BAN — perhaps it's a frequently-blocked user who's never been unblocked and who will apparently never be unblocked; such a person would be included as "banned" even without an Arbcom discussion. Bans apply to individual people, so yes, we can ban people who aren't using an account. If you have spare time, look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors — we even had an arbitration case for an IP that just wouldn't stop being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The longer you are an admin, the more of these kinds of users you get to know. We each have a few banned users we know so well that we can spot them from across the room. And yes, sometimes we are blunt when dealing with them, it gets old, we are human, we aren't obligated to act saccharine sweet to known banned users abusing the system. Antandrus' behavior, as indicated here, isn't out of character or expectations, so I am pretty confident he hasn't had his account pwned. Dennis - 2¢ 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you Dennis. I regularly revert and block this particular pest. For those with long memories, he has been called the 'George Reeves Person', and there's a deleted LTA page about him. He's a serial harasser and particularly vicious off-Wiki. I have, however, learned his real name and where he lives, should we need to take more serious action. It's been a couple years since I've received threats of physical harm from him. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - death threats, etc.

Hi guys -- sorry to wake this thread up again, but I would like some advice. This person, who has been vandalizing, trolling, spamming, and issuing threats to anyone who opposes him, since December 2005, has issued an unambiguous death threat to me. I guess he didn't like the range blocks I laid down to shut down his latest spam-and-rant campaign. One significant problem is that there is no reliable way to get a message to him; he uses one-time-throwaway T-Mobile IPs now (ignore their geolocation: he's in Chicago, or very close, anyway). I am reporting all threats to law enforcement. I want him to know that I know his real name and his address (will not state it here) and I am not shy about giving it to the FBI, the Chicago and River Grove, Illinois police, and any other entity that might assist. If you have admin rights you can read the history of this guy here (note who deleted the page). I want to get the message to him, equally unambiguously. Has anyone had success contacting authorities in such a case? Feel free to contact me privately. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to contact the FBI, tell them you are an admin on Wikipedia and file a formal complaint with the info you have. I'll email you.--MONGO 01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which is allot harder to find than it should be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 FBI, and the sooner the better - while the data is still hot. I hope that this is resolved quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

It might be worth asking for a global block on that /23, for a week or so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

@Antandrus: you should contact WMF legal as well; I noticed that you contacted one of the stewards on Meta somewhere, but really it's the WMF who makes the call as to when the info should be released to authorities and such (and then they can give the info with a good claim to veracity) --Rschen7754 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also contacted the emergency team. Legal are not the relevant team as they can take weeks to respond by which time letting them know would've been pointless. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a response acknowledging this. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User known to WMF and they're "obviously happy to help in anyway necessary" Jack Stamps (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh yes, they know this user. Thank you! I'll contact them. I'm already following a bunch of the above suggestions (and thank you for those who e-mailed me). Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please also consider filing an abuse report with T-Mobile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - newbie

Obivously Antandrus should take every step necessary to protect his physical safety, and I can't add anything helpful to advice above regarding that. But what does that have to do with DSCrowned? They're not threatening anyone, are they? They even edited for almost a month before creating their user page. They seem something weird, they ask the first person they're supposed to ask, get what seems to be a kind of a brush of, ask at the next place, and get told to make not make silly accusations, and the dreaded -- oh the infamy -- "don't template the regulars" -- because that's so important. Gee, maybe they're just confused and are trying to help. There's only like a quarter million "unreferenced tags," who needs to welcome new editors? Did ya'll know this tidbit about hydrogen peroxide [59]? I didn't. So maybe the next time a newbie shows up we can be a little more chill about it? NE Ent 04:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The first diff in the OP shows a NOTFORUM violation being removed with edit summary "rv banned user". The second is the same. Presumably DSCrowned has no idea what "rv banned user" means, but is sufficiently confident to drop a "November 2014" template, then refuse to engage in discussion despite getting a full explanation within twenty minutes. Antandrus may be too polite to respond as I did, but someone needs to strongly support those who spend years defending the encyclopedia. It's not the vandals that cause people to burn out and leave—it's the lack of support from onlookers who instead provide impractical suggestions that everyone just suck it up. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think my action was a technical mistake that I made, Andardus's edit summaries seemed different to other edit summaries he used when reverting completely different stuff, though, when he was reverting the "vandals" that I specified, very quickly indeed, as those questions he posted seemed to be "good" comments, I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but these comments do not look like forum questions. Perhaps I misintepreted. This is to the point of two competing edit summary usages. This confused me, as it looked like his account was compromised... I never even knew he had T-Mobile on him. Contact the FBI? Is it really compromised? Sorry about this incident. DSCrowned^(talk) 13:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am quite serious when stuff go wrong, it is my personality. However, I never intended to end up in such a place like this, I am just worried about what Antardus would do when his edit summary use is clashing along with each other like there are two different users. I sincerely apologise for my mistakes. DSCrowned^(talk) 13:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You obviously meant well -- the wiki-ism for that is "good faith" and the initialism is WP:AGF. And Wikipedia is a very confusing place at first. In the future, if you see something that seems weird, a good place to ask is Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is specifically designed for new users. NE Ent 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider the behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers an impractical suggestion. NE Ent 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

DSCrowned, thank you -- no worries -- you were trying to do the right thing. By the way, now that my range blocks on 172.56.0.0/23 and 208.54.64.0/24 have expired, the banned user responsible for this entire thread is back. If you are curious about this, look at each of the four edits contained in that diff, from four different T-Mobile IP addresses. They all show his characteristic style; they all fail WP:COMPETENCE; and the moment I revert them he will explode again, and vandalize one of my user or talk pages on one of the other Wikimedia projects. I don't like laying down range blocks on T-Mobile because of collateral damage issues, but it's usually the only way to stop him. Nine years of this. I don't think anyone else is watching. Why do I do it? To save some other poor sod the time and frustration of trying to talk to him, welcome him as a newbie, etc. etc. and then get on his hit list once that unfortunate but helpful soul realizes what they have stepped in. If you watch recent changes you will spot lots of obvious vandalism, but once in a while spot something a little more difficult. Like this. -- Anyway, thank you all for help on this. Antandrus (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks

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.

---

With respect to the confession here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#I am... and the corresponding user talk discussion and SPI... I'm starting this thread to request a reversing of my past blocks (I think all except the first one but I am willing to dig in to histories and give diffs), a logged warning by ArbCom and retrospectively reversing of my (now removed) 1RR and IBAN sanctions with respect to Darkness Shines. This is because all these were made in deliberate hounding, baiting and disruption for about a year or more. From the first article Taliban I edited with an editor "The Last Angry Man" [60] (why is TLAM still unblocked?) and this editor who was not much active in my topic area jumped in to support (I should have reported right then but I did not have a lot of evidence; and later all my reports would have been rejected due to history with DS), he eventually was hounding me to every single article I edited (including the brand new ones that I created); obviously from my contributions history. Whatever attempts I made to take this to ANI, DR, ArbCom were disrupted and eventually resulted in an interaction ban and 1RR which I got reverted the hard way by regaining good standing inspite of all this hounding by a sockpuppet who was thought to be a 'genuine' editor. I am starting here as I want to raise the least drama but I am willing to go to ArbCom if the community is not even willing to appreciate an administrative failure for years. I am not even asking for any apologies here, I just want things acknowledged to bring my own editing at a better standing. These are my main concerns that I want reversed where applicable or acknowledged to be wrongful where already reversed:

1. IBan with DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
2. 1RR restriction due to baiting by DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
3. Rollback removed due to a block due to this baiting.
4. Final warning logged by Seraphimblade (ArbCom) (standing and needs to be reverted).
5. My block log looks like hell so want it noted there that the blocks were wrongful per policy - all but my first block involve DS; mostly directly reverting / Iban vio (or at the very least for maybe one case, he was influencing consensus / tag-teaming with any other editors opposing me).

All this because admins were wary and were not ready to swiftly block on behavioural evidence of disruption, hounding and mess that resulted in finally creating WP:ARBIPA and later DS got himself topic banned from the area. His sockmaster account's blocklog rivals his current (apart from all the intermediate prolific socking) and by the looks of it he was under 1RR and sanctions similar to his current ones even then. I can safely say that a major part to play in this was by DS. It is unfortunate to see recognition on his talkpage by even administrators given that he had been nothing but trouble.

This is a rare case, but administrators who initially volunteered to work with us as uninvolved including Magog the Ogre‎ and Salvio giuliano‎ and the editors who were working over the main content disputes (Mar4d, TParis) would know how deep rooted this mess was and I can not find enough space to even list the damage that's been done to Wikipedia; the man hours wasted (mine and of all the editors / admins at ANI / ArbCom), the new editors hounded off, and major disruption of my own efforts to a content area covering 3-4 countries atleast. Here are some archives remotely pointing to the history:

You might say that I should have acted differently assuming that it was not known that he was a sock, but it was deliberate baiting and hounding by a sock with no fear of indeff (because guess what, he's already indeffed and a sock). This revelation changes everything and all my blocks / sanctions were wrongful because you can not have an iban / sanction / block because of a block evading sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Please start with no justice. Having an interaction ban with an indeffed blocked sock is effectively having no ban at all, but we are not a bureaucracy and there's no benefit in wading back through all the history changing stuff that doesn't help the encyclopedia and, in the end, that's all that is important. Wikipedia editors are never sanctioned due to other folks behavior, they're sanctioned because of their own behavior. The fact that someone else turns out to have not followed the rules doesn't excuse one's own behavior. Finally, claiming "administrative failure" is an inappropriate collective personal attack on the editors who have volunteered their time to do admin scutwork. The simple fact is that Wikimedia Foundation has declared we will have socks. Well, not directly, but the combination of not requiring registration and very, very strong privacy rights for volunteers is effectively that. The WP:SPI folks do the best they can in ferreting out the more obvious cheaters, but that's about the best you can expect. NE Ent 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read my original comment, I'm not asking for justice.. and before you go and throw more essays at me, reversing of warnings / sanctions and blocklog is the least that can be done. I am willing to redo the content the hardway and I probably wont be able to fix a year's disruption anyway like that if at all. For the claim of administrative failure, I'm not the only one claiming this. Look at the first ANI thread I linked. So suck it up for this is what you get for letting a disruptive editor roam around. If you think that amounts to no ban at all... the short answer should have been that because there's no need to go wading back through histories to do this; I am the one responsible for diffs. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• What Ent said. The fact that he was guilty of even more issues doesn't erase your guilt, nor justify your previous actions. And I can promise you that there are many thousands, yes thousands of socks we haven't caught here. I know of many, I just can't quite prove it, so I can't do anything. We don't have the tools, the authority or the manpower to catch even half the socking that takes place here. Not by a long shot. Your request to essentially turn back time and pretend he never existed is unrealistic and unworkable. And for the most part, changes nothing. And I would add that while we are permitted (but not required) to revert banned socks, to go in mass and revert everything he did just because "I can", would be disruptive this late in the game, and be seen as WP:POINTy. We aren't going to get Orwellian here and turn DS into an unperson by erasing three years of history. I can explain more, but in the end, it doesn't matter if DS was a sock or the Pope of Chili Town, your actions were your actions, and him being a sock doesn't excuse them. He isn't here anymore, move forward. I am sorry we didn't catch him sooner, but we aren't mind readers and socking is remarkably easy. Dennis - 2¢ 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My guilt? Great... diffs? All baiting and hounding by some one whose all edits are invalid. From 0 common edits to almost every article. So forgive me if my behaviour wasn't exemplary and that administrators are not the only ones to claim WP:NOJUSTICE (an essay ever edited by 7 editors), that goes both ways. There's not one instance where I have asked to plainly revert out everything, though I would not be wrong to revert where I feel like. This is about my disputes with him that administrators knew were on brink and the blocks that were unwarranted. I believe that inspite of being sympathetic on his talkpage, you would have blocked him if you found it, but I don't believe that I am the only one to blame for all the forumshopping that got my blocks and sanctions. If as per NE Ent, it is not a ban at all given that he was a block evading editor wasting genuine editors' time, why is this such a big deal to ask for an acknowledgement in my block log which is a policy Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log unlike the essay thrown at me. Ironically, I'd like to quote an admin's comment from ANI that they give DS a certain amount of leeway because he has been dealing with a lot of socks. So forgive me while I ask for you guys to, for once, accept a wrong and implement policy which is the least that can be done here and the only thing I originally asked for, not for undoing everything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And asking for a thing or two, directly to that admin, is perfectly fine, but you are asking too much in this report. It is frustrating for us all, and I understand why it is most frustrating for you. I would even support adding a one second block to your log to add a note in the summary, although I'm not sure it makes much difference. But you are asking too much in this report as a whole. Farmer Brown (Dennis) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it is all being interpreted, but I have already gotten my sanctions removed the hard way by proving from my edits; they were obviously with a de facto banned (indeffed) editor anyway so I do understand what NE Ent said and a one second block noting this about blocks is enough and very much per policy. Coming here than going and finding the blocking admin(s) seemed to be the better thing in my judgment so I did. The only thing that is left otherwise is the ArbCom warning... I don't know its standing (it specifically refers to "inappropriate interaction with DS" which is all void) but I can wait for Seraphimblade and Magog the Ogre's comment about that. I don't know what else do you think I am asking as a whole in this report? I was hounded for a year by this editor... I don't think my reaction by posting this thread is out of ordinary. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. I have respect for both TopGun and Darkness Shines. At the time, I felt both were knowledgable and resourceful editors. Darkness Shines confession, which still leaves me with doubts, is disappointing. Not because he confessed but because I trusted him and I feel let down. If his confession is true, and not an attempt to burn bridges because he is exhausted, then TopGun deserves the benefit of the doubt and a lot of his past actions would've had policy on his side (ie. exemptions referring to blocked socks). I think it's fair to cut TopGun at least a little slack if not a clean slate altogether.--v/r - TP 17:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm with TParis. I can sympathize with TopGun because I've been there, in terms of working extensively to deal with a difficult editor only to find that their account was a sockpuppet. There is something particularly frustrating about having one's time and effort wasted by another editor's dishonesty in this fashion. I note, with irony, that one of Darkness Shines' many blocks was overturned because his adversary in an edit war turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (see block log, 30 July 2012). While I get the "no justice" concept, and have cited it myself, I do think we owe the same sort of consideration to TopGun here.

  A couple of other points: Darkness Shines' block log is sort of remarkable, in that it makes me wonder how he retained any editing privileges here at all even before his confession. There's a clear history of disruptive editing with the DS account alone, and anyone who's shocked to find that the account was operated by another disruptive editor wasn't paying very close attention. And let's recall that the sockpuppeteer in this case was banned for, among other things, serious violations of WP:BLP, a policy which we all pretend to take seriously, at least when it suits us to do so. This episode should probably prompt a bit more introspection about how we react to disruptive editors. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Amen to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Irony seems to be the core of this and fits in with Magog's comment below about the punitive nature of just editing with an editor like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I recommended TopGun post here after he consulted me privately. I first came upon their dispute while meting out punishments at WP:AN3. Eventually, I went through an ArbCom proceeding with them in which I made it very clear that I thought DS was continually gaming the system and doing his best to harm TopGun. So I am not wholly impartial at this point.

To speak my mind anyway: I thought a lot of the blocks against TG were done in an attempt to be even-handed: to punish both sides equally, when it was quite clear to me that this was DS's exact goal. Cause a lot of disruption, muddy the waters, and when the ax comes down, everyone has a body part lopped off.

Also to note: TopGun has not been perfect. In particular, he's not very good at recognizing what constitutes "neutral." But this is a problem a lot of editors have without the long block log to suit. IMO, the majority of his blocks were due to collateral damage. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a bias here, but you've admitted it, so I respect that. I get along fine with TG and DS both, but I've interacted more with DS due to Nang* socks, so might have my own bias. I never interacted with either when editing, only as admin. Thinking about it a couple of days, I wouldn't be opposed to consider some of what TG is asking about. What I don't want to see is the community go on a tear to "erase" DS. That would be vindictive. At the same time, looking at some modifications to TG's sanctions does seem reasonable as long as the goal isn't "anti-DS", but instead leveling the playing field, which wasn't even for TG before. If MastCell wanted to look and make the call, I'm pretty confident I would be ok with the modifications he felt were balanced and reasonable. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I can't speak for everyone else, but I wasn't proposing an erasure of anyone (whatever that means). I don't think it is a good idea to do away with his contributions, for a number of reasons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I know Magog, and again, I respect your honesty. I singled out Mast, as I think (?) he is enough in the center to have a good bead. I did work with DS a lot with socks, so I found him likable, so I have a bit of a bias, I admit. I have no bias against TG and find him agreeable, as well, I just haven't been around him much. I was just thinking someone who is closer to the center to just "do it" by fiat and have it be done. It took a day for me to come around, but I agree with you here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This one is from when Magog wasn't of any eventual opinion about DS's behaviour. Anyway, this post was never about DS's own current block... he tends to earn that independently (even when he makes a new 'clean slate' account). It was about what had happened to my standing due to his prior actions and hounding. The SPI and everything else have their own merit and I trust the SPI admins to make the right conclusion. What I am asking has nothing to do with reverting DS's contributions as a whole, rather getting a clean slate for myself. You've misunderstood the purpose of my thread (it is not titled 'nuke DS's contributions'). My request to reverting past sanctions, blocks and the logged warning is not anything that isn't already kind of understood since I could never have had a sanction with a sock. All I am doing is making it formal. Although I am personally of the opinion that a big deal of his contributions (while he was editing with me) were pointy and for the purpose of undoing me and yet I originally stated that I am willing to edit all that the regular way with all other editors who may independently disagree and hence the same consensus procedure. How does that do away with his contributions as a whole? The fact that I reversed all standing sanctions on me the hard way should have been enough endorsement of the fact that I never was the reason per se to disrupt the project. Since MastCell is not leaving sympathetic comments on DS's talkpage and his statement here is based on the voice of reason, I can trust him to do it as well if he was to sum up the consensus and make a 1 second nullifying block and remove the warning from WP:ARBIPA. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the sockpuppetry, I might as well admit that I had my suspicions over TLAM being a former account of DS as far back as 2012. The similarities in contributions and POVs between both accounts, and many old talk page archives had sent some bells ringing back then. However, there was not enough conclusive evidence to make a judgement, and given the cesspit of content disputes, sanctions and administrative interventions going on back then, the thing remained on the backhand. However, having sifted through the contributions and similarities between both accounts more recently (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley), I am more than convinced that TLAM was DS, and that both accounts were used abusively in content disputes with TopGun (including instances like this, where both DS and TLAM are voting support on what seems like a talk page RfC, and abusing the vote process; this is probably a tip of the iceberg). What I find ludicrous is that having already admitted to being Marknutley, and despite the plethora of evidence related to TLAM given at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley, DS is not willing to go a step further and own up that he also abused two accounts concurrently. Just owning this may generate some goodwill. I'm not sure why he's denying links to TLAM, but the evidences available quite strongly proves otherwise. I haven't been editing with DS or been in a content dispute with him for more than a year now, so I don't have any hard feelings. I am just perplexed at the truth coming out. I've had my fair share of disputes with this editor in the past, especially back in 2012. Like TG, I was taken to all the dramaboards and amid blocks and SPI accusations due to the editor concerned. Looking at his recent blocks, it is evident he's been engaged in content disputes with many other editors too. I also feel that many administrators have been too lenient with DS at times. It is probably because of that attitude that things have been allowed to get to this point. I think TopGun's request for a reversal of past warnings and sanctions is justified, to give him a level-playing field and also a clean slate that he deserves. For me, his reaction is natural and understandable. No editor would like having irremovable stains on their record and getting their repo damaged, especially when the other editor (who's the reason for much of it) they were engaged with for many years is now a confessed sockmaster and had been taking everyone for a ride. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I registered in 2012, so unfortunately had no knowledge about his socks. I was also one of the many editors hounded by DS, was a newbie then, but Thank god (if he exists) that I withstood this initial pressure and stress. Nominating articles created to stop the other party was one of his left-hand jobs. [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]. As Mar4d said, I was also taken to "dramaboards" and more than 90% of my conflicts were with him, the popular sock master. He with his socks, made it impossible for the newbies..... I had no option other than to take wikibreaks, etc. Anyhow, I feel good that finally Wikipedia has got rid of the main sock of that virus. I also support TopGun's request for the reversal of past things. The sockmaster had no fear of being taken to boards and blocked because he had many other accounts too and could easily make a new one and settle. Faizan 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion, warning rescinded

Let's remove log of warning. Imposing admin prefers to defer to the consensus here [74].

Support. I don't think it's important in the big scheme of things, but it's obviously important to an editor (TopGun) and I don't see any down side. NE Ent 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'd have to oppose this. While I very much sympathize with TopGun's wish to set the record straight with respect to the Marknutley/DS disruption, in the specific AE thread referenced here it does appear TopGun was rather blatantly trying to edit-war bad content into an article, so I'd still have to conclude the warning was objectively justified, no matter who his opponent was. Wouldn't mind to have the warning log annotated suitably though, something like: "DS later identified to have been a block evading sockpuppet". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Plus, Darkness Shines was not the only sock editwarring and baiting me generally and at that specific article. Specifically at that article, all parties editwarring against me were socks or sock masters proven to be using socks at that article as well. Here's the other guy [75] [76] (his IP as per his SPI). So bad content in the opinion of sockmasters or in the opinion of an editor who expressed it 2.5 years later is purely punitive. Actually we don't block/ban/sanction editors here because in our opinion the content is bad. That's grounds for a content dispute. On top of that, as I showed here DS was just looking to revert me where ever possible. This article was another one where the reverts were only being made because I would have once touched that content. It's funny when only one is proven a sock, but the second one too makes the day. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for all the reasons stated, and to set the record straight. Mar4d (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as stated above. Faizan 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

1992–94 Crimean Crisis

The article 1992–94 Crimean Crisis is being blanked and redirected to a different page without any discussions. I'm not saying this article for sure has to remain on Wikipedia (if it should be blanked/redirected then it can be) I just want a discussion and a consensus to be made. --Leftcry (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For someone who almost always reverts without actually discussing their edits, it does not seem very good-faithy to go running to AN/I saying "I just want a discussion". Then discuss!  Volunteer Marek  20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The page Novorossiya is also being blanked by the same user. --Leftcry (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not part of the blanking pages conflict, what I did is I prevented a deletion of a well organized article without a discussion (again, if it should be blanked then it can be but a consensus needs to be made first) other users who actually want a blank of the page can discuss this issue as I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should remain on Wikipedia. --Leftcry (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the first one is a POV pushing piece of OR, and the second one is about the same thing as a different article. The first one should definitely be a redirect, while the second one... I'm happy to discuss it. But then discuss rather than just revert!  Volunteer Marek  20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, not sure why you're bringing content disputes to AN/I. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I am not part of the blanking pages conflict - Yes you are. You reverted twice without discussion. If you don't have an opinion then stop edit warring. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Because these aren't "content disputes", users are blanking pages without a consensus. --Leftcry (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's called "redirecting". Yes, these are content disputes. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:BLAR, Volunteer Marek is obligated to submit articles to WP:AFD and not edit war the articles to be blanked and redirected. If there is really no substance for an article, then a consensus at afd should do it, not one editor's opinion that an article should be blanked and redirected. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh... did you actually read WP:BLAR? It says: "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect.". It says nothing about AfD. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(I should also add that I'm getting quite sick of constantly dealing with these SPA most of whom where created exactly at the time that this Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out). Volunteer Marek  21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Support Tutelary here. Volunteer Marek seems to delete almost the whole the article itself without going through the proper procedure. This seems not to be the first time [77], [78]. If VM wants to delete articles, he should follow the correct procedure and discuss this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLAR. The links you provide are also some sketchy-ass pieces of original research. The problem here is users trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies by creating WP:POVFORKs and using an encyclopedia to publish their own highly biased original research. Redirecting problematic articles is standard procedure, as noted above. Volunteer Marek  22:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, these seem like articles on their own, rather than Pov-Forks. If you believe the articles do not have justification to exist, there is a standard procedure for that.There is also a request to redirect procedure AFAIK--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• This does not belong at WP:AN, but at WP:AN/I. Regardless of that, I'm not convinced it belongs here or there at all as it is a content dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• This redirect was created by me [79], clearly annotated (see edit summary), fully explained, and an invitation for discussion was posted 6 days ago [80]. User:Leftcry did not respond at article talk page, but reverted the edit. I asked for discussion again (edit summary) [81]. In response, Leftcry did not respond again on the article talk page, but instead posted this ANI complaint. I believe this a battleground behavior. The filer was already warned. Now, speaking about AfD, yes, sure, no one objects AfD, however it makes a lot of sense to discuss the subject at article talk page prior to making AfD (and that is exactly what I suggested and started). My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

Special:Contributions/188.36.56.163 -- this IP was a month ago blocked with an expiry time of 48 hours for block evasion.. and a couple of days ago he edited again. An administrator must restore the block to prevent further evasion. 195.187.94.185 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it's the same editor? It's a dynamic IP. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Hi there hard-working admins. There is another backlog at SPI with about 30 reports in need of response, the oldest being 10 days old. We also need some clerk magic, too. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another backlog (for all is infinite when it comes to them)

WP:RFPP is again in post-weekend 48 hour long backlog, lend a hand to these clearly overdue requests which might have expired by now such is the way of things. tutterMouse (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Earlier this month, a user named Overdtop (now indefinitely blocked) made weird and disruptive edits to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brčko District. The edits to three of these articles were reverted, but a (substantially) identical edit to Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is still present in the lead of that article. Other edits have been made since then. Can someone fix this? 75.44.39.133 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the indef'd sock's edits to that article. There have been some edits since but I don't think I've overwritten them. Someone else can have a look if they want. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas"

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,

It is submitted that the user MelanieN was paid by the subject of the page "John Ducas" to create a promotional profile and maintain it against all edits. As soon as I tried to remove the page for its clear lack of notability, poor use of sources, and general lack of reason for being on Wikipedia, MelanieN immediately edited it back to its previous status within minutes.

The subject is a 16 year old child who was simply given 3,000 euros by his parents to invest in various stocks. The "financial firm" which is constantly referred to throughout the article is in fact simply a blog with some low-quality articles. You can check the source here: http://www.ducascapitalmanagement.com/

The source clearly shows that this is not a notable person, and the firm is in fact not a real firm and does not have any clients, let alone the claimed 150 clients: http://www.ducascapitalmanagement.com/disclaimer/

Please help me to preserve social justice by preventing those with money from promoting themselves on Wikipedia. This website is for educational purposes, not to advertise yourself by paying an editor like MelanieN to create and maintain a page for you.

Thank you,

Floridainvestor87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridainvestor87 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)

You appear to have provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone has been paid to do anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Paid editing is a serious allegation, yet you don't appear to have a shred of evidence to back it up. Also, you failed to notify MelanieN of this posting (though I've now done that for you). As you've been told, use WP:AFD if you think the article should be deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you also don't seem to have posted anything at Talk:John Ducas (investor) about this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This accusation is absurd on its face, as a glance at my userpage or contributions will show. The accuser, Floridainvestor87, is a single purpose account who registered today, apparently for the sole purpose of destroying the John Ducas article. They nominated it for speedy deletion, which I declined because it is not eligible, and deleted large sections of the article while throwing around accusations of "paid editing" and "fake accounts" and the like. Since the editor is new here (or at least the account is new), I think they should not be sanctioned for making accusations they can't back up, but they should be advised about Wikipedia policy in such matters. (Thanks for the notification, Jackmcbarn.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity I should add: I didn't create this article. I encountered it back in September while I was patrolling the PROD list - articles proposed for deletion. I decided the subject meets GNG, so I cleaned it up, added sources, and watchlisted it. Good thing I did, since it made me aware of this attack on the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the replies and the information. Sorry about failing to notify MelanieN of this posting, I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor, my main job is in the financial industry. I have no evidence for the allegations of bribery, which I still maintain are correct, since I am just a third-party here and don't have access to the subject's e-mail records. I'm not the NSA.

Putting the allegations aside, please have a look at the actual article in question and try to justify how it qualifies as something which is notable to the world. Should every child who invests money and gets his family's friends at Business Insider and Forbes to write articles about him get his very own Wikipedia page? I am unfamiliar with the deletion process, which is why I flagged it for speedy deletion. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this person should not have a Wikipedia page. If he does, then millions of other children who have dipped their toes into the world of finance would also get an article, which is simply absurd. Please let me know what evidence I can submit to prove the lack of this article's notability, I apologise for not being familiar with the formal processes of Wikipedia editing, I am acting with best intention, not to destroy John Ducas's page as MelanieN claimed. MelanieN, if you truly aren't working for John Ducas, you will surely want to co-operate with me in proving his notability for Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind replies and for your time.

--Floridainvestor87 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida, I yield to none in my contempt for the spoiled brats spawn of the rich who start with capitol from their parents and decide they are geniuses (Donald Trump started out as a teenager with a mere $100,000 to invest); but there is no such thing as millions of other children who have been discussed in articles in Forbes and Business Insider. It is not a real thing in the real world. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Floridainvestor, as far as I am concerned, I "proved his notability" back in September when I cleaned up the article and improved the references. But if you want his notability to be discussed by the wider community, WP:AfD is the place. Since you were able to figure out, on your very first day here and after only a dozen edits, exactly where to go to file a complaint about another editor, I'm sure you can figure out how to file an AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, I completely understand what you are saying and I am glad we agree on that first point. However, I maintain that the articles in Forbes and Business Insider were simply written because of the subject's connections to people who work at those websites. I'm in the industry, I know how it works. If your know someone working at those journals, you can easily ask them to write about you as a favour. If you look at the actual financial firm which is constantly referred to, it doesn't exist. There simply isn't a firm to talk about. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ducas has made a single penny from his investments other than what his parents have been feeding to him. He has not published any earnings tables, only a shoddy portfolio with some generic investments like Apple and Bank of America. Let me ask you a question. If I gave my daughter 3,000 dollars right now, set up a website for her named Ella Capital Management, made it look all fancy, and then asked my colleagues to contact their friends at Huffington Post and Forbes to write an article titled "Meet Ella: Girl aged 14 who invests in the stock market and has her own financial firm", would she be able to create her own Wikipedia page? I can do that this week if you want. I have a suspicion that it would get taken down for lack of notability. Am I wrong? Can anyone who appears in an article get a Wikipedia page? I've appeared in countless articles about my financial investments in forex and capital markets, should I also have a Wikipedia page? I don't see why Mr. Ducas is exceptionally notable but others are not. This is why my suspicion was that MelanieN had been bribed by him. If you look at his page's edits, they are all made by MelanieN. As soon as I tried to correct the page, she reverted it back, as if it was her duty to protect his promotion on the internet. Please let me know what you think. Thank you again for your answer, I really do appreciate it. --Floridainvestor87 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you either provide verifiable evidence that MelanieN has been paid to edit Wikipedia, or withdraw the allegation. Repeating your 'suspicions' here without evidence is otherwise only going to have one outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Appeal of 30 day 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.

---

Gamaliel's given me a 30 day topic ban on GamerGate broadly construed [82] because my now-deleted user page mimicked the structure of another user's page (Ryulong)

For comparison:

• User Tarc engages in edit warring; according to Gamaliel this is not actionable. [83]
• User Mark Bernstein suggests another editor personally supports raping and beating women, Gamaliel removes the comment but imposes no penalty [84]
• TheRedPenOfDoom [85], NorthBySouthBaranof [86] and others continue to make snarky comments without penalty.

This admin's enforcement doesn't seem evenhanded.

I have 3 requests:

1. That my ban be lifted
2. That my user page be restored
3. That Gamaliel be disqualified as an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to GamerGate general sanctions [87]

Apologies in advance if I've posted this complaint in the wrong area. Cobbsaladin (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The explanation given for the ban was not that your user page "mimicked the structure of another user's page". Instead it states that "your user page, which is now deleted, was clearly intended to ridicule another editor". Why exactly do you think that misrepresenting the reason given for the ban is going to improve your case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to misrepresent anything. I feel "mimicked the structure" is a fair description, the content was correct and my own and I assume the original page is available to any interested administrator. Cobbsaladin (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the semantics—Why did you choose to "mimic the structure" of another user's page, and of the user you chose in particular? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I created my account howevermany weeks ago and having read some user pages thought the combination of sultan and salad was humorous in the context of Ryulong's page. It was cheeky for my own amusement, I've never interacted with him, I don't expect he'd visit my page. If the banning admin had advised me to change it I would have complied without protest. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally just because an admin has blocked you doesn't mean they disqualified from furher sanctions, unless you have a reason why they would be somehow conflicted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you examine this admin's history and determine for yourself whether (s)he's uninvolved. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at this users page and Ryulong's page and I do not see anything mocking or insulting. Mimicking, or creating a derivative work is allowed per our license. The only thing I see wrong is a lack of CC attribution. Heck parts of my user page are copied from other users pages, I put a diff for attribution in the edit history. Is the content of the userpage the only issue here or is there something else? Is there a history of baiting between these users that suggests this may have been done in bad faith? Chillum 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's because a week ago I was doxxed by Gamergate and Cobbsaladin decided to solely edit in the topic area and decided to copy my userpage basically verbatim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't edited my user page for a month so I'm not sure how the "doxxing" is related. But I apologize if you found the content offensive, I thought you'd find it humorous if at all. Wait, can you see my page now or only previously? If only previously it makes me curious about the chain of events that led to my banning. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw your userpage before it was deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cobbsaladin:, from the deleted contributions list, it looks like you created your user page on Nov 18th - which is not a month ago, but instead about a week ago, and just happens to coincide with the 'week-ago doxxing' of Ryulong. Not saying it's related, just pointing out the time-discrepancy. Dreadstar ☥ 15:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Cobbsaladin: You have 36 edits at Wikipedia, starting with an attempt to delete Stop Porn Culture, and continuing with edits like this that removed a relevant quote from a Linux developer about his work—a quote which portrayed gamergaters in a negative manner. Now you would like to exclude one of the very few admins willing to spend serious time monitoring the topic—an exclusion which may allow the army of new editors to overwhelm those trying to apply WP:NPOV to the topic. No, Wikipedia is not like that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can understand deleting the page. He clearly copied it, and without attribution it is copyvio. The source should ideally be given to him, so he can re-add the page with appropriate attribution for where he got it from (our license allows copying with appropriate attribution). What I don't understand is why he got banned from gamergate for 30 days over it. As far as everyone has said, it related to Ryulong and not to gamergate directly in any way. --Obsidi (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused similarly to Obsidi. This can't be about failing to attribute properly, that deserves a deletion and an explanation about attribution. I can only assume that is a red herring and this is a really about POV or SPA issues. Chillum 03:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong has been seriously harassed off-wiki by gamergate people. There have been numerous new or returned editors who have become SPAs dedicated to promoting the gamergate view and/or to poking editors like Ryulong who prevent the undue promotion of that view. In that context, it is very easy to see how an innocent gesture of using Ryulong's user page might in fact be a provocation. At a minimum, that act is saying "I know who you are". Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think I understand. Thank you for explaining it so well. Chillum 04:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's not related to Gamergate, so he shouldn't have been sanctioned. Ryulong edits Gamergate (or used to) -> Suddenly anything done to him is related to Gamergate? Hmm, so can I get people sanctioned for editing stuff that I closely edit that has sanctions endorsed? This has overly broad and vague written all over it and cannot be in range of general sanctions as Ryulong is not apart of 'general sanctions'. In essence, this is about userpage copying, not Gamergate. Now, I thought Wikipedia was licensed under CC BY SA 3.0, and that anybody could use any revision provided attribution was given? So, all that's needed is attribution and the userpage should be restored. I also don't believe that copying a userpage should lead to a topic ban. It's also a bit ridiculous given that I don't believe OP has even edited a Gamergate article. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• What I find most curious is Ryulong, who I've never interacted with and who's "sworn off" gamergate involvement, was aware of both my user page, pre-deletion, and this thread. And coincidental to his discovery Gamaliel discovers my month-old user page and immediately bans me. Coincidences abound. Cobbsaladin (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• The page had my info, not Ryulong's. At no point have I interacted with Ryulong on or off wiki. Could someone advise me as to the process here? I'd rather this not take much more of anyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbsaladin (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 November 2014‎

Okay I don't think I do understand. If this is just about the user page then I think that is not enough to justify any sort of action. Copying a user page is not an attack per sey it just needs attribution.

If this is related to GamerGate then the ban should be based on evidence of that and really have nothing to do with the user page. Is there any prior interaction between this user and Ryulong? Chillum 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What also irks me is what Gamaliel left for the reasoning for deleting the page. Other defamation/personal information issues It's not 'defamation' nor a 'personal information issue' to copy someone's userpage. That he used that as reasoning I think needs to be brought into question his reasoning to delete pages, especially subpages related to GamerGate. Tutelary (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That was the best choice available to me from the dropdown menu. My reason for deletion was made clear to Cobbsaladin on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wanting an understanding of this topic would need to spend serious time following the gamergate-related articles. Doing that shows an inexhaustible stream of ultra-polite POV pushers—insisting on exaggerated WP:AGF for each new arrival is impractical. Cobbsaladin has been here three weeks and has never been blocked so no grave injustice has been performed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic ban and user page deletion are stupid. Seriously, that's all I have to say on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, Cobbsaladin here is full of shit. His user page was an exact copy of mine except he changed the universities, studies, and the languages that allegedly form the meaning of his user name. His user page was made to intentionally mock mine. This is not an issue that he was not attributing my user page as the source. I discovered his presence at WP:GS/GG/E (I only checked on it because of TDA's note of the new discussion at the arbcom page) and noted Gamaliel as participating in the thread and informed him of my concerns with Cobbsaladin's user page. He acted in this manner in his purview as an uninvolved administrator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @johnuniq If I've pushed a POV please demonstrate that in diffs, it's not reasonable to ask these understandably confused editors to take your word for it. If the community decides I should be banned on the merits of my edits I won't contest it; I was honestly not aware derivative user-pages required attribution, but to be banned for that or the similarity between my user page and Ryulong's seems ludicrous. Assuming my ban is reversed the community should consider whether Gamaliel can be trusted to exercise his powers objectively. Cobbsaladin (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq sums up the issue well. A user shows up nineteen days ago and edits nothing but articles about GamerGate and related topics. When he models his user page after a user who is widely mocked and targeted on Reddit, 8chan, and Twitter regarding GamerGate, to pretend that this act is not a deliberate provocation and has nothing to do with GamerGate is to pretend we have no intelligence or ability to see the obvious. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose discretionary sanctions are just that, discretionary. Not what I would have done but seemingly within discretion assuming there is context I am missing. Chillum 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how often some editors get a free pass for A LOT of stuff yet others get the banhammer over the most mild thing. I've been warned twice per NOTFORUM, and another user was topic banned for 90 DAYS by involved admin Future Perfect At Sunrise for talking with MarkBarnstein, agreed seemed to be NOTFORUM, but if that is to be bannable you might as well ban all editors participating in that talk page, and the duration seems extremely off, the same MarkBarnstein has used the talk page lately as his personal venting platform and nothing has happened, as well other disregarding WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:BITE these don't seem to be that important apparently, imagine if a pro-GamerGate forum paid a long-standing Wiki editor and he made pro-GamerGate edits, he would have been banned into oblivion and the servers where his account data account was kept burned. Loganmac (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't use this as a forum to make ad hominem attacks on me, Loganmac.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but note here that 1) Loganmac said nothing about you there; 2) less than an hour before that comment was your other comment in which you accused someone else of being "full of shit". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You have the same ability to post at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement that everyone else does. Gamaliel (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

* Wonderful. If my user page had said "Ryulong is full of shit" I'd understand the ban. Here Ryulong says I am, let's see what happens. To your question Chillum, this thread is my first interaction with Ryulong and as you can see it hasn't been pleasant. Discretionary sanctions specify "Enforcing administrators ... must not be involved." There may be wiki ways of communicating I'm not aware of but I don't see Ryulong's "notification" in the contribs, so it seems he and Gamaliel have an off-wiki line of communication -- that doesn't seem "uninvolved" to me. If the goal was to maintain civil communication with an editor (who again, I'd never communicated with) I could have been told my page was "offensive" or uncredited and edited it. Cobbsaladin (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Any editor is free to contact me with their concerns by using the same means of communication that Ryulong did, email. Gamaliel (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• As someone completely uninvolved in this mess, I have to say the sanctions look pretty lop-sided. On the one side we've got a 90-day 30-day TBAN essentially because Ryulong doesn't like the editor's user page. By that, I mean that even if you accept that the user page was intended to somehow mock Ryulong (I don't know if it was, I haven't seen it), even so, parody is a concept protected in most reasonable systems of law and one which any editor here would leap to defend in any other context I can imagine. Why not here? On the other hand, Ryulong can turn up here and call another user "full of shit" and no-one even comments.

OTOH, all this looks like it's winging its way to arbcom. If this is the standard of DS enforcement, that seems like a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• It was a 100% mockery of me. It copied everything on mine but changed my identifying details to his alleged details. It had a sentence at the end saying "Cobbsaladin" was from the English and Arabic words for salad. It was made to mock me. This guy is not here for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia seeing that all of his edits have been tinged with downplaying the controversy or mocking me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  I take your word for it. But I think NE Ent's advice below is excellent - don't feed the trolls. You don't get to choose who mocks you; you do get to choose how you react to it. I don't know what culture you are from; in most Western, English-speaking cultures, parody (a form of mocking, and one that seems to describe this situation) is protected as a form of free speech. IANAL, but I expect in most jurisdictions it would be difficult to argue that the lack of attribution is a problem, since parody is protected under many copyright regimes, also. People who are subject to it are best advised to ignore it and get on with their lives. That's my advice to you, but you are, of course, welcome to ignore it if you so wish. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong's page is pretty generic looking, it's a white background with text on it. I don't see how copying that and changing it to use the user's name and description would be mocking. Sorry, that's too far of a reach as far as I'm concerned. I'd say Cobbsaladin is correct, the deletion of his userpage was incorrect as was the discretionary ban about gamergate. Both should be removed. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

White background with text? Why would one need a template for that? Tiderolls 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As much as I feel that Ryulong is often his own worst enemy, in this case the copying of his user page with various terms changed to frivolous non-sequitirs was clearly intended to mock and belittle. Regardless of what other people may or may not have done, there ought to be no room for that sort of thing here. The quasi-legalistic and too-clever-by-half justifications for why the ban should be lifted that are being made by some here are thoroughly unimpressive, and I can only endorse Gamaliel's actions in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

• Overturn topic ban Originally I was confused as to the reason for the topic ban. The reason given by the banning admin is that "he models his user page after a user who is widely mocked and targeted on Reddit, 8chan, and Twitter regarding GamerGate" and that is why his action was associated with Gamergate. Having not seen the content I can just go off how Ryulong described how the page was "mocking" him: "It copied everything on mine but changed my identifying details to his alleged details. It had a sentence at the end saying "Cobbsaladin" was from the English and Arabic words for salad." To me this would not be "mocking" at all, and perfectly acceptable (with appropriate attribution assuming he got the structure from Ryulong). Furthermore, even if it was mocking Ryulong, I do not consider the link, as expressed by Gamaliel, between that action and Gamergate to be strong enough to warrant a topic ban. That said Gamaliel was acting only in his capacity as an administrator and as such continues to be an "uninvolved administrator". So far what I have seen, from just this incident, this is not an egregious enough of an abuse of discretion by Gamaliel to show that he is acting in an involved manner. --Obsidi (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse – This topic area is an absolute mess. There is no room for tolerance of this kind of behaviour, given how it has gone. People complaining about "lopsided enforcement" should keep in mind what Gamaliel said: everyone has access to WP:GS/GG/E. If you have a concern with an editor, provide evidence, and they'll like be dealt with. Under these sanctions, uninvolved administrators have the power to do anything they need to do to prevent disruption to the project. Gamaliel used this power, to prevent disruption, and to stop the continual nonsense that has occurred. He was completely within his authority. The topic ban is only for thirty days, so it is much shorter than a standard topic ban. There are many other topic areas for this editor to edit. If he can demonstrate that he's a good editor in other topic areas, he will have no trouble having the topic ban removed. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Trout and support. The Wikipedia policies and customs which have evolved don't really work well for something like gamergate. Gamaliel's not perfect admin overreach caused this disruption (otherwise why would there be this long AN thread?) Path of Least Drama would have been to have simply delete the page with an explanatory note. That said, the best response to an error isn't always reversal. The number one question should be not what "TheRulz" indicate but "How does this affect the encyclopedia"? (Most of the time following policy is helping the encyclopedia, which is why we should follow them most of the time.) Will having a brand new editor unable to edit a full protected article hurt the encyclopedia? Nope. So let's say, hey Gamaliel, probably could have handled that better but they're called "Discretionary" sanctions for a reason. And I'll add wiki raspberry awards to:

• Gamaliel: if you ever post an excuse as lame as "best choice available to me from the dropdown menu." again I'll post the biggest trout-whale I can find all over your user talk page. You can use your own words, can't you?
• Devil's Advocate: I believe it is healthy for a community to have an eponymous Devil's advocate to challenge orthodoxies which too often go unchallenged. But seriously, you have to learn to pick your battles.
• Ryulong: I'm truly sorry to hear you have been doxed, and hope your taking reasonable real life steps, as necessary to protect your health and well-being. However, as far as on-wiki behavior: You might as well replace your page with a giant userbox saying "Hypersensitive editor: For yucks and grins, poke here." WP:DNFTT is sound advice -- your serve up caviar on a silver platter. And stop parsing others' comments so hard to figure out how they're insulting you. This is Wikipedia, trust me, when someone wants to insult you it will be obvious.
• Cobbsaladin: I don't know if you're sock (a Wikipedian cheating by using a second account), a meatpuppet (someone urged to come here by others, likely off-wiki), or a new user who just stumbled into the wrong place. The great thing about being me is I don't care. Assuming the best case, as a new user you've shown really bad judgement by wandering into one of the most contentious areas of wikipedia right now. I sorry you've been hit with a seemingly unfair restriction, but we do "encylopedia" around here way better than we do "fair." There are 6,819,251 Wikipedia articles: you've been restricted from a totally insignificant portion of the project.
• NE Ent: you simply have got to stop logging in and aggravating yourself. NE Ent 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Ping:RGloucester| RGloucester}), you said keep in mind what Gamaliel said: everyone has access to WP:GS/GG/E. If you have a concern with an editor, provide evidence, and they'll like be dealt with Agreed, but' accusing someone of copying a userpage, when the page is a plain white userpage with straight text on it, and that only, doesn't prove that anyone was mocking anyone. It's too generic. That would be like if I changed my userpage to a plain white userpage with "This is Kosh's page" , that wouldn't be an imitation of Ryu's page, it's a generic userpage with no decoration. If I , instead, put up a plain white userpage and said something about gamergate, in any form, or any user, ok then, you just might have proof that the userpage is wrong. Right now, there's no proof and there's a ban on with no proof. Drop the ban, there's nothing supporting it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both pages had the same large initial letter in the user name, both pages had identical text with only the schools and names changed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

🎈 release

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

---

Can you create this page, redirecting to Balloon release? Buffalo Hunter and Gathering (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Buffalo Hunter and Gathering: What page do you want made? Lor^Chat 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing OP is asking for "🎈 release" to be created. Titles containing things like emoji are blacklisted as being generally not useful as article titles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There were already pages like 🎈 which redirects to a page Balloon. It would be nice to let people take a shortcut. Buffalo Hunter and Gathering (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Buffalo Hunter and Gathering: Well, if you want it created. Be bold and create it yourself. Lor^Chat 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He couldn't, hence the request. 🎈 release (and any title containing the 🎈 symbol) is title blacklisted and can only be created by admins. I've now done so as a technical matter. Any editor should be able to edit it now, and that would include a filing at RFD. Courcelles 04:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That character does not even render for me. Chillum 06:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Now at RfD, deserves wider discussion. Fram (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this has gone to RfD, a more appropriate forum perhaps an uninvolved admin can close this. Chillum 08:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Red link example

Please would someone permanently and totally protect Red link example and Red link example (disambiguated), with protection-log entries noting that they are kept for use in documentation? Red link is already used, and so not suitable. I intend to replace instances of badly-named example pages like this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, except I salted Red link example (disambiguation), not Red link example (disambiguated), to match our usual terminology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you, but the choice of Red link example (disambiguated) was deliberate, to leave Red link example (disambiguation) available, in the unlikely event it should ever be needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi POTW, Red link example (disambiguation) could not possibly ever be needed unless Red link example was already needed. I'd recommend sticking with Red link example (disambiguation) if anyone was asking my advice. Neither is a conceivable article title. But I'll just protect Red link example (disambiguated) too, and you can choose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)