Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• HiDrNick, please see User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close for my thoughts on it. I'll happily review the new discussions when I have some time, about to head to class for 4 hours. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries Technical 13. Quite understandable given your circumstances. Sorry if my frustration was leaking through into my post. Sadly, an admin could clear this up forthwith, leaving you to care for your family. Guess there are just too few admins. Or too many lazy ones? At least too few that will do anything that requires a little work. Someone on Dennis Brown's talkpage was talking about redirecting Chicken shit to ANI – I guess AN would be just as appropriate. If we can't come here for assistance, then WTF are we supposed to do? I realize admins are volunteers too, but if y'all aren't gonna do anything, then turn in your bits and let someone else do it. Anyway, take your time Technical 13, my gripe is not with you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can run for admin any time they want, you know Mojoworker, there's no need for anyone to resign and open up a vacancy ;-) Squinge (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In answer to Mojoworker's question, the default is always to revert to status quo ante. This non-admin closure has obviously been controverted, so there is no actual consensus on the issue at the heart of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A consensus close does not become invalid simply because someone disagrees with it. It's under review and as long as this review does not end with the closing rationale being overturned it remains valid. Tvx1 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "do not archive" template. This has been open for more than a month, which is more than enough time for someone to have formally closed it if anyone thought it needed to be closed. That didn't happen, so please allow it to die a natural death without prolonging it artifically. BMK (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact... BMK (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for review of closure of AfD G. Edward Griffin

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

---

I would very much appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would review the following no consensus closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Edward_Griffin_(4th_nomination)#G._Edward_Griffin by Nakon. Griffin's notability as author of the long time business bestseller, Creature from Jekyll Island, and World Without Cancer, clearly qualifies his notability per WP:AUTHOR. Consensus included a significant number of qualifying keeps and few deletes. Thank you in advance.... Atsme☯^Consult 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think the AFD was closed incorrectly then you should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, though as no consensus defaults to keep, I'm not sure it would be worth doing. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Davewild. I wasn't sure where to take it. Considering this is the 4th AfD for the same BLP, (which may also make him "notable") , I was hoping to get a confirmed close to settle the issue. The consensus was pretty clear to keep. Sorry for any inconvenience, and TY for the advice. Atsme☯^Consult 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OP request to close this Request for review.

Going to deletion review per above advice. Atsme☯^Consult 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Urgent closure required

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

---

Can someone please close this and delete and salt the article in question? Tomorrow is polling day and this nonsense remains (in Wikipedia's voice) in contravention of NPOV and OR policies. Beyond the creator, not a single person has supported retention. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates

Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolve a bunch of copy/paste moves

In complete disregard of their actions' effects on Wikipedia, the South Dakota legislature recently renamed Shannon County, South Dakota to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, and as a result, we have a lot of pages that need to be renamed; most, if not all, were in Category:Shannon County, South Dakota or its subcategories. Unfortunately, someone's simply copy/paste moved a lot of them; I tagged {{Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota}} for db-move, thinking it an isolated occurrence, but then I noticed that several of the county's categories had also been copy/paste moved. Could someone please go through all pages with "Oglala Lakota County" in the title, delete all the copy/paste moves, and then move the pages to the correct titles? It looks like most pages in these categories have already been recategorised (properly), so you probably won't need to move anything except these pages themselves. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The 2 articles and the only template have been done; I did the head category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Finished all the categories. If someone can think of other pages which need doing, either mention in here or use {{histmerge}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding editing administrative archives

Hey, admins,
I'm unsure whether this is the correct forum or the Village Pump but I'll start here for now. Recently, an editor received a block, in part, for editing the archives of WP:ANEW regarding his case. Part of his strategy in his defense was to ask a lot of questions about the inappropriateness of this editing, but when I actually looked into policy pages, I couldn't find any place where it was specifically prohibited. Many editors use the {{aan}} notice on their own archived talk pages which prohibits editing archived pages. But when I looked at the WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, etc. archived pages, there is no template that states that these pages can't be further edited by users.

Now, I might have missed some place in Wikipedia policies and guidelines where this prohibition is stated but if I didn't, I think it should be mentioned as a practice that could lead to a block or that is discouraged. Can a bot place the archive template on all of the administrative noticeboard archived pages? If this is not possible, I could take on this project but I don't want to do anything without getting an okay...and seeing if there was an automated way to do it! Right now, I'm more concerned about placing warnings on these pages but it is also a change that should be written into Wikipedia policy concerning archived admin pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Without any additional dtail, I don't think there is much we cn do. If the user is altering the archives for the purpose of making himslef/herself look beter and/or his/her opponents look worse, then there is clear grounds for a block. The main rule here is cmmon sense, and there is no way to judge the issue based on this rule just based on the details you gave. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A while back, the archive bot would preferentially archive threads which had the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} tags on it. I believe that particular function doesn't work anymore with the retirement of one of the bots, but it makes for good clean up practice to close up threads that have (A) reached a consensus, (B) petered out, (C) run its course and the participants are just arguing or (D) blocks/sanctions have been handed out.

Archive threads do have the text "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion". I gnome around ANI and AN a fair bit and where a close is uncontroversial, I slap those tags on. Closed threads should not be edited and offenders should be warned and blocked if the warning is not heeded. Editing an archived thread is basically tampering with evidence and it should not be condoned. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In practice it happens a fair amount; there's no set policy on archive tags. NE Ent 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a discussion on VPP? Blackmane (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to be spelled out. Written or not, it's common sense backed by a universal consensus and overwhelming precedent. The concept of an "archive" itself is self-explanatory—it's a place where discussions go when they're closed, and kept as-is for historical purposes. Obviously this site is a wiki so technically any discussions can be edited after they're archived. Doing this obviously falls under the scope of disruptive editing for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained, and it's absolutely important that we don't tolerate those actions. We're not a bureaucracy and don't need to tailor our written rules to cater to one disruptive editor who keeps falsely asserting he has no possible idea what he could've done wrong. The editor who provoked this thought is not a victim of being caught off-guard by an unwritten policy, he's been blatantly playing oblivious to every disruptive behavior he's exhibited despite a ridiculous number of attempts to explain our policies and practices to him in good faith. And even despite this, he was still let off with a warning to refrain from editing the archives, and he deliberately chose to ignore that warning and now continues to plead ignorance. It's ridiculous. Regardless,
  • WP:ARCHIVE explains the concept in detail. WP:ARCHIVE#Continuing discussions explicitly states that "archived discussions are immutable"
  • WP:CLOSECHALLENGE clearly explains the proper recourse for disputing closed discussions. Choosing to ignore that and edit said closed discussion instead simply allows for no excuse. Swarm ^X 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think those policies pages are quite unlikely to be seen by new users who are the most likely to try to edit an archived admin page. I've been around for a while and I couldn't find that sentence and I was looking for it. I don't think we can assume "common sense" will ensure editors will not edit archived pages considering that we have editors from a wide variety of countries, with varying levels of education and experience.
There is no question that editing archived pages shouldn't be done it's just that if we have warnings against doing this on archived user talk pages, it makes sense to place them on archived admin pages where these edits can have a greater impact because the issues are so contentious.
So, my questions remain, a) can a bot place a {{aan}} tag on past and future archived AE, ANI, AN, ANEW, etc., pages and b) if a bot can not do this task, is it okay if I do it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This really seems like a red herring issue. If it's disruptive editing, even on archived pages, it's worthy of a block. Elohim55 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sock of blocked user. BMK (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• So, it looks like no strong feelings either way if {{aan}} tags are placed on archived admin pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Extension:Gather launching on beta

Hello, I am Moushira, a new WMF community liaison for mobile products, and I have some updates to share today :). So, Extension:Gather has been in development for a while and is now ready for beta launch on wp:en mobile web by next week, where mobile logged in users activating their beta features option, will have the possibility to create and share public lists of their articles. For more information, kindly check the FAQ. All created lists will be paginated at Special:GatherLists, showing the user name that created the list, list name, and the time it was created, and admins will have the ability to hide/unhide a list if an issue is flagged. The product is an early experiment in lists curation, and as it develops, the community can best define its moderation rules. For now, it has been made sure that all lists are viewed publicly and that admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise. I would have loved to update you earlier, but certain technical details were only solved recently, without which any earlier announcement would have been vague. Happy to answer further questions :).--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...do you think Wikipedia is an e-commerce website or something? I notice that this week is your first time editing in four years, and Wikipedia has definitely gone through a number of changes since then, but, well, if your answer to my question is "yes", it might be wise for you to read WP:NOTADVERTISING. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia has many shortcomings in basic functionality and usability. It's a bit puzzling that resources that could have been devoted to addressing such problems were instead allocated to a nonessential add-on such as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris Mobile Wikipedia is still developing :). Testing new features is part of the development that helps analyze different usability models with Wikipedia on Mobile, and features like this aren't supposed to substitute the other basic functionalities that obviously still need development.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Um Erpert, not sure if you noticed but Melamrawy has (WMF) in their username. i.e They're a foundation employee. Blackmane (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little confused. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane thanks for giving headsup. I also added WMF before community liaison to help clarity and Erpert, no worries :).

Again, I would have ideally loved to share this update earlier, but it wasn't going to be useful without details. Lets keep an eye on the changes after deployment and please keep me posted then with any further changes that would need to be made, or any other comments :). Thank you!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts echo Short Brigade Harvester Boris, except I'm going to be a lot more blunt: how does this extension improve the encyclopedia? What I am seeing is yet another WMF-dictated extension that may not be consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. You are imposing yet another burden on the community, so there needs to be an equivalent or greater increase in quality or people who are willing and able to build an encyclopedia to compensate. It is very difficult to do the latter on a phone or tablet -- a keyboard is required.

Admin time is a finite resource -- we are here to curate an encyclopedia, not people's lists of favorite articles. MER-C 13:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

MER-C Really thanks for the points you raised. As you have probably read in the FAQ, what this feature allows is creating public lists of Wikipedia articles that could be shared with others. The logic here is to provide a new experience that allows mobile users to have a new usability for Wikipedia on mobile--as in creating lists, in addition to being able to share the lists and promote Wikipedia content, on other platforms, which should help increase readership and possibly attract new users. This is not meant to overburden admin's tasks, however, the lists are being logged publicly for clarity, and for any inconvenience that might raise, admin rights were planned to be given on hiding/unhiding the list from Special:Gatherlist page. As I mentioned, I wasn't able to start the conversation earlier given the lack of some details. However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change, but what do you suggest alternatively? Thank you --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't grasped MER-C's point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and our activities on the site should have the aim of building and maintaining that encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a social network – a point expressed in WP:NOT#FACEBOOK – but this extension provides social media features which have no relevance to creating encyclopaedic content. People can already share lists of articles, through external sites or lists on user subpages, and can already promote WP content by eg linking to an article on Twitter. We should not be encouraging people to make accounts simply to access such features because this distracts from our true purpose. The WMF should not be spending its voluminous donation money on such things, rather on features which will improve the encyclopaedia.

On a point of fact, this does not improve mobile usability as you have described it, because it does not make reading more accessible and nor does it improve editing functionality. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught, this feature is an experiment, enabled only in beta. As we move forward we should be able to assess the very concerns that you have addressed and if beta testing metrices didn't show any benefit on mobile usage, then there is no need for it to continue. The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP it is a test that provides new experience on mobile. For example, a user can create a list, name it, then they can get back to their collection of articles for quick review, something which can work nice while travelling and browsing lists of sights to see, then the user can share their list of sights visited, which might encourage others to edit or help grow these articles eventually, this is one example, another user can create a list of articles around a medical condition, and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists, which eventually is an interesting drive to contribute to articles. It is a mobile oriented experiment, but the way how users engage with it, will open venues to desktop contributions as well and will help us learn how do both platforms can complete each other. Reading this I realized that, a user can fast browse on mobile and create a list of their first 10 created articles, while sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing. This could be one usability, and is something to encourage others to consider editing, I need to add more screenshots to mediawiki to help visualize how it works. Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage, and other things that are hopefully developed within the next 2 quarters. Meanwhile, we can give a chance to some experiments that can support learning about user engagement on mobile :).Many Thanks--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think this could in principle be useful. However, I skim wikipedia on my phone on occasion and I always just switch to the desktop site because the mobile version is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a usable environment for reading, much less editing. So in that sense I think this is misdirected effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The example cited sounds like a TripAdvisor app. I'm not against experimentation but wouldn't giving the mobile version a more editor friendly interface be higher priority than a function that allows editors to merely share lists? Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is rather like spending money to put a nice stereo system in your car. That's great, a really nice feature, except that the car won't get out of first gear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To continue with this blundness (I am sorry, the earlier discussions regarding features that did not get requested, did not work and find resistance did not get the message through) - so now this beta is ready, User:Melamrawy (WMF), I presume that all programming efforts are now going to be focused on all the reported old bugs, feature requests, requested improvements etc. that have been waiting in Bugzilla/Phabricator for years, or is the next project another misdirected effort to keep the system in its lower gears? As mentioned, editing on mobile is quasi-impossible, and yet efforts are focused on this, which in no way will help with improving Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change,

Community involvement in moderation needs to be zero, because that's about how much benefit this extension brings to the encyclopedia. I've heard lots of promises from the WMF about reader "conversion" and editor retention, and this appears to be one of the most transparently ridiculous. (It'll be merely far-fetched if our mobile interface was up to scratch, because then the users you attract would have a fighting chance at making constructive contributions. Fancy that!)

The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP

and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists

Indeed.

Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage,

Like the others, I ask: why are you not picking this obvious, low-hanging fruit that results in a clear improvement to our mobile platform? MER-C 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, some of low hanging fruit will be indeed picked in the next 3 months, mainly the userpage, talkpages, in addition to allowing anonymous editing, and more will follow, please keep directing me to requests. Would you like to have an IRC office hours to discuss more elaborately? Again, this feature is a test and only in beta, community involvement in moderation might tend to zero, my note here was to flag that you will have the ability to do something, if you need/want to. However, when a similar feature is availed on desktop, at some point, as per the discussion here, then moderation rules would need to be defined. Meanwhile, I started a page to explore possible uses of this test feature for desktop. Thank You.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Those features are wanted by the community because we know they will help us improve the encyclopedia. Consequently, we wouldn't mind policing them for the usual crap. Oversight time is even more precious than admin time. You have failed to demonstrate how your extension improves the encyclopedia. If an extension does not improve the encyclopedia and imposes a community moderation version -- which is unavoidable if article lists are publicly available -- then it should not be deployed in any state. MER-C 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Input regarding "sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing." Please read Wikipedia:General background on risks for women on Wikipedia and the Internet, and ask yourself whether it is ethical, given the risks involved, for us to continually push our volunteers to disclose personal information and give testimonials!

What direction are we going on this site-- towards becoming a respected cultural institution? Or just another Internet company using bait and switch cult recruitment techniques to leverage unpaid labor which does not enjoy standard workplace anti-harassment protections? An honest assessment by a panelist at West Virginia University recently suggested something on the order of, "there's harassment everywhere, join up now and learn to deal with it early... "-- in other words, a repeat of gathering at the Bridge to Selma, this time in cyberspace ... --Djembayz (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• So I have a few questions, Melamrawy (WMF).
  • Do pages have to actually exist for them to be included in someone's "list"? If a page is deleted once someone has listed it, what happens? Can they include already-deleted pages, or perhaps even pages that have not yet been created?
  • Is there the ability for administrators to delete these lists? Is there an ability for oversighters to suppress anything on these lists?
    • If there is no ability to suppress, this extension should not go live. We have had plenty of experience with WMF-designed extensions being used (intentionally or unintentionally) for trolling, BLP violations, personal abuse, release of private or non-public information and so on.
  • I will note the thread on Wikitech-L in which a multitude of developers and participants in WMF projects have also expressed serious concerns about this extension from the more technical point of view. Who is addressing these, and how are they being addressed? And who is the current product manager for Mobile? Or who is the product manager responsible for this extension?
• Looking forward to your responses, Risker (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ok so after reading this thread the the FAQ, I think I've been able to figure out what this extension does (which was surprisingly difficult, given the amount of words spent): it will let users with accounts, on mobile, create and publish topical article lists based on themes as they choose them. Similar, in an obscure sort of way, to how the Book creator lets us compile multiple articles into a topical "book". The intention appears to be that mobile users will create and share these lists in a social manner, I imagine a bit like we currently see lists from Buzzfeed along the lines of "25 Wikipedia articles you won't believe exist". This strikes me as...well, not inherently harmful, but perhaps an odd direction to take mobile development in a period where we don't even have mobile access to our watchlists (which are also lists, just not lists we can, er...use on mobile?). I echo Risker's concerns about suppression issues, though - we had similar road bumps with Echo, as I recall, and some have already been squashed in relation to Flow: any system by which users can generate content or references to content needs to be secure with regard to hiding inappropriate content or it shouldn't be live on our projects, for the security of our users. I would really appreciate if Melamrawy (WMF) can expand, whether in this thread or elsewhere (functionaries-l is open for business if for some reason Gather-suppression-related stuff can't be discussed on AN?), on how "all lists are viewed publicly and [... ]admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise" actually gives us the ability to handle problem content. Instructions here, locally, would be very, very good things to have.

  On the useful side, I do note that the Gather FAQ make a passing mention to the fact that "Though user needs on mobile do not identically meet user needs on desktop, through Gather, we hope to extract lessons and maybe even code that can help with adding more features to watchlists on desktop". Which is, again, not a bad thing, but does appear to be coming at the problem sort of sideways: if you're hoping to learn more about how people use and want to use their watchlists, why not do some research on watchlists rather than hope to get that information from a tool intended to be used entirely separately from watchlists? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, and thanks for the elaborate discussion. For better clarity, you can test the feature on test WP--make sure you go to settings and enable beta features first please, and check a sample of how generated lists would look like . Watchlists do exist on mobile web Fluffernutter :), they are unfortunately still missing in the app though :/.

To reply to Risker's points, right now, what has been developed so far, is the ability for an admin to delete someone's entire list, from the Special:Gatherlists page, making the list private, viewed only by its creator. During the test and if the feature is likely to continue, there should be a discussion around how a similar lists creation functionality could be moderated, whether on desktop or mobile, and we can use this test to examine moderation behaviors (who would be involved? what are the rules? etc). Currently, this product is being managed by Jon Katz. Please note that we can also help grow the Gather FAQ by adding more questions there. :) lets keep the constructive discussion keeping in mind that we can always change things during the test to make sure we are making the best use of this feature, or even redesigning it all. I am hoping my answer is making things more clear, and I am happy to elaborate more if not.  :) Thank you everyone--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User rights of global banned user

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

---

(Redacted)

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

Request review of closure of ANI against Jytdog

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

---

I am requesting a review of the closure of the ANI against Jytdog (Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment) I raised regarding their protracted incivility and harrassment of me. I am raising this review on the basis of premature closure and inaccurate consensus of opinion.

Premature closure. Other points regarding the behaviour of Jytdog were being made at the time of the closure (00.26). I made a posting just 6 mins before the closure. The closure had not been requested by anyone. It is worth noting that the closure was made at a time when the huge majority of people in the UK and other similar time zones clost to GMT would be asleep and these editors would not have had an opportunity to contribute and comment on a large proportion of the comments in this discussion which were very recent.

Inaccurate assessment of consensus. The closing editor stated "There is no consensus for a block or any other action at this time". As far as I can see, there is only one editor suggesting no action. All other editors suggest some action is taken, therefore, the consensus is to take action, but this has not happened. Actions considered ranged from sending Jtydog a cartoon of a leaping trout, to perhaps seeking mental health advice. Any editor that can write this[1] should not be allowed to edit on WP. From my position, simply posting hollow apologies after the event is totally insufficient. This is insulting to editors and damaging to the project. Jytdog is a highly experienced editor. This does not mean they should be protected. It means they should be a mentor. Jytdog knew exactly what they were doing and was pushing harassment to the very limit as exemplified by their comment here "None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced)"Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC). If a newbie came on board and posted a message to another saying "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[2] would we really just turn around and say "oh well, at least they apologised". __DrChrissy (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support the closing - Admins are responsible to the community, and should not necessarily be arbiters of who "wins" or "loses" a dispute. If a situation can be curtailed (and excessive dramah prevented) by closing an AN/I report without action other than warnings, that is a responsible choice on the admin's part. (BTW, if you think I am a Wikifriend of Swarm, the admin who closed the discussion, I will note that my last block was made by that admin. Further, I cannot recall having muxh, if any, interaction with Jytdog.) BMK (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the close despite the fact that I didn't comment at AN/I. Jdog has apologised, and I doubt will use a swear word ever again. Send all fish products to the doc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per BMK, with no prejudice against filing a new ANI request if the behavior is repeated. NE Ent 18:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good point NEEnt, yes, agree. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure per Roxy Formerly 98 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• So are all those supporting closure with no action happy to see an editor write "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[3]?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If the cap fits ... -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That cap ("ignorant fuck") never does. NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy - Did he write that before the closure or after? BMK (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Before: the comment was 24 March, and the close was today. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. My point is that Jytdog is an experienced editor and should absolutely not be communicating in this way, only to then apologise in the knowledge (due to their considerable experience of ANI - why do they have that experience?) that will only get threatened with a warning. Please note that Jytdog has not even received a warning as a result of the ANI, let alone the totally humiliating action of being sent a cartoon of a leaping trout.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the point at this moment is that he misbehaved, he acknowledged it, and he was warned about future misbehavior. If he were to say something like that now, after the close of the discussion, the acknowledgement of his wrongdoing and the warning, then you'd have something to complain about, but at this time, WP:AGF requires us to assume that he will do as he says he will do. BMK (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, of course not. It is not the case the an editor repeatedly brought to ANI only receives warnings. Simply assume Jytdog's behavior will be appropriate in the future; if that turns out to be untrue, refile on ANI. (Or you're welcome to leave me a note on my talk page; if I'm not on wikibreak I'll look into it.) NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: You should be aware, however, that NE Ent is not an admin or even an ombudsman (as he sometimes appears to feel he is), and has no special powers to do anything in regard to your complaint. He can't do anything that any other normal, everyday, rank-and-file editor couldn't do.

Instead, I'd recommend that if Jytdog misbehaves in your direction, you contact Swarm, the admin who closed the AN/I discussion; I think that would be a much more practical choice. BMK (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment No comment on this particular closure but maybe Jytdog could take a break from filing cases on all the dispute noticeboards. It seems like there are a couple every week lately. Repeatedly putting oneself in an adversarial situation with other editors increases the likelihood that ill-chosen words will be spoken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz i completely hear that. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure. Per the closing admin's comments.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• sorry - I got a bit angry__DrChrissy (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Please look at the history page - this is the tactic that Jtydog uses - extremely disruptive and offensive.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Philg88 - I hope you understand I most definately did not mean what I wrote - I am simply trying to help people understand what it feels like to be the subject of harassment from Jytdog.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy, don't do that again. See WP:POINT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not. And I hope User:Philg88 appreciates the reason why I sent the message. This was in no way directed at them.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have sent a full and unreserved apology to Philg88. I would encourage other editors to look at the history of what I did because this is exactly what Jytdog does. According to Jytdog, this is non-actionable. If you wish to take action against me, it must also apply to Jytdog. Please be assured that this is not the way I normally behave, I just see a mass of people running around trying to hush something up because an established editor has gone off the rails and they are worried about taking punitive action.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:NOJUSTICE. NE Ent 21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose closure Jytdog received complaints about this behaviour from editors at this ANI on March 16th, where Drmies summed it up as "too gruff". I would say this is a gross understatement. Perhaps reread the entry from Atsme, which supports DrChrissy's assertions above. The ANI from DrChrissy should not be viewed in isolation, and IMO was closed with dizzying speed before the entire picture emerged. If this "gruff" behaviour and comments such as look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck are considered acceptable behaviour here, the loss of WP editors can't be surprising. petrarchan47tc 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

as I wrote before, i overwrote that -the final comment was here and i apologized to that user here, which was accepted. Just icky to bring that up again. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "icky" in the slightest to bring this up again. It is a perfectly legitimate example of your historical behaviour of reverting your own comments after having offended another editor that resulted in my ANI reaching consensus that action should be taken against you for this kind of bullying behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge no one has said the behavior was acceptable; if I'm mistaken please post a diff. NE Ent 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"If the cap fits" ... -Roxy the dog™ [see above] petrarchan47tc 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and I think you know it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the meaning of what you said was unambiguous. If you weren't insulting Dr. Chrissy, what could you have possibly meant? Doors22 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure Jytdog recognized issues with his behavior, apologized, and promised not to repeat these issues. We should take him at his word.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• The point is that the ANI had a consensus that action should be taken against Jytdog. None has been taken. The ANI was closed before consensus was reached on what action should be taken.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• As I read the ANI section, there was consensus for a warning, which occurred here and was accepted here. So, I believe the ANI was properly closed. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure although I was victim of Jytdogs aggressive behaviour too, I support closure due to two points: 1) WP:AGF, hopefully he really changes but we can only see that in a working practice and 2) AN/I will remain open, so if he falls back in the old behaviour he can be send back to AN/I quickly. The Banner talk 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Will someone please address my contention that the original ANI had a consensus that action should be taken, but that none has been taken. If this is nt addressed, you are sending out the message that ANI is a completely toothless tiger and it is a total waste of time to contribute to that page.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Every single commenter here who supported the closure of the thread is de facto supporting Swarm's closing conclusion that there was no consensus for anything but a warning, so there's no need for people to say so explicitly again.
  It's really time for you to put down the stick and stop beating the dead horse. There is not going to be a re-opening of the thread and there are not going to be any additional sanctions against Jytdog based on the evidence in that thread. If there is misbehavior in the future, you can be certain that it will be sanctioned appropriately, but for now, you need to let it go and go about improving the encyclopedia, lest you start to move into the area of "I didn't hear that" behavior, which can be construed as disruptive. BMK (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Support closure and allow people to open a new Request for Drama if they really feel they must. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I do hear what you are are saying. You are saying it is fine for all those contributors to make cogent arguements about the mis-behaviour of a clearly disruptive and uncivil editor on ANI, for them to support that action is taken, and for the admins then to take no action whatsoever. Not even a written warning! Think of all those hours that people have contributed in the ANI - wasted. Think of all the bad feeling Jytdog created - so harmful to the project. We civil and non-disruptive editors are expected to take an appropriate course of action by using ANI. What's the point? If anyone sees fit to close this thread - please go ahead...and please remember Jytdog's taunt at the beginning of the first ANI raised - "none of this is actionable". There must be the biggest ever Wiki-smirk out there upon closure of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are completely not listening to what people have said. Many times others have iterated that Jytdog was issued a warning by Swarm. For you to repeatedly say that no warning was issued is the most blatant case of head in the sand I've ever seen. One of Many linked the diff of the warning above, and I'll link it again, in bold, here. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been advised to "drop the stick". That I what I have attempted to do. Are you asking me to "pick the stick back up"?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

drchrissy, you edited the GMO article today, and you never have before. You are surely free to edit where ever you like of course. (nice edits, btw). You seem to be angry with me per your comments in this thread. I understand that I hurt you. I have apologized to you and have been formally warned by the community for my behavior (which, while it did happen for a while, was not characteristic of me - if it were, I would have received far stronger sanction). In any case. I hope your goal is to improve the encyclopedia and not to turn WP into a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ARGGGHHHHHH. You are already in breach of your warning. You have sent a message that is completely against WP:GF.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. You will not see me extending the scope of my editing here into articles that you commonly edit; it would be wise of you to do the same. My intention is to minimize interaction with you, and keep it all purely civil. I suggest you do the same. I am not proposing a formal WP:IBAN, but this is common sense following a dispute that gets personal. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, so you extended into the GM Food article, drchrissy. as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure per WP:ROPE and without prejudice to starting a new ANI thread if problems persist. The existing ANI thread is evidence of itself that a problem has existed, he's been given the opportunity to self-reform, and at this point we should give it some time to see if he does. If in a few weeks, he still is behaving in noncollaborative ways, there's no problem starting a thread then. Let sleeping dogs lie... --Jayron32 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

An article with long-term BLP vios

There's a ticket in OTRS about a bio that I've been dreading to touch. It has been vandalized over the years with some silly and some serious BLP violations that merit oversight, however the disruption is so widespread and the number of revisions so large that I'm thinking it needs to be deleted and the last good revision restored. Is that something that we generally do? I'm worried about attribution. If any oversighters are reading this I'd appreciate some advice (or action!). Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to say there are BLP vios in the history or in the article as it is currently, or both? Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: In the history. Lots of them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I figure retaining attribution and spending the time rev-deling the offending edits is the better way to go, I'm happy to do so if you'd like. Sam Walton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: There are 301 revisions by my count, and some of the problematic edits date back 10 years. I'm not sure if individual revdels is the most efficient way to go, so I wanted to ask for an opinion on the viability of nuking it and starting over. It's going to be a lot of work at best, with high possibility of missing revisions that needed to be suppressed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuking it and even just writing a stub with the good refs might be a better idea, especially since it makes it easier to spot future BLP issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete the page outright and then restore the latest revision: it would prevent proper attribution. I'd say the best options are probably either (1) deleting the page outright, not restoring anything, and writing a stub with the good refs, or (2) revdeleting all revisions except the latest, preventing access to the content but allowing everyone to see the list of contributors. Remember that you don't need to click every little box: click the first, hold down Shift, click the last, and let up Shift, and it will check all the boxes for you — if you've told it to display 500 revisions, this will get everything without much work. Wholesale deletion isn't quite in line with WP:CSD, but this sounds like an ignore-rules situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose it depends which we care more about - BLP or contributor attribution. If the article is genuinely new then the latter is less of a concern - that there was a previous version that was deleted (someone's "hard work") is more a matter of credit rather than attribution. In short; agree with Nyttend's suggestion number 1. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9, David Fuchs, Nyttend, and Stalwart111: Thank you all. I went ahead and nuked most of the revisions, all text and selectively summaries where appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple page move

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

---

I messed up on a page move to Sylhet Government. Pilot High School — needs to have another move with no period after "Government." Thanks. Carrite (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

History missing after page move

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

---

An article about a musician who is not notable (yet) was created at Alex kyza. I moved it to Alex Kyza per WP:NCCAPS, but now not only is it, for some reason, listed at the original title again, but the history got messed up somehow so now it appears as though I am the editor who created the article. Not a huge deal (in fact, I probably wouldn't have even known about it if Lakun.patra hadn't placed a {{prodwarningBLP}} on my talk page; I initially prodded the article myself), but...is there any way to fix this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone simply edited the redirect you created when you moved the page (the original history is at the uppercase title). Nothing needs to be fixed here - the incorrect casing should just be redirected again. Number 57 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

But I made the redirect after the original article was made (by JohannaLopez012, not me). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Alex kyza was first created at 06:32, 30 March 2015, you moved it at 06:51, 30 March 2015, but then it was created again at Alex kyza at 07:37, 30 March 2015. I've reverted it back to being a redirect. Squinge (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and when you say "the history got messed up somehow", it actually didn't - that's the history of the redirect, and you did in fact create the redirect. The history of the original article is now at Alex Kyza. Squinge (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Istrian exodus: Request for admin attention

A few admin eyes are requested at Istrian exodus. For background, Istria is the name of the peninsula in the Adriatic Sea that included most of the former Yugoslavia and now includes most of Croatia. There was a content dispute that unfortunately included allegations of bias. The content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the thread was closed unsuccessfully there due to back-and-forth comments between editors after being cautioned by the DRN coordinator. I note that Istria is in the Balkan region, so that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. I am not asking any administrative action at this time except attention. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew Issue at WP:NPOVN

I am requesting a few administrative eyes on a dispute about the Gospel According to Matthew that is currently under discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I am not asking for any administrative action at this time except attention. I was asked whether I was willing to file a report at WP:ANI about discussions about the Gospel According to Matthew, which has been a contentious article in the past. There has been little discussion on the talk page recently, but there has been discussion at WP:NPOVN, mainly concerning the most neutral statement about scholarly disputes as to when the book was written. What I see is primarily two editors who do not like each other, but nothing that appears to me to rise to the level of calling for administrative action, and therefore no reason for an ANI filing, because it is mostly a content dispute. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

(Non-administrator comment) He indeffed himself, so I doubt he'll be coming back. I don't recall ever crossing paths with him but I wish him the best. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good. We've got rid of another one. Which admin is next? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Very classy comment. BMK (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that discussion should happen at the "Discuss this" link. --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to lift Light show's image ban

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

---

I'm requesting that the ban on uploading images that was imposed in November 2014 be lifted. The original ANI about this and my "oppose" rationals should clarify why I don't foresee too many future issues. I see many articles that could, and should, have an image, such as I noted for Talk:Bob_Simon#Lead_photo_request, and some others, and I think those articles would be improved with images. On my talk page, it was suggested back in November that the ban was not meant to be infinite, and could eventually be appealed. I asked Monnriddengirl last month, and she suggested I come here. Thanks for any consideration. --Light show (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Here's the thread link and these are the other editors who supported the ban: User:Masem, User:Ivanvector, User:Laser_brain, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Dennis Brown, User:Thomas.W, User:Neatsfoot, User:Diannaa, User:Calliopejen1. The only oppose vote was from the user himself; most of those supporting the ban have had many dealings with the editor and copyright issues.

The problem dates back to 2009 if not earlier. He has been the subject of a CCI since April 2012 under his former Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 user name, the topic of an RfC RFC/U in October 2012, and blocked at Commons indefinitely blocked on Commons since 30 November 2013 for the same reasons. Each time the problem was addressed in the past, the user proceeded to tell all of us how we were wrong re: WMF policies for PD images, and he alone was interpreting them correctly.

The oppose statement he refers to which will tell us why there won't be any more issues if he returns to uploading is simply a rehash of his position. It has caused problems for others who work on copyright concerns in the past and he's basically saying that he wants to return to that same pattern as an uploader. There's no indication from him re: a willingness to work within the WMF rules and guidelines either before (his oppose statement) or afterwhen he's tried to get the ban lifted. We hope (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons We Hope lists - several prior attempts at making Light Show understand the minimum requirements we require (compared to US Fair Use) seemed to have repeatedly failed. There's no reason that, if LS believes that there exist free or non-free media that can be used on WP , to direct other users on the proper steps or the like to upload the images appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did direct other users to post a non-free for the RD of Bob Simon, including sample instructions, yet no one was capable. In any case, the key issue is PD, not non-free. I rarely added non-free images since deleting them is totally subjective and thereby arbitrary, ie. #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot more people are active Wikipedia:Files for upload here and try to handle all requests when possible. This handles requests for specific files; why not try this in future? We hope (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Bob Simon (who died in February but was an active person in the industry till then), there is a chance a free image can be found, though a check at flickr + google doesn't immediately show any. Non-free policy suggests that we don't immediately drop a free image of a recently-deceased person just because they have deceased if that person still was a rather public figure. In a few months, yes, that might change. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Nothing indicates Light show's understanding of our image use policies has improved, and their knee-jerk conclusion that the death of a long-time public figure automatically authorizes the use of a nonfree image is not promising. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per those above. BMK (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree that blocks of this sort should not be infinite, but I don't see that there has been any effort to consider the reasons for the ban, to understand our copyright rules, or to improve submissions. We imposed the ban because of the inordinate amount of community time necessary to vet this user's contributions because of a long history of misunderstanding or ignoring copyright. I would prefer if we could allow this user to suggest images for upload and have them vetted before being uploaded, a sort of image probation I guess, but I have to oppose a straight lifting of the ban. Ivanvector (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggested that months ago, and agree that's a reasonable solution. However, it was rejected without explanation. --Light show (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Where was it rejected? In the thread you link, the last word on the subject that I see was "you can certainly ask her". Did you? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, after a series of posts to my talk page badgering me after the deletion of a Commons image, the user was told he was not welcome at my talk page; this was in March 2014. Since he was blocked at Commons, I linked my talk page to the Commons DR and said he was free to post his reasons for keeping the image there; nothing was posted by him until after the file was deleted at Commons. I don't feel that working with him would result in anything other than the differences of opinion we've had regarding what WMF rules consider to be in the public domain. To me, it's a question of his willingness to follow the WMF rules. What we've had in the past is him trying to assert his own standards of PD vs those of WMF. Since they're not the same, there are deletion requests and contested deletions. I feel it would be the same situation with the exception of the image not yet being uploaded. We hope (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see any evidence that anything has changed since the original thread. The user is either unable or unwilling to understand the community's concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I wasn't involved with the original decision to ban uploading images but in various pages I've been very concerned with the liberal attitude displayed towards copyright and the wrong licenses and claims on certain images. I don't think you can be trusted on this LS, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose LS shows no understanding of the relevant copyright policies and simply refers to his old comments, which are contrary to the relevant policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Residency (medicine)

Something has gone wrong with Residency (medicine) after an edit on 30 March. There is an error message "The revision #0 of the page named "Residency (medicine)" does not exist." Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is happening across the encyclopedia in many articles. Is anybody doing anything about it? Viriditas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: see here. Apparently, a revert and manual restore seems to fix it, but how is this going to fix all of the other pages? Dare I say it? The Machine Stops. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Cotton

Hi, Italian user Cotton passed away last year. However, his username here on enwiki was not Cotton but User:Cotton10: so User:Cotton should be unprotected and fixed. --Jaqen (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I unprotected since it's clearly not the same user, and protected User:Cotton10 instead. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Page move fuddle-up

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

---

Hello all,
It appears that administrator Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has botched some page-moves. (Again).
The affected articles are Peperoncini/Peperoncino and Italian sweet pepper/Friggitello.
I have given Shirt58 a notification about this thread and warned them that competence is required in page-moves here.
The page-move discussions include this and this.
It seems Shirt58 has tried to fix this up, but has discovered they are really not smart enough to fix the mess they have made.
Can someone please fix up this guy's mistakes? (Again.) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it might be time for an interaction ban between Shirt58 and Shirt58, it's clear they can't work well together. On a more serious note, can you clarify which pages are supposed to be where? I'll try to sort it out. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was more straightforward than it looked. I've fixed the Peperoncini > Friggitello move by moving it to Peperoncino as originally requested, then performed the Italian sweet pepper > Friggitello move which hadn't taken place. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

While Shirt58 did notify Shirt58 of this thread, I'm seeing no evidence they attempted to discuss the situation with Shirt58 before filing an AN thread, as is the usual expectation. NE Ent 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This peppery issue appears to be a case of "good hand, bad hand" sockpuppetry. It may be time to file a sock-puppet investigation. New Checkusers were appointed today and can get on-the-job training with this inquiry. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Xezbeth fixed this. It appears that Friggitello, Peperoncino and Peperoncini now contain the proper content and no further moves are needed. There is a discussion about the correctness of the recent moves at Talk:Peperoncino#Requested move 29 March 2015 and those interested in peppers are invited to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Page Restoration

Could Someone please restore WP:BANNEDUSERS? It seems to be deleted

Thanks,

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The page was deleted after this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominate 2015 Los Angeles train crash for AfD

Can an admin please nominate 2015 Los Angeles train crash for AfD with the text "Fails [[WP:NOT]] this local train accident, has no demonstrated lasting significance, this is not a newspaper" . Thanks 101.169.85.54 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles train crash. For future reference, any autoconfirmed registered user can do this, not just admins. ansh666 03:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Nope, it can be done by any registered user; they don't have to be autoconfirmed. Graham87 09:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure you need to be autoconfirmed to create pages in WP space? Dunno. ansh666 12:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ansh, Graham87 is correct. Any registered editor can create pages in WP space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Thanks for clearing that up. ansh666 02:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter to continue after his term on the Audit Subcommittee expires

• Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter.

• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

• The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

• GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• The Committee thanks J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for his years of service as a Checkuser, who has recently resigned from the role.

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

• You lot: thanks for your service. Expect more dirty and complicated work. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I proposal needs closure

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

---

On An/I I have restored from the archive the master thread concerning the e-cigarette issue. The final section of this, about a proposal to institute community discretionary sanctions, needs to be closed. Are there any admins willing to wade through the verbiage to determine whether there is a consensus or not? The main thread start is here, and the section needing closure is here. BMK (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of background on this: the issue was brought to ArbCom, but the committee didn't accept the case, preferring to let the community deal with it. Now, the community could certainly deal with it with a pocket veto, allowing the thread to be archived without action, but it would seem to be a more appropriate solution, after so many editors have taken the time and effort to comment, for it to be formally closed by an uninvolved admin or admins. Perhaps a troika of admins might volunteer to do the deed? The thread's been open for 19 days now, so it's certainly ripe for closing.

Any volunteers? BMK (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Closed by Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks. BMK (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

user has created another users userpage

see history User:Kaiwan Bahroz--Musamies (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kaiwan.B and Kaiwan Bahroz are both the same person, Kaiwan Bahroz and he is trying to write an article about himself. You need to notify Kaiwan.B that you are discussing their edits here. -- GB fan 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Musamies, I notified Kaiwan.B that they were being discussed here. In the future you need to do that. -- GB fan 14:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across a new editor last week that was creating a lot of user pages for newish editors who hadn't gone to the trouble. He didn't explain whether he was trying to help them out or just rack up a lot of page creations. But when he asked about why it was wrong, I didn't have a go-to policy explanation. While no one "owns" a Wikipedia page, it just seems improper to create someone else's main user page. Or was I all wrong about this and there is no harm, no foul? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#OWN, “Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users. Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)” Emphasis added JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So, by convention sounds like it is common practice and creating user pages for other users, unasked, is actually not prohibited then. It's just presumptuous and intrusive but not forbidden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The stupidity begins

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 forgot until a few minutes that it's stupid day. Anyway, anyone else [4] want to tell Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that signing their name as "Jimbo Wales" [5] isn't appropriate.? NE Ent 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'll tell myself that it's not appropriate, please and thank you. — Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

^Not really. BMK (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While I generally don't mind the signature, I would ask that it's not used when performing administrative tasks such as closing AFDs. These will persist beyond 1 April. Nakon 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the edits will persist beyond 1 April. Coffee is not for the first time demonstrating a degree of silliness I don't particularly want to see in an admin. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• *shrugs* I'm sure Coffee will go back on April 2nd and fix every signature. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not. It's not like he has a great track record when it comes to acknowledging errors in his ways, eg: recent ANI reports. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, please don't perform most administrative tasks. If you join a discussion, it won't matter a big deal (at most, people will think that Jimbo has an opinion on the discussion), but if you perform some administrative task that involves you leaving a signature, people may see it as a decision being handed down from the God-King. Not a problem for stuff like speedy deletion, of course, but if I want to challenge the deletion of Samuel Akinniyi Ajiboyede, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant if I think that it got deleted by Jimbo himself. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed that {{NOINDEX}} was being added to an AFD discussion. I didn't understand this and so investigated. This doesn't seem sensible - doing an April Fool and then covering it up so that people can't find it is self-defeating. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with humour is it doesn't travel well and doesn't cater for a wider audience. While I personally would love it everyone lightened up a bit, you can't make people lighten up to your level. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And most definitely not the sour crowd of en.wp —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Humor is supposed to be, at least to some extent, funny. This is, quite frankly, not (especially with that bogus edit summary). Sorry, but crap that would get you blocked the other 364 days of the year shouldn't get carte blanche just because it's April 1. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, I see he did the same thing to a number of those AFDs :-( Squinge (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• How about actually blocking some of these fools? How about (in the pure spirit of preventing damage) doing it beforehand too? It's not as if the culprits aren't obvious from their behaviour in past years. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well the thing to do is put some block templates on their user pages, but, get this, don't block 'em. hah hah --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Coffee did get a "stop this now or you'll be blocked" notice, and promptly stopped, making the block unnecessary. That'll do for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Have you seen the number of AfD actions that Coffee has signed as "Jimbo Wales"? That's irresponsibly stupid. Squinge (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  I've removed his fake signatures and removed his NOINDEX tags from the AFDs I could find, and I think I got them all. It's extremely disappointing to see such behavior from an admin creating disruption for others to clean up. Squinge (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the first time from this admin. But we all know what would happen if this was taken up at WP:ANI. Lengthy debate, with lots of strong evidence against Coffee. They'll go off in a huff, blank their talkpage, pretend to be "leaving for good", then come back after a few days and get of scot free. Just like last time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

AN/I proposal needs closure

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

---

On An/I I have restored from the archive the master thread concerning the e-cigarette issue. The final section of this, about a proposal to institute community discretionary sanctions, needs to be closed. Are there any admins willing to wade through the verbiage to determine whether there is a consensus or not? The main thread start is here, and the section needing closure is here. BMK (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of background on this: the issue was brought to ArbCom, but the committee didn't accept the case, preferring to let the community deal with it. Now, the community could certainly deal with it with a pocket veto, allowing the thread to be archived without action, but it would seem to be a more appropriate solution, after so many editors have taken the time and effort to comment, for it to be formally closed by an uninvolved admin or admins. Perhaps a troika of admins might volunteer to do the deed? The thread's been open for 19 days now, so it's certainly ripe for closing.

Any volunteers? BMK (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Closed by Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks. BMK (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

user has created another users userpage

see history User:Kaiwan Bahroz--Musamies (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kaiwan.B and Kaiwan Bahroz are both the same person, Kaiwan Bahroz and he is trying to write an article about himself. You need to notify Kaiwan.B that you are discussing their edits here. -- GB fan 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Musamies, I notified Kaiwan.B that they were being discussed here. In the future you need to do that. -- GB fan 14:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across a new editor last week that was creating a lot of user pages for newish editors who hadn't gone to the trouble. He didn't explain whether he was trying to help them out or just rack up a lot of page creations. But when he asked about why it was wrong, I didn't have a go-to policy explanation. While no one "owns" a Wikipedia page, it just seems improper to create someone else's main user page. Or was I all wrong about this and there is no harm, no foul? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#OWN, “Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users. Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)” Emphasis added JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So, by convention sounds like it is common practice and creating user pages for other users, unasked, is actually not prohibited then. It's just presumptuous and intrusive but not forbidden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The stupidity begins

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 forgot until a few minutes that it's stupid day. Anyway, anyone else [6] want to tell Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that signing their name as "Jimbo Wales" [7] isn't appropriate.? NE Ent 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'll tell myself that it's not appropriate, please and thank you. — Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

^Not really. BMK (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While I generally don't mind the signature, I would ask that it's not used when performing administrative tasks such as closing AFDs. These will persist beyond 1 April. Nakon 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the edits will persist beyond 1 April. Coffee is not for the first time demonstrating a degree of silliness I don't particularly want to see in an admin. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• *shrugs* I'm sure Coffee will go back on April 2nd and fix every signature. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not. It's not like he has a great track record when it comes to acknowledging errors in his ways, eg: recent ANI reports. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, please don't perform most administrative tasks. If you join a discussion, it won't matter a big deal (at most, people will think that Jimbo has an opinion on the discussion), but if you perform some administrative task that involves you leaving a signature, people may see it as a decision being handed down from the God-King. Not a problem for stuff like speedy deletion, of course, but if I want to challenge the deletion of Samuel Akinniyi Ajiboyede, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant if I think that it got deleted by Jimbo himself. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed that {{NOINDEX}} was being added to an AFD discussion. I didn't understand this and so investigated. This doesn't seem sensible - doing an April Fool and then covering it up so that people can't find it is self-defeating. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with humour is it doesn't travel well and doesn't cater for a wider audience. While I personally would love it everyone lightened up a bit, you can't make people lighten up to your level. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And most definitely not the sour crowd of en.wp —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Humor is supposed to be, at least to some extent, funny. This is, quite frankly, not (especially with that bogus edit summary). Sorry, but crap that would get you blocked the other 364 days of the year shouldn't get carte blanche just because it's April 1. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, I see he did the same thing to a number of those AFDs :-( Squinge (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• How about actually blocking some of these fools? How about (in the pure spirit of preventing damage) doing it beforehand too? It's not as if the culprits aren't obvious from their behaviour in past years. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well the thing to do is put some block templates on their user pages, but, get this, don't block 'em. hah hah --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Coffee did get a "stop this now or you'll be blocked" notice, and promptly stopped, making the block unnecessary. That'll do for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Have you seen the number of AfD actions that Coffee has signed as "Jimbo Wales"? That's irresponsibly stupid. Squinge (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  I've removed his fake signatures and removed his NOINDEX tags from the AFDs I could find, and I think I got them all. It's extremely disappointing to see such behavior from an admin creating disruption for others to clean up. Squinge (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the first time from this admin. But we all know what would happen if this was taken up at WP:ANI. Lengthy debate, with lots of strong evidence against Coffee. They'll go off in a huff, blank their talkpage, pretend to be "leaving for good", then come back after a few days and get of scot free. Just like last time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP Vandalism at Linda Lingle

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 we please do something about this IP editor Special:Contributions/2605:E000:EFC0:6B:11C4:963E:778B:670B? Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed ban of User:Kiko4564

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

---

Hi, I'm here to propose that we formally show this sockpuppeting troll the door with an indefinite ban and to request you give your opinions on my proposal below. The facts are that he not only evaded his block using many accounts simultaneously but even went on to troll and vandalise for the fifth time at least once after his latest block. Therefore I feel that upgrading his indefinite block to a ban is necessary to prevent disruption from him continuing. Can someone also please notify him of this discussion as I cannot do so because his talk page is semi-protected. 87.112.156.248 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have been blocked since 11 November 2014. AcidSnow (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that putting a notice on his talk page would notify him since he is indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor can he even edit his own talk page, so we will never know if he got it or not unless he comes here. But what good would that do him lol. AcidSnow (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I know about WP:AGF and all, but I always get a little suspicious in cases where the OP's very first edit is at AN... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion of old AfC drafts under db-g13

Dear administrators: As you know, old AfC drafts which haven't been worked on for six months or more are being placed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and considered for deletion. There are a number of editors who have been picking through these drafts, nominating some for deletion and improving others. However, there are thousands of drafts added to the list every month, and sometimes we don't have time to check them all, especially if we take time out to improve some. When that happens, they filter to the top of the list and are tagged for deletion automatically by the HasteurBot, under db-g13. This is a good thing, because some of the pages, created by new users, contain copyvio, BLP violations, or are about completely non-notable topics, and need to go. However, in my experience, about one in four of the ones nominated by the bot are well on their way to being acceptable articles, and the bot has no judgement about the appropriateness of deleting a particular page; that is left to the admin who sees the tag.

When you come across one of these bot-nominated pages, I hope that you will consider going beyond checking whether the page is eligible for deletion, and also look to see if it could be made into an article with a little improvement. No need to improve it yourself; just removing the tag will give a draft another six months for someone to find time to work on it. If you leave an edit summary such as "removing deletion tag; possible notable author" or some such it will give the draft a little publicity as well. I have personally removed tags from drafts about Olympic medalists, Oscar-winning actors and Chair-holding professors. HERE are ones that I have picked out of the pile, and all were either tagged by the bot or would have been if I hadn't made an edit before that happened.

To those of you who have already been doing this, thanks, and sorry for taking up your time.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

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 closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

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.

---

From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• removed the do not archive thing. — Ched

Removed it for real? this time.

 :  ?  07:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Restored the do not archive tag. This should not be archived until the consensus to unsalt is carried out. Cunard (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't speedy things to reduce drama. In fact, as this has shown, it just ramps it up. Always has. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Wikipedia is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...

• Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh Why would we immortalise this trivia? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Good grief, are we really still debating this? Absent a BLP problem, the closer of this at AN (who is one of the most experienced DRV closers btw) said this could be unsalted barring BLP issues. I don't think anyone has identified a BLP problem, potential problem or even an imaginary problem. unsalt and restore if it needs bolding. Folks, this is getting stupid. Let AfD decide if it meets our notability guidelines. This has never been to AfD for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just realized how long dead this discussion is/was. Anyone object to me taking this to WP:RFP (where it honestly belonged to begin with). Hobit (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Feel free to take this back to WP:RFPP. I did that nearly a month ago but the unprotection request was declined by Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that that was at RFPP. He did that after the close at AN? Holy Crazy Bureaucracy run around Batman. This started at DRV. Went to AN to overturn and now needs someone to unsalt so we can have an article so we can have an AfD (I assume). This is insane given that he clearly meets the letter of WP:N and the rest of our content policies/guidelines (the spirit is more up for debate of course). Could the relevant admins please inform the rest of us what the next step is here? Back to DRV? RFPP? Something else? @Spartaz and Courcelles:Hobit (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The next step would be for Cunard to tag the draft as {{db-g7}} so we can finally put to rest the idea that this poor sap deserves to be immortalized in an encyclopedia for saying something stupid one day on Facebook. But that's probably not going to happen, so I guess the other alternative is to keep flogging the dead horse on noticeboard after noticeboard and putting up {{do not archive until}} templates on each thread to prevent this sad episode from ever dying a natural death. 28bytes (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what? If this had been deleted at AfD, that would be the right thing to do at this point. But it wasn't. It was deleted out of process and the topic actually meets our inclusion guidelines. If you don't like those guidelines, change them. But let the community make the call. If you cheat, you shouldn't get away with it. I realize that's a hard lesson for a lot of people to learn. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The community has had plenty of opportunity to chime in here. This is not an obscure noticeboard. The fact that this thread has to be constantly propped up by {{do not archive until}} templates because it would otherwise archive without action should tell you that the community has little appetite for having a mainspace article for this man. Nowhere, in any of these discussions, has anyone made a compelling argument that this isn't a case of WP:BLP1E. The only "argument" is that process hasn't been followed, which was already dismissed at the deletion review. An IAR deletion confirmed by a DRV discussion is not "cheating", and shady BLPs are not a game. 28bytes (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The DRV salting was found to be inappropriate in the review (see above). Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now had a look at the draft. Its a classic BLP1E imo. I still feel that DRV has no locus on the unsalting argument but as an individual admin I'm not personally prepared to put my name on this being in article space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put my name on it, the protection just needs to be removed. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the do not archive. I was going to unsalt but would rather @Floquenbeam: for input first. I'll add my own note that the draft is a significant rewrite from what was deleted, and I think should be allowed to stand on its own at AFD if that's what the community feels is proper at this time. I think there may be enough substance in the draft to be considered as a viable article. — Ched :  ?  07:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• meh Support of unsalting. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've decided that I really don't give a good flying furry rats' ass what happens here. — Ched :  ?  00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This has not been to AFD, true, but it has been discussed to death in many places, including being on this noticeboard a couple of times in the last what, month? Longer, surely? The current situation (deleted and salted) is, in my mind, the correct one. The only reason anyone here knows this person exists is because he said something dumb on Facebook one day. If a few people can't let go, then it's up to them to beat this to death, not me. The problem here is not that I skipped AFD (if it was, that would have soon been corrected). The problem here is those who can't let it go when things don't go their way. I have said from day one that if any admin thinks any decision I made is wrong, they are welcome to undo it. So far, no one has. If that changes and things don't end up going my way, I'm not going to spend the next few months starting multiple noticeboard threads. But it is not my responsibility to undo something I've done, that I've fully explained several times, that I still think is right, that was upheld by review at DRV and here, and that no other admin has yet reverted in spite of my invitation to do so if they think it's right. Please do not ping me anymore on this, there it nothing more I have to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• For those of us who regularly deny that admins are super editors, it would be good if admins did not act as super editors, as they have in the case of this salting. @Spartaz: it would be good if you finished the mopping job you started and unsalt this - that is why you have the mop - putting your name on mopping? Really? Salting for this subject is highly inappropriate, whether you believe there should be an article or a redirect or no article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unsalt. What we have here is two groups of editors, both acting in good faith. One group believes that this article should be included, and the other doesn't. I hope that everyone can agree than neither position is absolutely pants-on-head crazy - it's a garden-variety content dispute. The trouble is, some members of the exclusion advocacy group happens to have some extra clicky buttons that members of the inclusion advocacy group lack. The fact that members of the exclusion group are wielding their clicky buttons to advance their position in a content dispute - however well-intentioned - is distressing to good-faith editors who are somewhat lacking in the clicky button department.

Those editors entrusted with clickly buttons must be very careful not to alienate those editors without. The kindest way to handle this is to unsalt the article, and utilize normal deletion processes available to all editors if you feel that the article should be deleted. HiDrNick! 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unsalt Basically, we're penalizing this article unfairly. Wikipedia doesn't want to create an article based on one silly statement, which is reasonable. But if this article were just about a local representative, it would probably be included, or at a minimum, considered. So because he's made those extreme comments that means the article can't be considered? Please unsalt, so we can consider the page on its merits. The draft does not give undue weight to his remarks, or at least does not give enough weight that we shouldn't consider it. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about Kirby Delauter. I agree with Floquenbeam that it's unlikely he's notable enough to merit an article. He's not sufficiently important (notable).
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is important. Since it doesn't write itself, logically the folks who write it (e.g. Cunard, Hobit, Stalwart, SmokeyJoe, Thincat, et. al. sorry if I missed you) are. I have no problem with Floquenbeam's attempt to reduce unnecessary churning by IAR deleting it in the first place, but as one of the smarter Hobbits once said, Short cuts make long delays, as this exceptionally long AN thread demonstrates. IAR is "ignore a rule when doing so improves the encyclopedia," not "ignore a rule because I know I'm right and it will end up deleted in the end." Once any editor who is not an obvious troll makes a good faith request to revert the IAR deletion so that those so inclined can make the content argument -- remember the "admins don't make content decisions" meme? -- it should be unsalted, the article restored, taken to Afd etc. etc. So is there not one admin left who's willing to do the right thing and unsalt -- not because Floquenbeam was wrong in the first place, not because you think the article will survice Afd, but simply out of courtesy and respect to the good faith editors who wish to press their case in the appropriate forum, which ain't here? NE "Diogenes" Ent 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A very stirring speech, NE. Of course, it would have been equally stirring if you'd swapped out Kirby Delauter for Eric Ely, or Brian Peppers, or the Grape Lady. I do not care about Kirby Delauter — well, you're not alone there, at least! Lots of people don't care about our article subjects. But what everyone should care about is not demeaning ourselves as an encyclopedia by including the subject of every flash-in-the-pan "viral" news cycle, especially not to make an example of him^[ 1] for seeming to not understand how the First Amendment works. It's beneath us to host in mainspace something we know is a case of WP:BLP1E just to allow people to have another week arguing about it at AfD when they've already had months debating it here and at DRV. So no, it's very much the wrong thing to do to cave into these demands, which is why every admin who has come by here and tentatively said "yeah, let's unsalt it" has backed away from that once they've seen what this is actually about. You're right that you'll probably be able to find one who unsalts it eventually, because we have hundreds of admins and not all of them will actually look at the situation before trying to "help". But it sure won't be a proud moment for the encyclopedia when they do. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't demean anything or anyone by allowing editors write a full biography on an undisputed public figure, and following editorial process to get rid of it should it need to be. What you do demean is editors by admin action such as this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like, for the 3rd discussion in a row, we have a significant majority who favor unsalting... Hobit (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Every month or so I find myself popping in to say I think the community should have an opportunity to discuss whether we should have an article on this topic. So far we haven't been given a chance (though some have given their opinion anyway). It seems to me that only some admins had behaved honourably over all this. Thincat (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Informal AfD: please read the article and discuss below

This has been superseded by AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, per this diff with explanation by me. Please comment there not here. --doncram 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been asked by a nearly-uninvolved editor[8] to review the above discussion with a view to closing it. The alternatives are to either keep the article salted, or to unsalt it, which can in turn be followed by various courses of action: a) turn it into a redirect, or b) recreate the deleted article and list it on AfD, or c) move the draft into mainspace. A good argument has been offered for keeping it salted, namely that it violates WP:BLP1E, people notable for only one event, especially since the one event is a negative one ('saying something dumb on facebook'). And a good argument has also been offered for unsalting, basically that the article has never been on AfD, and non-admins want a chance to discuss it there. It's obviously been discussed, as such, for long enough, but the point of discussing on AfD is that people could then read the deleted article and discuss it, as opposed to the discussion that has taken place while non-admins could only read the newer draft version, which is much much longer. The deleted article is a stub focused entirely on the facebook incident, while the draft version is vastly bloated and diluted with non-notable biographical facts about the individual, his opinions about stay-at-home mothers, his praise of his own wife, etc etc.

I don't like to close as "keep salted", since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as "unsalt" (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the wikipedia bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks. Those were obviously the considerations behind Floquenbeam's speedy.

Therefore, I haven't closed the discussion at all, but instead boldly recreated the article, turned it into a redirect, and fully protected that redirect. That means only admins can recreate the article, but everybody can now read it via the history. (I've added one sentence from the draft about Delauter's apology for the facebook incident, which was reported too late to make it into the article.) Thus there can be a discussion on this board based on access to the article, while we don't disgrace the individual by having it googleable in mainspace. I hope this solves the impasse, however unconventional it is to have an "informal AfD" on AN. Read the article here, and please discuss below. The normal keep-delete-redirect-merge-etc format seems convenient to me, but of course people should discuss in whatever way they prefer. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC).

• (courtesy pings to those who have voiced an opinion in this topic) @SarekOfVulcan:, @Spartaz:, @SmokeyJoe:, @RoySmith:, @Stalwart111:, @WilyD:, @28bytes:, @Alanscottwalker:, @Thincat:, @Hobit:, @Courcelles:, @Black Kite:, @JzG:, @HiDrNick:, @Bangabandhu: , @NE Ent: y'all wanted a way forward - here ya go. — Ched :  ?  16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• keep redirect as is. With acknowledgement to @Cunard: for his efforts in the research and writing of the draft, I still feel that as an article "Kirby Delauter" has expended his 15 minutes of fame, and as an article it fails our standards on multiple levels. WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. I feel the entire thread above also confirms that as an article, "Kirby" was an accident waiting to happen. I think it's time to put this to rest. Keep the redirect, and delete the draft. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• This "informal AfD" is invalid because Bishonen is linking to the deleted draft, which clearly fails WP:BLP1E, and telling editors to discuss that. Please ask others to discuss the significantly improved Draft:Kirby Delauter, which shows the subject does not fail WP:BLP1E. See the last comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter from TexasAndroid (talk · contribs):

  Endorse the original IAR close, but Allow new draft. Cunard's new draft appears to nicely settle the outstanding BLP1E concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  If we are to hold an AfD (informal or otherwise), it should be held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not WP:AN. The same structure Bishonen has used here (keeping the article as a redirect and the draft in draftspace) still could be used if this were moved to AfD.

  Cunard (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here is what I wrote in the WP:DRV about why WP:BLP1E is not applicable:

  The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.

  WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:

  1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:

  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

  The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.

  I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.

  Cunard (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The redirect-protection which is another editorial action taken by another admin based on their own editorial judgement, apparently of the draft, which they have individually considered "bloated". How many ways do we have to say: Don't act like an editor, if you are using tools. The reasoning for not allowing the draft into name space is therefore nonsensical, if the draft is so bloated, no one will get the idea that this person is being put in the stocks for an individual action - But now when you search for Kirby Delauter you get [9] as the first thing in the search which intentionally and unabashedly puts him in the stocks. No Wikipedia article does that. If the draft is to be deleted or redirected, than it should go to Afd where the editorial judgement is taken -- not admin super editing out-of-process on the Admin board (as an aside, I got no ping, so others probably did not either). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. This man is a county councilmember. We generally do not have articles on county councilmembers. Are there exceptions? Sure: there are two entries in Category:County council members and commissioners in Delaware, for example. One of them advanced to the state house of representatives. The other became the Vice President of the United States. Should we also make an exception for Mr. Delauter, because he said something stupid on Facebook? WP:BLP1E tells us we shouldn't, and this firmly falls into that category, unless it can seriously be argued that being a local official or owning a construction company qualify one for inclusion in our encyclopedia. I would hope few very people would seriously make that argument. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Kirby Delauter is not notable because of a facebook post. They're notable because that facebook post has been discussed on NPR, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, Gawker, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Business Insider, Newsweek, NBC, MSNBC, Slate, Politico, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc. and so on.
2. While the rogue / IAR admin's thought process: we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid ... Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks. is laudable, the ship has sailed / horse is out of the barn / insert favorite cliche. When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind. It is not our mission to create the world of knowledge, but to reflect it, and that includes folks whom become notable because of stupid; they are not our first priority: As User talk:Alan Liefting rightly illustrates: It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia. We currently provide coverage for folks who are notable for one stupid event: e.g. Rosie Ruiz, Mathias Rust, Mary Kay Letourneau, Margaret Mary Ray.
3. Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. I suggest Frederick News-Post, the employer of the reporter Kirby threatened to sue and the publisher of the editorial reply that "went viral" [10]. NE Ent 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just checking this page to see where this evolved and see that there is a "ping" mentioned. I received no such notice. Curious what other interested editors may be unaware.

I disagree with the characterization of Cunard's draft. There is room for improvement but it is a solid article. Not every County Councilmember has a wikipedia page, but many do. Wikipedia is taking the one-event guideline way too far on this issue and preventing readers from learning about a local businessman and representative. Please unsalt so that everyone can weigh in on the draft and his notability. Also, doesn't salting the page prevent any discussion of notability in the future? If he were to run for the state legislature, would he then be notable enough? or would the one-event rule still apply? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pinging isn't very reliable Wikipedia:Notifications#Known_bugs NE Ent 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, this belongs at AfD, not WP:AN. Secondly, allow draft article in history is a BLP1E violation. Draft is fine and shows notability from before the "event". That is, the sources (including an editorial in a major newspaper) from before the event put him over the bar for WP:N. The draft shows that. Finally, trout the admin the speedied this the first time around. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Does anyone object to me creating an entry at AfD and directing people here? Otherwise, we are just getting more of the same folks. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • NE Ent (talk · contribs) created an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter that directed people to here. I have started the AfD there. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Following up: This wp:AN "informal discussion" has been superseded by AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, per this diff with explanation by me. Please comment there not here. This section could now be closed. --doncram 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Biruitorul

This user was blocked in February 2015 per WP:SOCK (See User_talk:Biruitorul#Unblock_granted). There was said "If he edits as an IP again in verboten space he'll be blocked again". So, today this user again abused of socks. See this page User:Afil/Ligia Filotti. It was nominated for deletion by an IP user [11]+[12] and as we can see now this was Biruitorul https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Afil/Ligia_Filotti&action=history He made both actions in the same minute.

94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this, i want to add that this user is abusing constantly of AfD. Among other, he nominates for deletion inappropriate articles. For example fresh case - Andra (singer) (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andra_(singer)). FYK: This woman is probably most known Romanian female of 2000s and until present. She's a big, big personality (a star) in Romanian media and entertainment. On his userpage Biruitorul claims that he is Romanian. So, in this case his action is definitely an abuse. It looks like someone nominates for deletion Rihanna's article.

And there are very many other cases of his masked abusive actions. If you want, in following hours i can add more and more proofs. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've notified Biruitorul since the IP failed to do so. Before noticing that the IP had come here, I completed an AfD nomination that the IP had filed for an article that Biruitorul had created yesterday. I don't know if the IP is trying to be WP:POINT-y or what, but I'll leave it at that. --Finngall ^talk 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Must I really defend myself against someone with eleven edits, a probable sockpuppet? I, who received a DYK today, and just in the past week have written another article headed for DYK, as well as Toma Ciorbă (a decent article that this user, in a pique of POINTY-ness, has sent to AfD), and myriad other productive actions? True, I slipped up in February, but I've been pretty scrupulous since then. I'm not abusing anything, and I'm not going to play a game of gotcha with this individual who is clearly stalking me. I've done nothing wrong, and I hope this thread can be closed as soon as possible. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the outcome of this debate should be a block of the reporting IP. Not only is this complaint vacuous, not only is the (spiteful) PRODding of perfectly sourced articles a waste of wikipedia community time, but note that the IP effectively identifies himself/herself as having a conflict of interests. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Mister Biruitorul, from your "myriad of productive actions" i noticed that you are not notifying users (article' authors) when you start AfDs. Let's look here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150403042653&target=Biruitorul - 4 AfDs started, no one user notified
  

next page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150328151544&limit=100&target=Biruitorul - other 2 AfDs without notifications
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150323022632&limit=100&target=Biruitorul - other 2
• +1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150320135752&limit=100&target=Biruitorul

and so on..

In another train of thoughts can i know why you are doing such things like this, like this, like this, like this (desptite of result of discussion), like this, like this, like this, like this or like this?

What a luck that you are not an administrator cuz all these pages could be deleted traceless! You are thinking you are very important to decide the fate of articles unaided, but it's not so. Let the community decide it together. Remember: Wikipedia it's not yours, Wikipedia it's not mine. Wikipedia is encyclopedia of the world. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aja (pornographic actress)#Requested move 1 March 2015

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 is indicated by the subject heading, this move discussion has been going on for over a month, the request for an uninvolved admin to assess the discussion was posted at WP:ANRFC almost a month ago itself, and no one has commented in the discussion in over a week. Would an uninvolved admin please assess it? (SN: Why are things so slow-moving at ANRFC lately?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd close it as move if I could but there are too many edits on the existing redirect. To answer the "slow-moving" question, the vote is nearly 50 / 50%, it's about a very low notability person, and there's the porn ick factor. So the downside for the closing admin -- the "losing" side complaining after the close and being accused of being associated with porn makes it the type of thing few folks are going to be rushing to do. NE Ent 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why it should be closed by someone uninvolved with the discussion...and the subject, now that I think about it. And the actress' notability isn't in question (I personally had never even heard of her); this is simply a move request. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed as move. Dragons flight (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Jerry Hardin userfication

I have been contacted regarding a past speedy deletion of a page for a Jerry Hardin (not the one currently at that page name). The previous version of the article had a WP:LEAD with the following content according to my contact: "Jerry Hardin is an American basketball coach, trainer, and analytics expert. He is currently the General Manager of Quest Multisport Chicago, a world renowned indoor sports training, practice, and rehabilitation facility located on Harrison Street, in Chicago, IL.[1] Jerry is a regular invited guest of NBA teams and NBA Combine coaches to attend their meetings, practices, and film sessions. Jerry has been studying, the game of basketball since he was 10 years old and bought his first how to coach basketball book. Jerry played basketball in high school, college and for the United States Marines Corps. He has coached and lead men’s basketball programs for Division 1 UIC Flames, NAIA Cleveland Dykes, United States Marine Corps Headquarters Battalion Team at Henderson Hall Barracks in Washington, D.C., and was the head coach of the All-Marine Worldwide Team. He has traveled internationally to coach basketball in Bamako, Mali, West Africa, on behalf of the U.S. State Department. He co-founded Basketball Elite Skills Training (B.E.S.T. Basketball Chicago) to help influence the lives of boys and girls of all ages by using basketball as a vessel to teach character, teamwork, and life values." I am thinking that the page may have been at Jerry Hardin (basketball) or Jerry Hardin (coach). Can someone userfy the prior page and its edit history for me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)

• P.S. I think it may have been Speedied sometime during or after February 2015.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done, you can find it at User:TonyTheTiger/Jerry Hardin, for reference, it was at Coach Jerry Hardin. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions backlogs and files lacking permission

Hi all. Just wanted to point out this comment I just posted to the OTRS noticeboard. In short, there are some heavy backlogs within the English-language permissions queues.

An aside from the linked comment, if you are interested in assisting or know anybody who is (being an administrator is not required) please consider taking a moment to review m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as a clarifying comment for those users who, like me, are unfamiliar with OTRS lingo, this is referring to image use permissions, not user rights. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right request

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

---

Please will someone give User:Alakzi, who is a valuable content contributor and template editor, 'Autopatrolled' status? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Done by User:Ched. I think you're supposed to request this at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Candidates for speedy deletion

Hi

Quite a backlog here again, currently sitting at 191. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gossip on signpost

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

---

Please see In the media. The signpost has posted negative information about principals in a company involved a local property dispute. While sourced locally, there's no evidence of significant national, encyclopedic coverage. WP:BLPGOSSIP requires "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." (emphasis mine) Prior discussion at corresponding talk. NE Ent 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the more spurious things I've seen. This topic got national coverage, has extensive articles in reliable sources, and relates to long-running paid advocacy problems on the English Wikipedia (see also Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• This is a bit rash, honestly. I would have been glad to chat with you further to address your concerns. If this was just a minor local story I pulled from the back pages of a local newspaper, I would have relegated it to "In brief". But it's an absolutely huge story in Austin, it has received national attention since February, the human interest angle has made it go viral on social media, and national media attention has repeatedly highlighted the Wikipedia connection. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sourcing is fine, the connection to Wikipedia is a little tenuous, but it's real enough. The article doesn't violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd say that the complaint is unwarranted and requires no action. Perhaps the complainant might want to spend their time doing something productive to help build the encyclopedia instead of looking high and low for things to bitch about. BMK (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ent, if you had done your homework before coming here, ten seconds of Googlefoo would have revealed: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Shall I continue? Please don't waste valuable time in my day with spurious complaints. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally see why this story was included, but people are clearly agreeing that this is not a policy violation. If you don't want to see this kind of thing in the Signpost, try to convince the writers that it's not something worth paying attention to. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

NE Ent

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.

---

Since Johnuniq addresses NE Ent's actions, I'm adding a subheader and excluding this bit from what I closed up above. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks NE Ent for raising this because it reminds me that there are two things I've been wanting to say. First, Signpost has been getting better and better, and the April 1 edition was fantastic! It is a long time since I've seen entertaining April 1 commentary—congratulations to all involved! Second, NE Ent has been getting worse and worse, and the unhelpful commentary wastes resources and often enables trouble makers. Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just want to chime in here and say wow, this was an incredible article in the Signpost and I hope we see more like it. I can't quite wrap my mind around NE Ent's objection. Did he read a different article in a parallel Wiki-verse? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Meh. Why continue the dramaz? support full close of a minor incident. — Ched :  ?  06:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Deletion of some user subpages

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

---

Could an admin go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Biblioworm/ and delete all the italicized pages? These are redirects that I no longer need. Thanks, --Biblioworm 16:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

All deleted now. Davewild (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Block first, ask questions later?

What's the procedure when a community banned editor is suspecting of running a sock? Do we block first and then ask questions, or raise the SPI first? Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If it passes the duck test it appears to be block first and add it to the spi case. Amortias (T)(C) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question was community banned User:Tobias Conradi. The suspicion was raised at WT:TWP that User:TrackGauge is a sock of TC. Name of sock and area of article edited strongly support the suspicion. Therefore I've blocked and added that name to TCs SPI. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:MaranoFan

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.

---

Posting this to "bump" this ANI thread that was archived prematurely. All information can be found there. WP:CBAN says these matters are preferred at AN anyway.

MaranoFan will likely not be able to comment, at least not initially; s/he is on a script-enforced wikibreak (that s/he started immediately following the ANI report) that expires on April 10. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this inhibit the topic ban discussion? AcidSnow (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it should. The user chose to vanish instead of responding to criticism and addressing problematic behaviors in a constructive way, so one would assume s/he's fine with us carrying on this discussion without him/her. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! AcidSnow (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This enforced WikiBreak, as far as I can tell, may actually be designed to allow the user to have the discussion when (s)he has more time available to answer our claims. I think that for periods of up to a month, we should wait for the user to be around if we have reason to think that the user would be more likely to at that point. I would also like to point out that the end of the enforced Wikibreak is the end of Passover. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a 6 month topic ban for files, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI in addition to being mentored by an experienced editor (preferably a willing administrator) for the six month period. MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. At the time this was originally filed, he had just come off a month-long block and was almost immediately back here at AN/I. That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Wikipedia", in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month ban for files. Concur with Winkelvi. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. After looking over the case noted above, this user either is incapable of understanding basic principles of uploading files at Wikipedia; willfully ignores those principles, or is trying to be actively disruptive. In any event, they need to stop uploading files. --Jayron32 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per statements above. AcidSnow (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bump to prevent archiving. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Some userpages

See User:Ghulam Hassan Askari and it's history and User:Chourbut Marchha and it's edits--Musamies (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Musamies, you need to notify these two users that you've brought their case to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the system, are there some reasy form that I can use or can I write some text with link--Musamies (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Up at the top of this page, in a big red box... it's {{subst:AN-notice}}, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't G11 anyway. Give 'em a chance. WP:BITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.31.221 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Neither is this or this. And this isn't a PROD. There may be lots more - I didn't check.

Musamies, you need to be more careful what you are tagging - especially with new users and in userspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.31.221 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

General remark

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 took some time off last summer and on returning to edit at the end of 2014, I'm struck by decreasing presence of admins on ANI and AE. I think there used to be a larger pool of admins who frequented these forums and closed disputes and now there are just a handful of admins wading into these conflicts...maybe it's because some regular noticeboard admins have retired. I can understand admins who want to focus on other areas of the project or choose to avoid the drama boards. But now that I'm learning the ropes of clerking with the AC, I frequent AE and see some cases that probably should have been closed last week.

I know there are constant appeals for admins to handle backlogs of work so there is a need for more admins in many areas of the project. This could all be none of my business, I just was wondering if there was some explanation that came to mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If theres no need for further admin intervention you can close them as a non-admin. I frequently do so on ANI where actions have been carried out but they havent been closed, their misplaced or obviously nonsense. its a drop i the ocean but every little helps. Amortias (T)(C) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I will do a {{nac}} if the situation has been resolved, like if the OP has withdrawn the complaint or an editor has received a block. I'm not talking about those clear cut cases. Situations now tend to be of two types, a) those that are quickly resolved (often in a few hours) and b) those that remain unresolved, sometimes for weeks. I imagine that an admin, looking at dozens of comments or walls of text, might be reluctant to wade in a conflict and try to parse out if anything blockable has occurred and who might be responsible. It also seems like some of the most assertive admins have suffered blow-back from making difficult choices.

But I think, especially in formal cases like at AE, it's important to come to some resolution even if it is a "not now" or "not yet" decision that a situation isn't serious enough to be addressed yet. Nonadmins can't close cases at AE and it's best if there is more than one or two admins weighing in, reading evidence and making some sort of ruling. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to drag you kicking and screaming to RfA, Liz! ansh666 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Tracking an IP-only vandal

In my experience long-term vandals will tend to edit from a named account, get blocked, and then edit from IPs or socks accounts - in which case they are tagged as being linked to the 'original' account using {{Sockpuppet}} and/or {{IPsock}} But what about when they remain IP-only, e.g. 177.59.105.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others listed here? - what is the best method of tracking this individual? GiantSnowman 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes (especially if it's so painfully obvious that an SPI is never needed), the only way to "keep track" of these users is via your brain's internal memory, or to dedicate them some userpage; I guess LTA should in theory be the "proper place" for such cases, but y'know... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: So I couldn't, for example, 'give' then a fake name and use that? GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that (or something similar) is what they did for the "Best Known For IP" editor, who has recently been blocked (again) ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: In my example, "Macy VG IP vandal" is technically a "fake name", but a descriptive one. But there are also cases like Tailsman67, who despite being IP-only, often "signed" with a recognizable name, so that's what he's referred to as. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started a log here. GiantSnowman 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Lee Harvey Oswald

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 apologize if this is the wrong place for this report.

I am getting a very strange message when trying to view this talk page, which I have never seen before:

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The revision #0 of the page named "Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald" does not exist.

This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. :Details can be found in the deletion log

It is as if this lengthy talk page is gone, including a recent revision I wanted to read. Can anyone explain what has happened there? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. Maybe a glitch in the matrix? Try resetting your browser cache or something, because I see no error. --Jayron32 01:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I had the same trouble, now OK. I blame the the shooter on the grassy knoll. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

I fixed it. It's a recurring bug, but it can be corrected with a null edit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal for a large-scale merge and splits in ARBPIA area

I made a proposal to refactor many (at least tens of) articles in a sensitive area. There doesn't seem to be any objection, but too few people expressed support for me to be confident that it's a good idea to go ahead with implementation. Where would be a good place to put notice calling more people to respond ? “WarKosign” 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any objection, but there hasn't been much discussion either. If you were to use a Request for Comments and leave it up for the standard 30 days, you would have more time to publicize it neutrally and get more involvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPP and WP:CENT are also good ways to advertise discussions. --Jayron32 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rampant editor wreaking havoc

Dear administrators, please take note of this discussion here: [21]. Thank you. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to get consensus to remove from blacklist

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

---

Please see my proposal below which I proposed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It marked to be declined by lone admin even when I am giving so much reasons and surety. It is being declined because it needs consensus from regular contributors so please give your consensus. I assure you that the links will not be added again and wikipedia will not be hurt. Please read the proposal below:

Hi, I am posting this proposal here after discussion with administrator Beetstra [22] so that wikipedia community can have their consensus to remove this site from the black list.

In 2012 my friend (owning borntosell.com) hired someone for online marketing and that person decided to spam wikipedia with their website. It was nothing that could not have been handled by blocking those 3 accounts and the single IP that were spamming but an admin decided to put the website in the blacklist right away. Which is ok but now they have stopped editing wikipedia since 2013 (1.5 years) to prove that they want to abide by the rules. The warning given to them was after adding the site to blacklist and they did not know wikipedia rules about which links were eligible, which is no excuse, but also not fair enough to get blacklisted. It is not an excuse but now they are ready to prove it by wikipedia norms by first stopping like you do in WP:Standard Offer for blocked users. I request that this website be removed from the wikipedia blacklist in exchange for the promise that they will not add it again and keep check on any PR working for them that they do not add links to wikipedia for online marketing. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope says people should be given a chance and if they do it again, you can add back so is it possible to remove it and see that they are keeping their promise.

Wikipedia does not need their links and they do not want to add as well, the main reasons for the request to get removed from the black list are that some other companies and websites copy and use wikipedia's blacklist as their own which is hurting their website ranking and also their newsletter which goes to spam folder of their subscribers even though it is not spam. They just asked me to explain to you as I regularly read wikipedia. I want to explain that they only want to disappear from your blacklist and they will stop getting involved with link spam. Kindly give your input and make consensus to remove this site from blacklist.

--Riven999 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the history of this URL and the lack of reasoning by the single-purpose account, I would not be willing to remove it from the blacklist at this time. They may be willing to not spam Wikipedia, but many non-wiki projects depend on this blacklist. Nakon 06:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am giving sufficient reasoning that not spamming wikipedia since 2013 is sufficient proof that they are willing to stop and prove by stopping first. It was a mistake. No wikipedia or any other projects will be spammed if it is removed from the blacklist. The main purpose is that their normal newsletter is being sent to spam folder even when people willingly subscribe to it. The proposal is to just get off the blacklist. Other sites that copy blacklist are not doing properly I had discussed with Beetstra.I think the request is reasonable. If seen spamming again add back quickly if you want. Your wikipedia policies allow this lenience in WP:Standard Offer and Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. It is my request to regular contributors to give input so that administrator's objection is no more. I do not want to impose my decision and do not want any single admin to do this as well. Please see if it is something that can be allowed. I can assure that they have learnt the lesson from the blacklist's effect and do not want to engage into this by with asking any one to spam again.--Riven999 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We should remove it, at least temporarily. Blacklisting the link prevents us from adding it to Born to Sell, which isn't a good situation. We can always restore it to the blacklist when we've put it on the article; I can't imagine why we'd want to use it anywhere else on the project. This is why I wish we had a whitelist page...Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is useful only on that one article, so the solution is to whitelist the About page. That's what we normally do in such cases. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remember that we had a whitelist. But MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist looks like it's a way to whitelist an entire link: is it possible to permit a link to be added to one specific Wikipedia page while preventing the same link from being added to all other Wikipedia pages? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, unless something has changed. That's why I normally go for the About page. Reminds me: does anyone know if you can edit filter on links? People keep proposing Natural News as a source for quack claims - it never passes, we should save them the trouble. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: - yes, you can use the edit filter on that, though it tends to be slow on the system - but did you consider XLinkBot, it can revert on references specifically as well as on non-reference-external-links? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Born to Sell even notable? Nyttend has just helpfully removed its spammy content, but most of the references provided have been media releases or similar. The two remaining references are pretty brief, and appear to also be promo-style mentions of this company. Given that there appears to be an attempt to advertise the firm here, I don't think any of its website should be whitelisted. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed entirely a story from Barron's, because the article text was a copyvio. This source could be used quickly to mention how the website's interface works, although again, it's just a brief mention. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Whitelisting can indeed be used to selectively allow a single link from an otherwise blacklisted site. If Born to Sell survives AfD, a link to the company's "about" page could be whitelisted for that site. borntosell.com isn't a reliable source and isn't of use to Wikipedia as such, and we don't remove sites from the blacklist just because it's hurting their search ranking elsewhere, especially when the request is from a single purpose account who is now forum shopping when they didn't like the answer(s) they got at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#borntosell.com. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with what you say. Whitelisting their "about" page, to enable its use in the article, should be obvious; whenever possible, we should ensure that the spam blacklist doesn't prevent us from following WP:ELOFFICIAL. I suppose the "about" page could also get spammed here, but even if we have to un-whitelist it, the link would already be present in the article, so this basic problem won't again occur. And yes, when a site's been spammed here and rightly put on the blacklist, and when its use wouldn't be helpful here, we shouldn't unblacklist it. Finally, "if it survives AFD" is key; no point in making changes when the article's up for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Site ranking is the main concern of the company - trying to promote its self and draw attention to the site. Jon Wuebben (2011). Content is Currency: Developing Powerful Content for Web and Mobile. Nicholas Brealey Publishing. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-85788-990-1. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Born to Sell is not important. Wikipedia can decide what page they want to keep on their website. If the page is deleted and the site is removed from blacklist that is also ok. If a website gets on wikipedia blacklist there should be some legitimate way of getting off the blacklist. I am not forum shopping I am appealing that wikipedia may give consensus on matter not single administrator. You can remove them temporarily and if they spam you can add them back permanently. I think it is ok thing to ask. 1.5 year time is good WP:Standard Offer to prove that they are willing to stop. They will not add links to wikipedia even later. The reason for getting off black list is that the company is being hurt on their normal newsletter. May I also suggest that you keep them on probation and remove them for some time and see if they spam or not. If they do not only then keep removed. --Riven999 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If Born to Sell is deleted -- or, come to think, even if it isn't -- and you promise not to add a link to it, what POSSIBLE difference could the existence of the blacklist have? So no, I can't see the point of this request. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Calton. I agree with you that if it is deleted or not, the links will not be added. The existence of the website in the blacklist still has effect on the site. That is the only reason I am requesting for removing. There are two affects which are important to the site. One, other websites copy wikipedia's blacklist and that is hurting search results of the website and two, the normal newsletter is not going to inbox of subscribers and it is due to the same reason that some other websites or email hosts copy and use this blacklist which is not fair. If they have made the mistake to get into this blacklist, there should be a legitimate way of getting off this list as well (after not spamming since 1.5 years at this moment). Any suggestion that takes the website off this blacklist, including probation on any editing at all from borntosell is acceptable. --Riven999 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're making less and less sense. Even if what you claim is true -- and you haven't offered the slightest credible evidence for it, and I not only doubt it's true but also think that YOU know it's not -- your employer's SEO strategy isn't Wikipedia's problem AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Riven999: I still don't believe really that companies are copying Wikipedia's blacklist (as the blacklist is not a true measure of the spam, it is a measure of abuse on Wikipedia which can also have non-spam-reasons). However, if an SEO is spamming Wikipedia, they might also be spamming other places and if those SEO activities are noticed they might put them on other lists. In short, I do not think that being on Wikipedia's blacklist is necessarily the reason the site is affected in their search results and e-mail delivery, nor do I think that removing it here will have the counter effect.

As I argued on my talkpage, the real arguments that might result in a consideration to delist (or even a delist) is to show use ánd positive interaction with Wikipedia. That positive interaction was not really shown until now, especially since the promotional editing continued, less than 1.5 years ago, after the site was blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what they have determined to to be the cause as everything was reviewed and it's very important to them. I understand that there was promotional editing after the blacklisting but after that they decided to go the legitimate way and have learnt the lesson. They stopped waited and did nothing for 1.5 years before asking some one to appeal and they will not redo the any promotional edit you decide to delete. Now I think my interaction is quite positive and I requested where I felt it was proper place to ask fully respecting wikipedia's norms. I agree to stand by your decisions here so the request is just to remove it. Wikipedia will not be affected even if they remove them from the list. If they spam again, I really do not mind adding them back again but I think it's a fair request to ask for a second chance. It's not an extreme request either. Just something ordinary. --Riven999 (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion I think it is quite clear that there is no consensus whatsoever to remove this from the blacklist. Further discussion is unlikely to change that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is no consensus how much time they should wait and show that they will not do any promotional editing or spamming before they can appeal again? 6 months? They are not regular wikipedia contributors so they can not create articles but they can stop editing or creating their own topic and never add links to show good faith. --Riven999 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Second the motion to close this discussion. This is bad-faith COI request, not a request that has anything to do with building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Third the motion (if there is such a thing). The requestor's reasons are getting more and more absurd, and I can't imagine a single benefit to Wikipedia -- and many downsides -- of saying yes to this request. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of 68.56.230.233

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.

---

68.56.230.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is requesting unblock >2 months into their 6 month block. Dreadstar blocked the user for 6 months for "disruptive editing" related to the Gamergate topic. The IP address made one edit to the talk page and was reverted and blocked about 15 minutes later. I don't personally see anything on there that justifies a 6 month block on sight; Dreadstar has since self-blocked and retired so is not available for input here. I'm willing to unblock, but wanted to bring it here in case there's something regarding this edit (and the GamerGate ruling as a whole) that I'm missing. Any other admin is free to take action if I don't first. only (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock per above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock, seems very reasonable. Btw, I've removed User:Lugnuts indecent gravedancing.[23] He can post a properly worded support if he likes. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC).

If you have an issue Bishonen, then address it on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have done, and I've removed your attack on this board yet again, Lugnuts. If you insert it a third time, or if you mess with my post again, you will be blocked. If you ask me to, I'll consider removing my mention of you in my post above. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC).

• Support unblock per this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock Nothing here that would justify a long term IP block. Monty₈₄₅ 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by sockpuppets and proxy IPs

I previously got wikihounded by an obvious group of sockpuppets. MelissaHebert created on 21 February 2015, PortugueseManofPeace created on 21 February 2015, Akafeatfausty created on 22 February 2015, Shazam puta created on 23 February 2015. This resulted in several ANI reports and an SPI, eventually three socks were indeffed on CU evidence. But the disruption lasted for months, especially because nothing was done about the ANIs that preceded the SPI.

Here we are again, see the ANI report I opened [24] and the revenge one by the sock. [25] It is obvious from the first ANI that the sockmaster had to repeatedly log in and out to create this iteration of the bizarre puppet show. His statement of "just forget to log in" is clearly untrue.

I edit in a very technical niche topic area and it seems there are not enough experienced editors around to enforce policy. More than 70% of the articles I edited have "fewer than 30 watchers". I am pretty much on my own dealing with the sock and proxy IP disruption. If we are to bring this campaign to drive me away to a halt, the obvious socks need to be swiftly dealt with. Letting this iteration again go on for who knows how long is only going to encourage the next one. Kristina451 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) user:kristina451 is having edit war with many IPs that are not proxy. example here - and here . these are belong to Princeton University and University of Cambridge. also my IP is belong to my company in Japan and is not proxy. they are secure, you cannot even ping them and so cannot be guest or proxy network.

(Non-administrator comment) admin already notice this pattern and tell her stop edit war because she revert many edit. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I ask user:kristina451 nicely on her talk page why she always revert my edit. i also use article talk page to provide many refs to support my edit. she still revert and tell me use article talk page, which i did . She ignore discussing with me on talk page and go straight report me on admin noticeboard. if she is going ignore talk page why she put revert reason as "use talk page"??? she claim she is productive editor, but block log tells me not credible. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Permissions-en backlog at OTRS

There is currently a 4-month backlog for processing statements of permissions sent to permissions-en and volunteers are desperately needed. We're telling users who have done good work finding free images and obtaining permissions that they need to send in permission for the image. They dutifully do so, never hear back, the image gets deleted, and the user gets frustrated. Volunteers are desperately needed to help out. You don't have to be an admin to volunteer, although there are some times when an image has been deleted where an admin will need to restore it (if you are not an admin and are seeking to have an image restored because permission has come in, you can ask at WP:REFUND with the ticket ID). You don't even have to make a huge time commitment. If maybe 10 people would process a few images a week, the backlog would never get like this.

It really isn't that hard to process the permissions messages and there are template responses you can use for most of the common situations. If you are willing to volunteer, please do so at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you, --B (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS team has asked a few times on this noticeboard, but it seems that reviewing new accounts is a slow process. There are five users from en-wiki awaiting review as of 7 April (full disclosure: my application is included). Is there any process in place that would prioritize acceptance from high-need wikis? Nakon 04:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Rjd0060:, one of the OTRS admins. --B (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nakon, B - the process of reviewing applications on Meta lasts a minimum of seven days where the app will remain on the site for other users to be able to comment. After the seven day period, the application remains on Meta until an administrator has a chance to review all feedback provided as well as comments from other OTRS admins when they will then process the application, and remove it from Meta. Just because there are backlogs does not mean we can "cut corners" as far as the review process. This is of course given the sensitive nature of the work. Does this clarify your question? Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for the clarification. Nakon 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Something new: COI extortion

I have evidence (in the form of an OTRS ticket and a deleted article) of a new (to me at least) mode of paid for-profit editing that involves searching out a company or group, creating a viable article about it, and then contacting the company to extort money from them. If the money is not produced then the editor marks the article with {{g7}} and is promptly deleted. Because I have only one article and one known account with no other contributions, I'm wondering if this is a scenario where CU might be used to find more of them. I assume this has worked on occasion for them. But I'm not terribly familiar with the limits of how CU can be used. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I can not answer the main question, but to me deleting an article with {{g7}} if the article demonstrates notability of the company is an absolute no, borderline vandalism. May be admins working on speedy deletion should be more careful.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I always look at the history of an article marked with G7 to make sure the creator was the one that placed the tag and there are no other major contributors. To me a G7, especially for a company or other less encyclopedic subject, is equivalent to honoring the request of someone who changed their mind for whatever reason. Maybe they're going to develop it further in a sandbox, maybe they decided the subject doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines, maybe they don't have time to work on it further, etc. I have no problem with those. And I would have honored this particular G7 just as the deleting admin did. Obviously it would have never crossed my mind that the article was part of an extortion attempt. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds absolutely awful to me because often readers believe that articles are written by WikiMedia staff. They don't quite get the "everyone can edit" principle or maybe don't understand how it works in practice. I'm less concerned about one article than I am about companies believing this is Wikipedia's hard-ball way of doing business. This is especially unclear if the editor gives the impression that they have the power to get an article deleted. I think this needs to be handled aggressively because we don't want this editor(s) appearing as if they represent Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree and I'm open to suggestions because beyond CU I'm not sure how we can catch these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We could just not allow G7 deletions on articles that are of reasonably good quality. Monty₈₄₅ 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletionist that I am, I've always looked at G7 as the most dubious of the speedies, and I've been known not to grant them if the reason for deletion appeared to be spite.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the criterion says If requested in good faith..., having said that, perhaps the stock deletion message for G7 should state that the page can be restored by WP:REFUND. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why timing is important. I like to write articles offline and make them as fully formed as possible before putting them on-wiki. In the past, I've accidentally created some articles with just part of the content that I intended: they demonstrated notability, but I clicked the wrong button ("save" instead of "preview"), so I either request deletion or do it myself (I'm an admin) within a minute or two of publishing it. When a page is very new, we shouldn't question the G7: you're not trying to revoke licensing, extort money, or anything else. This is why I will routinely decline an author-placed G7 request for old pages, unless they have problems, e.g. the author G7-tagged a nonfree image instead of placing it in the deletion queue, or the author G7-tagged an article that's at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We should handle this just as we always have. People playing silly buggers externally are really not our problem. I don't think it's common and t OTRS has a boilerplate response for "why was my article deleted" that covers the next steps for article subjects. The biggest problem here is that while the original idea may have been extortion (and we don't have a lot of proof for that from the few I saw back in the day), inclusion of articles is not the subject's call, it's ours. Any OTRS agent can undelete any CSD'd article if they think there' s a genuinely good reason. Equally, OTRS agents should remember the mantra "trust but verify" and not fall into the trap of believing that a subject has a valid view on whether we should have an article or not. And I have seen some subjects invent the most self-evident bollocks to try to get an article. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to move a draft article into main space over an existing article

A request is made to replace/merge the existing article Battle of Buna–Gona with the article at Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona. The rewrite and proposed merge have been notified on the talk page of the current article without significant dissent. A request is aloso made to re-title the two 'order of battle' pages for consistency of formatting

Battle of Buna–Gona Japanese strength and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona – Allied forces order of battle

Proposed titles are:

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• The process for this is through Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Cinderella157, moving it this way would be a horrid idea. You're asking for a history merge, which is only a good idea when there aren't any overlapping edits in the page history. However, now, we have a lot of overlapping edits. If we did a history merge, we'd have a ton of mess, and diffs would be radically changed; for example, this simple coding fix would suddenly become a major edit to tons of the article. You can request that we copy/paste the draft onto the article (is that the purpose of the "Progressing" section at the draft's talk?), because that would have the effect of bringing in the draft's contents without mangling the history. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe my message isn't as clear as it could be. I'm only referring to your request to move the draft on top of the article. Your other suggestion, moving the articles from their current titles to new ones, is completely different; if discussion concludes that they should be moved, I don't see a reason not to do it. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely a cleaner solution would be to move the draft page and talk page to become subpages of the article article, and then copy the text of the draft article on to the article page. That way people could do diffs with the current article. The edit summary could reference the draft article page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant with the "copy/paste the draft" sentence. We can move the draft so it's a subpage, or redirect it to the article: the only things we need to ensure are that it's out of the way (not mainspace), that it's not going to be considered abandoned (so it can't hang around as a draft), and that it's not otherwise deleted (so proper attribution is possible). Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

My first question is whether this will be attended to as a result of this request? Secondly, regarding the specifics of the process, I am uncertain of the best way to achieve the desired outcome, although the intent is relatively clear. Regarding the 'order of battle pages', I am the principle contributor and I see nothing controvertial with harmonising the titles, I am not familiar with the process however. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cindarella, you don't need administrative assistance. Once people are in agreement at the talk page (or once you've asked and gotten no real input either way), just copy the contents of the draft page into the article and use an edit summary of "Copying from Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona" (be sure to include the link), and you're done. As far as the title, I have no opinion on that; again, get agreement or discover that there's no opposition, and move it. If you have any difficulty doing this, leave a note at my talk page or request assistance at WP:HD. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

All Done as per Nyttend Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

KuchenZimjah

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

---

After reading the recent expose of unrepentant hoaxer and copyright violator KuchenZimjah (talk · contribs), may I ask why this user is not site blocked here and everywhere else? Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe it's because s/he hasn't edited in months; it's like s/he pops in, creates some hoaxes and leaves. I don't condone any of that, of course, but...actually, maybe s/he should be indeffed. (BTW, shouldn't this be at WP:ANI?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban proposals go here. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bans and blocks aren't the same thing; you asked for a block. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have confused you. A "site block here and everywhere else" is a ban. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll block momentarily: indefinitely, and unlike the last indef block I made (see WP:ANI#Personal attacks by CrazyAces489), this is because I think it should be permanent. Erpert, thanks for noting that the guy pops in, creates something, leaves for months, and repeats: otherwise I'd say "no, this is a stale account". All of his recent page creations are either okay (e.g. sneeze guard) or have been tagged for deletion already (e.g. JG Strijdom Shrubland & Field), except for User:KuchenZimjah/draft; I'll delete it under WP:IAR, as we should with anything by a repeat hoaxer that can't be demonstrated to be true. I've only checked his recent creations, however. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Emesik vis-à-vis Syrian Civil War

The article source clearly states: DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below), ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. User:Emesik added Israel yesterday: [26]. Please deal with appropriately. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That text was added to the template by a non-administrator [27] and oversimplifies the discussion at the 3rr report. Someone who was not party to a discussion 2 years ago, making a change now, isn't likely to get instantly blocked for doing so. Also pinging @Black Kite: the admin who made the statement you are basing your request on. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I provide a RS for that claim? In fact I provided two. Are they newer than the do not add Israel text? Yes, they are. Please put my changes back in. Otherwise it smells of blatant censorship. --Emesik (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Emesik you are completely aware of what a highly contentious and unproven claim this is, and you have been blocked once before for issues relating to this same subject matter. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing like a ban on adding Israel to the supporters list an you should have known it well after reading the noticeboard archive that you have linked here. Such explicit ban cannot exist on Wikipedia, as it would be simply an act of censorship to forcibly adhere to some point of view despite RS claiming something else. Second, my former ban has nothing to do with that matter. If you want to discuss the topic of Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War, I invite you to the talk page which is much batter place to start discussions than here. --Emesik (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Media has up until recently only reported on Israel giving medical aid to civilians and milita members. The Washington Institute for Near East Studies source (Israel Is Cautiously Arming Syria's Rebels — And Has A Fragile Unspoken Truce With An Al Qaeda Affiliate) appears to be legitimate however, and includes the sentence: Some rebel groups maintain constant contact with the IDF, including frequent secret meetings reportedly held in Tiberias, but only a modest amount of weapons have been provided to them, mainly rocket-propelled grenade launchers. This is still fairly weak sourcing, but as long as you get clear consensus (e.g. a talk page poll), I for one have no issue with you readding Israel having finally seen a (single) WP:RS. I consider this matter closed seeing as admins seem unwilling to take action based on the previous 3rr discussion. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want consensus, go to the talk page and discuss like a civilized person would do. Reverting my changes and calling admins is far away from consensus. --Emesik (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If I hadn't reverted this edit, someone else would have. And I'm not the one that needs WP:CON for this controversial change (that has previously triggered admin involvement) — you do. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference Desks and Vandals

The Reference Desks are currently under attack by vandals. A few administrators, including User:Smalljim, are fighting the good fight and blocking the vandals. I would, first, like to thank the administrators who are blocking the vandals. I would, second, like to request any admins in the Pacific region to check on the Reference Desks when the United States and United Kingdom are asleep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Could we just semiprotect them? Also, I'm not going to link to it, but there's a few boards that need some revdels. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

or maybe activate pending changes for a few hours? They'll eventually get bored. -- Luk ^talk 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, under the circumstances, semi-protection for 24 hours would be a good idea. The vandal is now using throw-away accounts rather than IPs, and semi-protection would work against those also. (The Reference Desks also have a problem with IP trolls. I wouldn't mind longer-term semi, but some editors think that it is important to leave the desks open to unregistered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

An hour or so of semi-prot may be a good idea. It's just one vandal, but I can't recall what time he usually gives up.  —SMALLJIM  23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A bunch of us jumped on it and took care of it. This is a regular, well-known troll, and this current instance of losing his shit has happened before and matches his standard pattern of behavior. --Jayron32 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They're back. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that they are blanking pages and replacing the content with dirty words, aren't there several different edit filters that catch both of these actions (blanking pages and dirty words)? I thought these kinds of edits were automatically reverted or not allowed to go through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure

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

---

Two weeks ago, Drmies closed an ANI discussion, now archived here. Reading through the discussion, you can see the !voting was for a normal WP:TBAN topic ban, not anything more narrow. Alexbrn's initial wording did say "blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles" but every other !vote was for TBAN, and then Alexbrn also demonstrated his !vote was for a normal indef TBAN in his follow-up comment at the bottom of the thread, regarding Sugarcube: 'Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too.' However, Drmies posted in the close at ANI that the editor is "indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages," and "from Circumcision-related articles and their talk pages, broadly construed" at the editor's User Talk.

I didn't think much of it at the time, figuring "it's only a problem if it's a problem," but since then Tumadoireacht has made two edits in the area of the topic ban, here and here, continuing the same behavior but doing it at User Talk pages. A normal TBAN close would not have allowed these edits but the more narrow wording used in the close does.

I brought this to Drmies' attention via email and he agreed with an adjustment to the close. He said he didn't have the time at the moment to dig into it himself, and suggested I bring it to AN where he didn't expect it would be a problem, so I'm bringing it here for discussion and action. The specific action I'm requesting is for an adjustment to the closure language to that of a normal TBAN.

Thanks... Zad68 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is my mistake for being too specific in my wording (and not thinking/remembering that disruption can decamp to User Talk pages). My intent was that a normal topic ban should apply to put a stop to the disruption. I would support the adjustment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm a tad occupied with Verlaine at the moment, trying to follow the beat of his joyous drums. Zad did indeed ask me about this and I have no objection to some further scrutiny of the discussion and the preciseness of my close: if I read a "broadness" into the comments that wasn't there, by all means let's get it right. Thanks Zad, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit rich. Pound of Flesh territory. If another editor welcomes discourse on his or her own talk page it is really of no concern to the likes of Zad and Alexbrn. What exactly is it that these lads fear so greatly ? Discussion anywhere ? Challenge ? / Being contradicted ? A balanced and inclusive article ? Is the subtext a push to have a premature Featured Article status sought for the very flawed Circumcision article ?

Perhaps I should expect a writ from Zad if I discuss genital cutting in my living room or the local pub ? I will pursue with vigour an appeal if an attempt is made to alter what was already a bit of a railroading . Drmies speaks of "disruption" which means "unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery" What expected delivery and expectation exists here. Please remind yourselves

Also is Zad in contravention of WP policy in not informing me of this discussion/attempt to gild the lily  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tumadoireacht's contribution here is in itself a pretty good indication of why an adjustment would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention that a pound's worth of foreskin is massive. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn often reminds me of Greta Garbo. So taciturn. So enigmatic. Foreskins sell by acreage rather than weight Drmies, ( http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/) but the pound referred to above was not money but weight. Since Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice -"A pound of flesh" is a figurative way of referring to a harsh demand or spiteful penalty.

Oh dear - wait - Is this a circumcision related article or talk page ?

May I even speak here in my own defence ? We cannot mention the sale of foreskins cut off by circumcision in the circumcision article (or indeed any of the ways cutters dispose of them including godparents or grandparents eating them) due to the enigmatic brotherhood embargo here represented by two of its luminaries. ( Expect the others shortly if it looks at all possible that I will not be made to walk the plank again) So I am relieved you brought up price Drmies. Do you think maybe the place for mentioning price is the article itself though ? What price freedom ? Still Alexbrn is correct - an "adjustment would be helpful" - just not the one that Zad is clamouring for.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the original discussion is archived here. The request is to adjust the wording of the close to match the community TBAN found in it. Zad68 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Zad is misrepresenting events - there were 8 votes to support the TOPIC ban that Alexbrn proposed ( for me and and 5 votes opposing it.) which he worded thusly:

"In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles

Then, near the end of the discussion, long after all votes but the fifth one opposing the ban had been cast , Alexbrn reacted to a comment seeking the banning of Zad and Doc James ( for alleged Non NPOV partisan editing motivated by religious affiliation ) by newly seeking a TBAN on the editor who made the comment. Naturally Doc James agreed, and there followed a short discussion on the motivation for Doc James pushing for a severe penalty with one editor asking whether Doc was "responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes" . How this gets itransmogrified into "Everyone agrees" to a wider ban is a stretch.

Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages or is there some other agenda afoot here ? To borrow Alexbrn's original phrase "It would be good" to know !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages, the answer is Yes, that is the normal result of the typical "topic ban" on Wikipedia, the topic can't be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with the WP:TBAN policy page. What's happened is that the community supported a WP:TBAN, but the wording provided to you wasn't clear enough. The request here is to provide you clear wording that is in line with the TBAN. Zad68 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a topic ban widely construed was the result and just needs to be stated. This editor can and should work on something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No it was not. A specific proposal was put forward (" blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles") and voted upon as originally worded. If you wish to pursue a website wide topic ban lads then you must make a new proposal, not an amendment proposal and let folk consider it, discuss it, and reach a consensus on whether it is needed.

Now If I am not writing on Circumcision page or its talk page or any of the other 20 or so genital alteration/ mutiliation pages and yet you still want to hound out any discussion on my or other editor's personal talk pages, your motivations for doing so may come in to question and your hounding may boomerang.

There is a great deal of discussion of COI at present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest.

Just as it would behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are either very naive or very stubborn, or both.

Would you like to know what invariably happens when topic-banned editors come here to defend their right to keep arguing their case, supported by a long spiel reiterating their passionate belief that they are bringing The Truth™ and should thus be allowed wide latitude to continue disrupting the project?

I ask because you may be about to find out the hard way. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht

Tumadoireacht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing the boundaries of xyr topic ban: [28].

Based on the last discussion, I have left what I hope is an unambiguous clarification on User talk:Tumadoireacht, thus: [29].

I hope that Tumadoireacht will understand this, but I have invited them to ask here if any clarification is required. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In altering the terms of what was voted upon Guy, and then imposing a different restriction than the one previously decided upon(editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages), you are "pushing the boundaries" of your powers as an administrator. I hope that we may establish an "unambiguous" confirmation of this in the near ffuture.

On your own talk page, you said, a week ago, in regard to a question regarding freedom of speech on one's own user page for the subject banned

"Meh. In his own user space? Nobody cares. Let me know if it spreads beyond that. Trying to stop people venting in their own user space only ever escalates things, and letting them vent can be cathartic."

Have you now altered this opinion ?

The tone and content of your "Would you like to know what happens/spiel/truth/disrupting" paragraph is particularly patronising and inappropriate. It also misses the above point. Ride on pale caballeros ! At present we do not agree on much. I should mention that I used to own and operate a Watsonia bicycle sidecar and had a similar fleet of bikes - expecting no special consideration on either account ! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a description of a topic ban, in Wikipedia terms. You can either appeal it or abide by it, but trying to tap-dance your way around it is not acceptable. I have no dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 06:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No dancing here. Try to address the points raised and the criticism of your action. Canine point moot. You DID impose an additional penalty which was not voted upon. This appears also to be inconsistent with your recent expression as quoted. Elucidate.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the way this works, but if you want to appeal your topic ban on that basis, you can make an appeal at this noticeboard or by going to BASC as you have been clearly told. If you do not understand what "You are topic banned from circumcision, broadly construed. That means a ban from discussing the topic of circumcision on Wikipedia, period. No discussion of circumcision, related concepts, peripheral ideas, whatever.... You may not edit on this topic, anywhere, in any part of Wikipedia...." means, then you can seek clarification at this noticeboard also. If you do not want to appeal or seek clarification in the terms I've just said, this discussion will be closed as resolved. Now which of the three is it going to be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Bot problem

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.

---

Lowercase sigmabot III failed to create a page for two threads it was archiving and so 'lost' two threads. I'v notified the bot owner but as it was a one-off I just tried manually creating the page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Apr 1, to complete the task but I was was blocked by the spam filter objecting to the content I was trying to add. Probably needs an admin to do it and override it, or temporarily disable the filter. Look at the difference between the last changes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Mar 1 for the two missing/unarchived threads.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Admins don't have any special powers to override the spam blacklist. I've fixed the problem by replacing {{LinkSummaryLive}} with {{LinkSummary}}. Graham87 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

MarnetteD has some loose standards for sock puppet investigations; Tranquility of Soul shares little resemblance to CensoredScribe.

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

---

I've looked at the alleged sock puppets of CensoredScribe and I am confused as to why Tranquility of Soul was indefinitely blocked for a first time offense. From what I can gather the only things Tranquility of Soul and CensoredScribe have in common are having too broad a definition for categories and creating new categories; most of which are still being used; that and they both seem to be Goths. CensoredScribe mostly added references to non fiction, even when using sock puppets, and reported themselves before being caught; Tranquility of Soul was much more focused on categories and just seems to have pissed off Marnette for some reason. I would like to here from Marnette why they think Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe; this looks like a trigger happy witch hunt run by an administrator blinded by their own powerful political views without providing any real evidence except for making new categories.

I think both Tranquility and Censored are promising though editors who deserve a second chance given it's been 6 months for both of them; that said they both need to cut out the drive by categorizing, but short term blocks would act as a better vandal brake than having a zero tolerance expulsion policy that is prone to abuse. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• MarnetteD is the soul of sobriety, and seeing a new account whose main targets seem to be talk pages, Jimbo and the reference desk, without any developmental period makes one wonder why Bullets and Bracelets itself has not been the subject of an SPI and subsequent blocking. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A) I don't know why my name is on this. B) I wasn't informed of the thread. C) I did not add ToS to the SPI D) I am not an admin. I would note that CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) was banned by community consensus here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Ban Proposal: CensoredScribe. I wonder why an editor who has been here less than a month and has less than 260 edits is asking these questions. BTW this is the same kind of drive by categorizing that was a hallmark of the other editors mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 02:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, Bullets and Bracelets, what the heck are you talking about? Next to nothing in your post made sense, and if you don't give some links and some substantiation of whatever you are talking about, I think this thread is going to boomerang on you. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD is fine. And after seeing Bullets and Bracelets at the Birth control article, and then looking into the Bullets and Bracelets edit history, I was of a similar mindset as μηδείς. Bullets and Bracelets isn't fooling anyone who can instantly spot a WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Pinging Zad68, who is familiar with CensoredScribe's erratic editing and often odd, incoherent posts. Zad68, does Bullets and Bracelets's comment above and editing style remind you of CensoredScribe? Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have extensively checked the history of editing by Bullets and Bracelets and by known CensoredScribe sockpuppets, and there are far too many coincidences, so I have blocked Bullets and Bracelets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action on this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm late to the party but I concur with the analysis and support the action. Zad68 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal of user Chess

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 user, Chess, is trying to sabotage an article. He nominated for deletion the page Kim Sawchuk after he saw that she argued against him (in another discussion - an article that got deleted). Even without the improvements that have been made since this nomination, the article was in accordance with the specific guidelines for the inclusion of academics. Therefore, this was personal revenge. Moreover, he infringed on the behavioral guideline to not bite the newcomers and is disruptive because he is trying to have the articles I created deleted before I have time to get more familiar with the guidelines and improve the articles. My proposal is ban him from editing this article + the talk page, and maybe other articles I created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Sawchuk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chess. MaudeG3

MaudeG3 In the future, please sign your post with the four tildes ~~~~ . This looks like you became upset because he nominated your article for deletion, this doesn't look like grounds for banning (and yes, I looked at his behavior and his nomination of your page ) KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not grounds for banning? He nominated for deletion an article that had no reason to be, and he's quite familiar with the guidelines, so he obviously did it on purpose. Sorry about forgetting the tildes earlier. MaudeG3 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

With few exceptions (nominating for deletion isn't one of them), we don't ban a user for a single edit. If this user continues to show a pattern of attacking you an interaction ban may be appropriate, but a single nomination isn't enough for that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I was actually planning to withdraw the nom, as she satisfies 8th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Perhaps you should wait a little before taking me to AN? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also maybe you should get the I-ban, considering you have called me a troll on multiple occasions [30]. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting topic ban from all Wikipedia-related pages for Chealer

I've moved this from WP:ANI, where it was originally posted. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting a topic ban on all pages about Wikipedia for Chealer.

Chealer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to be disruptive on Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. This user has been previously blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on Wikipedia-related pages (most recently in March 2015 by Swarm). There have also been ANIs (1, 2) and WP:AN3 (1, 2, 3, 4). Chealer has a history of disruption on Wikipedia-related pages in general as well as engaging in WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages (and in response to the most recent block, see here).

Chealer apparently disputes any internally generated statistics or information regarding Wikipedia (despite WP:SPSSELF). Their most recent efforts have been against a table related to page rankings (see Talk:Wikipedia#Odd_tags_for_stats for discussion). If this were a case of not understanding the WP:CALC used to generate these numbers and charts, that would be fine. They also quibble about the meaning of "importance" on the table's talk page (link). But Chealer went further and "froze" the source page for this info, replacing the bot-generated template with a static version ([31]).

This recent disruption of the bot-generated table (which was the last straw for me), in addition to past disruption on these pages and recent bad faith edits on my user talk page (here and here), has proved to me that Chealer is unable and/or unwilling to productively edit on these pages and that a block did not stop this behavior. While I am open to other options, a topic ban seems warranted given the length, scope, and tenacity of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nyttend. I have notified Chealer of the move ([32]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Update - Chealer again edited the template ([33]) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see the stats page reverted to static again before any effort to talk about the problems raised here. O well lets get this over with and move on. -- Moxy (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Engineering Guy: FWIW Criticism of Wikipedia was part of the AN3s I linked above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE - editor is now trying to delete the grading scheme Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 13#"x-importance articles" categories -- Moxy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the scope of the proposed ban

• Oppose because the proposed ban is really vague. Is this a ban from editing mainspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from editing mainspace and talkspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from projectspace pages (ones beginning with "Wikipedia:"), or something else? As currently worded, it could mean any of several things, and if enacted, it could be misused to block him for things that you're not envisioning. I don't know the situation, so if you clarify the proposed ban, I'll simply strike my opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not quite used to defining ban scopes. I guess what I intend to say is any pages related to Wikipedia as a website, company, or foundation, including pages related to internal statistics. I can't just say "mainspace" because the table generated by the bot is not in mainspace. But I don't want to ban Chealer for any Wiki projects (unless the project is about Wikipedia itself). Though I am worried Chealer would use the project spaces to argue about importance rankings as they have done elsewhere, but that might be jumping the gun at this point.

Given these rambling thoughts of mine, what wording might work better? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps best to say all article covered under Category:Wikipedia ...this may solve the problem. at hand. I would support that. -- Moxy (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We could say "all articles about subjects that are Wikipedia-related, and their talk pages, and all pages in other namespaces that focus on these articles, aside from the usual exceptions". That's a rather clear definition, and if that's your proposal, I'll drop my procedural objection. I still won't offer any opinion on whether we should ban Chealer from this stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that my idea is broader than Moxy's: both proposals would prohibit editing Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, but while mine would prohibit editing Church of Scientology, Moxy's wouldn't. Maybe Moxy's would be too minimal (if his editing's disruptive, it wouldn't stop him from being disruptive from tangentially related articles), but its scope is clearer than mine (even a bot can determine whether a page is in CAT:WP or its subcats), and probably better as a result. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to incorporate the global summary table he broke in this topic ban? Cant have more bots broken because someone is not getting there way in main space.-- Moxy (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You could propose "all pages in CAT:WP and its subcategories, and all of their talk pages, plus pages A, B, and C", or "all pages in CAT:WP..., plus all pages that do A, B, and C". Just be careful to provide a clear definition for your proposal. The whole problem here is that it's not practical to ban someone from the topic of Wikipedia — one can be banned from most topics reasonably clearly (see the guidelines at WP:TBAN), but banning someone from the topic of Wikipedia could be construed as banning them from all project discussions, and if it's refined to be narrower, its scope is lush ground for wikilawyering. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Could we not just add Category:Wikipedia to User:WP 1.0 bot (I dont deal with cats ever not sure if allowed) .. this seems simple and the fact it is a page dealing with Wikipedia its self. -- Moxy (talk)

Discussion on enacting a ban

Support Category:Wikipedia ban per disruptive unilateral changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban and Grading scheme ban after seeing the bot stooped again I see no other choice. -- Moxy (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban Per the above and per this is an exceptionally disruptive case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support unless there's a really compelling explanation for some of the recent changes, apparently WP:POINTy edit-warring and such. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban in response to [34] JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics ban for a month. If, after a month, Chealer continues to make inappropriate edits (i.e. edits against consensus, e.g. "freezing" the table), then an indefinite ban on these 3 pages may be appropriate. Chealer's contributions show that this user has also been editing other Wikipedia-related articles like List of Wikipedia controversies and Criticism of Wikipedia, but I do not know whether any problems have been caused there. It may be alright if Chealer is allowed to edit talk-pages, to participate in discussions. On talk-pages, if this user suggests any inappropriate changes, then they can just be ignored. --Engineering Guy (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hes been blocked from editing for the same thing over and over I dont see a month solving anything...will just lead us back here in a month. The editor does not even show basic courtesy in reply to the concerns raised here. Is there any indication that the behavior will change....i dont see it -- Moxy (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment To my direct question if he knows why he got blocked twice in March, the first time for three days and the second for a week Chealer replied that there is apparently no reason for the blocks, or if there is he doesn't know it and he told me to see his talkpage. Getting blocked twice for a total of ten days and still claiming that he doesn't know why he got blocked betrays a total failure to understand the impact of his actions and that is assuming in good faith that he is not feigning ignorance, or trolling. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Question. For those of you who are supporting a "bot ban", could someone please explain to me what that encompasses?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Answer. I meant that, in response to [35], the editor should be banned from editing pages (project space or talk pages) related to wikipedia bots, broadly construed. I suspect someone could wordsmith this. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Another question - why are we discussing a limited, hard to define topic ban for an editor who has just bounced through 2 blocks for edit warring and disruptive behaviour, wikilawyering endlessly on their talk page through it all, only to resume being disruptive? Wouldn't the sane thing now be an indef block until we are convinced the pattern will not continue? Begoon ^talk 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the refusal to even acknowledge that the two blocks were in any way justified, or that he understood that he caused any kind of disruption at all, is extremely concerning. This type of behaviour suggests that he will export the same behaviour wherever he edits. In addition his silence regarding any input to this thread is also difficult to understand. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Additional comment I think the following exchange can perhaps shed some light on the clueless disregard by Chealer of even the accepted simple norms of behaviour. During his edit-warring on the 3RR archive, I told him in my edit summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Chealer: Comments cannot be added to archives because they cannot be replied to. Please stop edit-warring at the archive. . and he sarcastically replied: (Undid revision 651802397 by Dr.K. (talk) just click Edit to reply to comments) as if I didn't know how to add a comment if I wanted to. And that response was after Bbb23 had already warned him on his talkpage that he would be blocked if he continued his edit-warring at the archive. I think this is a case of either trolling or WP:CIR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I tried to explain to him why he couldn't go into the 3Rs/EW archives and rewrite or delete text and he kept asking me why, why, why as if he didn't understand the concept of archiving. A simple, "You can't edit archived pages, especially archived noticeboard pages" just caused him to ask me more questions on why this was policy. He's not a new user so his recent conduct, behavior and claims of ignorance is a little baffling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Assuming no trolling or WP:CIR the most logical explanation for this type of behaviour is a really bad case of wikilawyering with intent either to exasperate his perceived opponent or to avoid recognising his disruption or both. It is a form of passive resistance. But then again this behaviour is another form of trolling. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal for 1RR restriction on Chealer: Since Chealer has demonstrated that he has no grasp of what constitutes edit-warring, despite repeatedly being blocked for it, I propose that he be placed on a 1RR restriction in addition to the bans proposed above. The 1RR restriction should apply to any topic that Chealer may edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. We have a lot of different proposals floating around here, some of which have not been clearly defined as to their scope. I suggest someone regroup and start subsections with concrete, clearly defined proposals. There can be alternative proposals, but they should be separated somehow to be clear. If that is done, there is no harm in notifying those who have already voted that they may wish to vote again. Otherwise, my concern is that, as currently presented, an administrator will have a hard time determining a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Restored from archive. This needs a close. Begoon ^talk 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban Chealer from Wikipedia altogether

• Support total ban from Wikipedia...guy does not even have the courtesy to reply here now trying to delete the whole grading scheme at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 13#"x-importance articles" categories. Is clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE -- Moxy (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support community ban, per the above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Officially saying that I have no comment. I opposed the initial request because the proposal itself wouldn't have been practical, not because I had an opinion on whether a ban was needed. Same here, except this proposal's clear and easy to understand. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. The CfD is a bold proposition, perhaps misplaced, but I see no evidence of it being disruptive in any way. A site ban is a very serious thing; it requires suitably serious justification, and this isn't it. No comment on topic ban. Please ping me if you respond to me, as I will not be watching this page. Thanks! Alakzi (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: its about a pattern of behaviours leading us to this point including ignoring all of the concerns raised here. First the editor tried remove article stats for our main articles on Wikipedia (got blocked for it). Unable to do that they then froze the stats page so it was no-longer updating (of course got reverted). They then tried to remove some of the categories related to the stats (request denied). They then tried to have all the cats deleted. All of this done while they are aware of this ongoing debate here. Casebook example of WP:NOTHERE. To be honest if the editor had the gusto/courtesy to reply here I would have though twice about a site ban but its clear they don't care about the concerns raised by the community. -- Moxy (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: No, it's not WP:NOTHERE; despite everything, the editor appears to want what they think is best for the encyclopaedia. Yes, their editing has been disruptive, and they do ignore advice, but they've not done anything quite so egregious to warrant a site ban. The indef appears to be the best solution: they can promise to play nice and be given another chance - or not. I concur with Dr.K. below. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support this, since I implicitly did so above. Indefinite is not infinite, but we do need to hear how these issues will be prevented in future. And per Moxy. Begoon ^talk 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support on an at least provisional basis pending response from Chealer. If he does comment here, and indicate that he is willing to cease the problematic behavior, and/or maybe seek a mentor I might change my mind. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support as NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban at this point, but I have blocked the account indefinitely per WP:NCR. As and when he calms down perhaps we can have a rational discussion, if he's still interested, but right now he is on a death spiral and clearly can't carry on. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Good block and good rationale by Guy Indeed, WP:NCR applies here big time. This solution is equivalent to a ban but more flexible, which is a good thing, although I can imagine the structure of the future unblock requests. I can also imagine they would include a lot of statements/questions similar to: "I do not see why you mention the warning from the administrator involved, but which warnings would there be in these edit summaries?", "...but what "ample warning" are you referring to anyway?", "That being said, if you believe what you wrote, please indicate why you do.", or telling the previous blocking admin: "Given your reckless attitude, I will report you should you fail to explain or apologize.", etc. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Good block but also Support a ban. Reading their talk page was an exercise in banging one's head against the wall. I have to applaud @Swarm: for their herculean effort last month. If this is characteristic of their behaviour, then I'm certain we can do without them. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban further supported by these edits following his most recent block: [36]. Talk about WP:IDHT! JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Support both block and site ban. This user's response to the block is a complete continuation of the problematic behavior displayed in the past. If a user isn't going to acknowledge a problem or correct behavior in response to a block (which in itself is a last resort measure), then there's not much else we can do. The indef is appropriate but we as a community should not tolerate irrational nonsense that distracts from the progress of the project. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

hat template broken?

Something seems to be up with {{hat}}. On several pages today, I've clicked on the 'show' link and it just takes me to the top of the page. Anyone know what's causing this? GoldenRing (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't reproduce. However, it sounds like a javascript problem. Try disabling any userscripts you may have running. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be working again now. Probably cosmic rays, or aliens, or quantum, or something. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

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.

---

File:Chourbut Marchha userpageimage.jpg picture located in Commons, somebody created local page to spam text--Musamies (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is a continuation a previous AN thread. The user's userpage has been repeatedly CSD'ed and he now posted the same content on the local file page of a Commons file. I deleted the local page in question. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP backlog

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

---

In particular, temporary semi-pp of User talk:Jimbo Wales to deal with persistent sock of banned user would be appreciated. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing and persistent vandalism

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.

---

Ongoing and persistent vandalism by IPs at Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun. Could this article be semi-protected. Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC))

Moved to request for page protection. Amortias (T)(C) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. Thank you./(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC))

No problem, got to look like I'm doing something useful. Amortias (T)(C) 21:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Closure Review Request at MOS page

NO CONSENSUS:

There is no consensus to overturn the close. A new discussion was started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 119#RfC: Guidance on commas before Jr. and Sr.. The new discussion's result should supersede this RfC's result since a wider cross-section of the community is participating. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these are easier than others.

I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.

The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[37][38][39][40] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:

  • Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
  • Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.
  • Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
  • Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.

  If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.

DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. ...

This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.

If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. —sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. —sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Wikipedia. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Wikipedia's style, not the style of individual subjects.

The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. —sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of Closure Review

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.

It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:

• Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)

• Barack Obama, Sr. → Barack Obama Sr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

• Martin Luther King, Sr. → Martin Luther King Sr.

(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

—sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). —sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Wikipedia go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Wikipedia, as documented in our MOS. Wikipedia routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. —sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New RfC

A new RfC has begun at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas before Jr. and Sr.. As the above discussion has stalled and is being made redundant, I have removed the {{Do not archive until}} tag added by Cunard so that it may be archived in due course. —sroc 💬 04:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88

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

---

I am not at all interested in who is right or wrong, only in what is best for Wikipedia. In this instance, an interaction ban is the obvious solution. There is an ongoing request for Arbitration [41] which looks likely to be declined specifically because no solution has been sought at AN/ANI first. There was a discussion that was archived and which I was forced to hat here [42] It contains enough links (as does the Arb case) to provide a convincing argument as to why an interaction ban is the best solution here. Then if that is not enough, further action could be taken. I would recommend standard IBAN rules, as there is nothing that extraordinary here, just two editors who simply are never going to get along. If we put the needs of the encyclopedia first, it is my opinion that this is an obvious first (and hopefully last) step in achieving peace.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, per recent history, I would myself support an additional i-ban between Hijiri88 and myself, possibly joint i-ban if necessary. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You can propose that as a separate item below, as some might pick one and not the other, so we can't lump them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support, probably long overdue. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - like Dennis, I can't work out who on earth is right and who's wrong, but I do know that the conversation on WT:WER was not conductive to retaining editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - This does seem like the obvious solution. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - As I myself have requested for an i-ban here [43]--Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that the i-ban will include other accounts/names used by the other party involved. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please take note of my comment here: [44]. I will not interact with user:Sturmgewehr88.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Catflap08: an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Yes, if he interacts with you under another username (or IP) then he would not only be violating the IBAN but he would also be violating WP:SOCK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There may be a problem in proving that the IP or other account is the same, and that might require input at ANI or elsewhere, maybe at WP:SPI, but any time an individual already under an i-ban abuses socks as well, then the penalties tend to be rather longer than they would be for either behavioral problem individually. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case then the procedure does have some flaws. If an IBAN is indeed imposed a WP:Sock should take place at the same time or not? Given the facts presented to me via mail the wish to see me being banned for Wikipedia is indeed a reoccurring pattern of past behaviour. On a side note I did indeed initiate a small number of articles – most of them alive and kicking without the need of a further input by myself – I do not regard the input on Wikipedia to be a contest on winning or losing. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this suspicious email contact? It's almost certainly my long-term stalker continuing to harass me and mislead people years after being site-banned. (I know he's still watching because of his other off-wiki activity.) The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account. Additionally, I would like Catflap08 and John Carter to provide some shred of evidence that I have been editing under sock accounts or undeclared IPs over the past year before continuing these ridiculous allegations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you may have a stalker that’s really a bummer for that to happen. For my part I must say that I only use this account and this name. There is an about ten year old catflapXYZ that I do not use. As far as I can see other others have no problem to reach me via email. The only evidence for sock puppetry is the result of a sock puppetry investigation. The procedure is known.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, this statement above, "The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account," demonstrates to me a very strong possibility of irrationality on your part. There is no rational way to jump to the conclusion that simply not publicizing an e-mail address automatically means that the person in question has sockpuppets, and such a profound violation of WP:AGF is problematic, particularly when someone attempts to use it as evidence against someone else. Your obvious jumping to concusions which clearly violate AGF in your comments about others above raises further questions regarding your decision-making and ability to work with others. Also, Catflap created his account in 2012, and I created mine in 2007. I think there is a safe bet that if either were a sock of someone else, it would be known by now. Apparently, you seem to be persisting in the belief that the only person who could hold negative opinions or make negative comments about you is the sockmaster. I believe the evidence rather indicates that is false.

P.S. I should add that, when I became an admin, I received an e-mail from another now less active admin in which he told me not to indicate my e-mail address, or even enable e-mail on site, because as someone active in a lot of the "religion"-related content he said I would get a lot of e-mail asking for help with personal religious issues independent of wikipedia, like marriage problems, crises of faith, and the like. We actually do have a few other editors around here who even recently get messages on their talk pages asking for help with exorcisms (really!), and, thankfully, I haven't gotten much of that, but I think my e-mail address is well enough known around here that I couldn't use it to establish a second account if I tried. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Repeatedly choosing to read AGF violations into other users's good-faith comments even after you have been told exactly what was meant several times is itself a pretty blatant AGF violation. I told you both on SilkTork's talk page and on your own that I didn't mean you or Catflap08 had sockpuppet accounts, or that you should have public email addresses (I don't). I meant what I said: if you don't have a public email address, then the only way my thoroughly blocked stalker could have emailed you was through the Wikimedia email service, which means HE (NOT you or Catflap) must have an active sockpuppet. Would you please stop making me repeat myself like this.

Additionally, both you and Catflap above made not-so-subtle insinuations that I have violated or intend to violate WP:SOCK by making undeclared logged-out or sock-account edits to get around an IBAN or to inflate "support" for my point of view in a content dispute, something I have never done and for which no evidence has been provided. I would appreciate it if you would realize that this puts you in a glass house when it comes to making dubious claims about others violating AGF.

Also, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus here, so why hasn't this thread been closed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well before the final curtain draws I would like to underline where the current dispute erupted [45] and what the article on Kenji Miyazawa and more specifically its lede looks like now. Also the result of the RfC [46] most of all saying “The consensus is that the lede should cover what is in the article and is policy based.” In that respect I am pleasantly surprised that the lede should indeed cover what is written in the article – that’s how I interpreted the guideline too. Please note that this has nothing to do with the “nationalist” debate as it was discussed and decided on prior to that.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per my statement at ArbCom. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... Snow ^{let's rap} 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment spearheaded by (indeffed) troll. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - The Wikipedia Admin has no business regulating the relationships of individual editors. It would be outside our mandate. Either they should be blocked temporarily or let fight it out. Moxy reborn (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "...let fight it out"? This is the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, I think you may have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque... - jc37 21:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I think it worth noting that the account above was just created today as per the account's contribution history. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Indeed. And while I would hope that the above isn't someone's sock, as the account is titled "reborn", it wouldn't make it that much of a surprise... - jc37 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Catflap08 has provided few diffs to illustrate my "personal attacks" and "stalking" of him. This is because any fair reading of the evidence would indicate otherwise.

Summary of events leading here organized by page, in reverse chronological order

On ER, both John Carter and Catflap08 referred to a "clique" of "POV-pushers" in "problematic areas", John Carter requesting more eyes on these areas, the clear implication being that Catflap08 was in agreement with community consensus and was driven off by a small minority. Catflap also repeated one of his old attacks against me that I had supposedly "ridiculed his nationality" (actual diff here). The assertion that I am not allowed respond to these personal attacks on the same forum is ridiculous. With the Daisaku Ikeda page, John Carter repeatedly[47][48][49] goaded me to get involved in the dispute by asserting (wrongly) that I already was involved. When I went there I found Catflap08 engaged in the same misrepresentation of sources he had on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, so I pointed out on the talk page that this was a recurring, possibly chronic, problem with this particular user. This was interpreted as "following" Catflap08, a ridiculous assertion given the reason I initially took an interest in the dispute. Kokuchūkai is an article Catflap08 created, but he very clearly just wrote whatever he wanted, and added sources that may or may not support his claims (it seems likely he hasn't actually read them). He openly admitted that this is his modus operandi, hence my pointing out that when he did the same thing on the Daisaku Ikeda article this is a recurring problem with this user, rather than a good-faith difference of opinion over article content. I recently fixed the Kokuchūkai article by providing a neutral and accurate summary of what all the sources actually say, which Catflap08 has since claimed is "problematic". On Kenji Miyazawa, Catflap08 has repeatedly[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] violated a very clear consensus by inserting dubiously-sourced material (essentially OR) that is contradicted by 99% of our reliable sources. Why reverting this is wrong has never been especially clear. Regarding "name-calling": Catflap08 here has been applying a blatant double-standard. If I get frustrated and call him a "jackass" once (actual diff here; at least one admin repeated this "personal insult" when asked to sanction me for it), Catflap spends a month and counting calling me a "jackass" and a "jerk" in response. I am also, apparently, a "xenophobic racist", and users who disagree with Catflap08, including myself, are an "ignorant clique" of "idiots", etc., etc. He even appears to have accused me of homophobia.[60][61][62] He has repeatedly refused requests from multiple users, including his friend John Carter, to withdraw his ad hominem remarks, while insisting that my already-stricken responses to said ad hominem remarks should lead to repercussions.

I don't think an IBAN is appropriate, given that I have done nothing wrong here. Catflap08 has a particular POV and when other users respond by saying the sources don't support him, he responds with forum-shopping and personal attacks. A mutual IBAN would protect his more disruptive edits from me. A one-way IBAN would at least protect me from his continued and unapologetic personal remarks. But the project as a whole would be much better served if Catflap08 was indefinitely blocked.Opposition withdrawn.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A one-way IBAN? Sorry, that's not how it works. I didn't even know you two were still going at each other (in the past, I asked for an admin to put a stop to it myself), so I fully support an IBAN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• The purpose of an interaction ban isn't for the sole benefit of the two users, it is for the benefit of the community. It is an alternative to using the block tool, so we get your contributions, you both get to stay unblocked. At this point, it is obvious that interactions by the two users is causing problems outside of a single article. Who is to blame? Frankly, I don't care, as it is clear that any interaction is disruptive to the project as a whole. What I want is a good editing environment for all editors, which takes precedence over any single user's desires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that we've already seen administrative involvement fail to separate these two. By the way, did anyone remember to inform SilkTork about this, since he was the last admin to attempt to halt this nonsense? As its now down to a community vote, I'd like his insight in particular and I think he might want to know what happened here, in light of the conduct he requested during his mediation of the issue between the pair. Hijiri seems indignant at the implication of the IBAN, but I think, in opening this discussion, Catflap may have spared him a block for that whole affair and his persistence in seeking this conflict out. And that's rather the point I started out to make here. IBANs only really work when both parties really want them to and have accepted there is no solution but to cooperate in not cooperating. It's silly, but if it works and stabilizing the problem, who cares, right? The problem is that one or both of the parties is determined to continue the fight, IBANs collapse in on themselves and become the community fabric equivalent of super-massive black holes, sucking up indescribable amounts of community effort and contributor man-hours in acrimonious discussions of the IBAN itself and whether it's being violated and, if so, whose fault it is. And it can be unending. And you can bet it won't be long before these two cross paths again, because they both operate in some shared (and very niche) spaces, and both clearly have strong feelings on said topic. In short, I don't see this IBAN would work, short of a mutual TBAN in those areas as well...

I really honestly sometimes think IBANs are broadly a mistake and ought to be abolished for anything but voluntary application. If someone is not behaving in accordance with our behavioural policies and can't be convinced to, they really ought to just be blocked. The rationale behind IBANs is "Well, we don't want to lose two or more valuable contributors, and this seems to be limited to their interactions with eachother, so let's just remove that factor." The problem is that, if an editor shows a willingness to break with our community principles of conduct in one context, there's almost certainly another context in which that user could be compelled to do so again. No matter how specific the frustration seems to be to that user, there's at least a handful of other editors out there who will rub them the wrong way in basically the same way, and if said user can't comport themselves in those circumstances then, at a minimum, the community should acknowledge as much (and probably impose sanctions as necessary), not try to patch around that core issue. When two editors lock horns and can't let it go, when they come to uncivil words and personal attacks, an administrator or the community broadly should step in. If they can't head the advice being given them in those administrative/community processes, then a line should be drawn for them, beyond which their behaviour cannot be tolerated, as was done in this case by Silk. The party that next insists upon that problematic behaviour should then be blocked. This is all spelled out in policy.

IBANs attempt to allow us to avoid assigning blame and/or spare someone a block, but in the long run in most cases, I don't think they do the involved editors any favours and certainly not the community. All they ever seem to do is prolong the ugliness. So I think we need to think carefully about whether to institute an IBAN here if both parties are not going to embrace it. If that proves to be the case, I say we ask SilkTork if he wants to apply any of the blocks he seemed prepare to implement if his administrative proscriptions were not followed. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in this case and I suspect at least one of the involved parties will fail to hear the IBAN, so if both parties are not going to work at settling this issue, we should send a message composed of substance, of the type that starts at 24-hours in size. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • The whole idea is that instead of reading through walls of text, it is possible to simply block them if they violate the iban, without having to get bogged down in the merits of the arguments. I am not a fan of ibans, but sometimes, they are the lesser of all available evils. This is one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support two-year IBAN Okay, I've changed my mind. I've had enough of this hassle, and want the IBAN if only to get Catflap out of my hair. But I think a definite-but-very-long time limit is preferable to indefinite for the following reasons:

1. Past experience has taught me that even having a block log is enough for AGF to go out the window, so having a ban permanently in effect is not attractive, especially if the ban has no purpose (see 2 and 3 below).
2. Catflap has announced his retirement/semi-retirement. If this is genuine, then there's no point keeping what would effectively be a one-way IBAN in effect indefinitely.
3. My CIR and NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND concerns regarding Catflap still stand. Even if I am not the next one to take him to ANI, his state of always being in conflict with one or more users has not changed. If he doesn't retire voluntarily, I am 90% certain he will be blocked within the next two years.
4. His comments on this thread make me think that if he doesn't retire, he will immediately violate the IBAN himself by accusing the next Japanese IP he comes into conflict with (it happens a lot) of being me. He's already done it on the Kenji article, but there was no IBAN then.
5. If after two years of us both editing English Wikipedia constructively with no violations, one or both of us wish to renew, it can be discussed at that point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also an IBAN without further clarification would be technically difficult. Before imposing the IBAN, could someone take a look at the Kokuchukai article and clarify whether one or both of us would be banned from editing it? Catflap created the page first, but 90% of the current article is my work, and both of us are intimately aware of these facts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:IBAN and see exactly what it discusses. It refers only to direct interaction, it does not rule out the possibility of developing articles independent of discussion between individuals, or much anything else, just directly discussing each other or each other's edits. And I would myself

Support indefinite i-ban as per the standard form, with perhaps a possibility of review after no less than one year. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: So Catflap is allowed knowingly alter my wording, and I am allowed knowingly edit an article he started? Unless someone else radically alters the page again (not likely) or the page is deleted and recreated (even less likely) this situation is not going to change. Please actually read my question before posting an inane remark that doesn't answer it at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, stop with the personal attacks. You've been told this before. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: What are you talking about? Where in my above question is there anything approaching a violation of NPA? Yes, I have been told to cut out the non-personal-attacks-that-other-people-choose-to-read-as-personal-attacks before, but you (and Catflap08, and John Carter) were also told (repeatedly, by multiple users) to stop choosing to read such things as personal attacks when they very clearly aren't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, your use of the word knowingly seems a rather obvious jump to conclusions contrary to WP:AGF. And, yes, Hijiri, I did read your comment to which I responded. Only after the fact did you do something to indicate that you saw a problem. Rather than rather presumptuously assume bad faith of others, maybe it would make sense if you bothered to make coherent statements which actually say what you want them to say from the beginning, rather than make irrational assumptions that everyone will automatically as a matter of course review the entire edit history of the article and find edits with which you disagree. So, in the future, if you have reservations about others, please show the good grace to actually indicate what they are. And I note you still have not provided the clear evidence by diffs on this page to support your insinuations, which is generally considered good form. And, finally, Hijiri, although I think it has been rather obviously indicated by multiple users now, maybe it is time for you to realize that if other people consistently say you are wrong about something, like your personal view of what are and are not personal attacks, even if you believe otherwise, maybe you are wrong. This lack of clarity in speech and thinking might also extend to other matters, like your refusal to actually support allegations through diffs, or even specifically indicate what they are in a timely manner, as per your above revisionist comments which indicate allegations only after the fact, and then insultingly put down others for not having reviewed everything for you, rather than do the polite thing and actually indicate the behavior you are objecting to from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply referring to the "inane remark" comment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: No, you see, if I have already directly stated that I know Catflap started the article, and Catflap has already directly stated that he knows 100% of its current wording is now mine, then it can't possibly violate AGF to assume that one or both of us know the things we say we know. I made all of this clear in my initial question before you posted a response that didn't answer said question. Also, could you please stop insisting that multiple users have consistently told me I am wrong? You are literally the only person who has disagreed with me on any of this, which is precisely why I am certain that unless Catflap radically alters his Wikipedia activity he will be blocked within the next two years with or without an IBAN. I am not the first person to say this, and in two months you are literally the only person to say otherwise.

@Erpert: Well I can't very well say "your intelligent and considered remark that completely ignored my question", can I?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support with a degree of extreme prejudice that the first offender is blocked. We are no longer at the stage of second chances or listening to any more time-consuming chest beating or excuses. With warnings given to both of them for their behaviour it is either this ban or a time-out. Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works. And Catflap's refusal to back down or strike inflammatory comments indicates a user who is sucking the energy out of those drawn into this personal dispute. We are an encyclopedia not social services - if folks can't conduct themselves reasonably we are not here to counsel them and hold their hand, we simply restrict them or ask them to leave. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: So you're supporting a two-year IBAN, given the circumstances that Catflap is retired and/or semi-retired and the odds of us continuing to "interact" with each other after an IBAN working for two years are infinitesimally small? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A "retirement" or "semi-retirement" is more often honored in the breach. Best to have things covered for the (almost) inevitable return. And if the retiree doesn't return, the IBAN has no effect on you whatsoever, because there's no one to interact with. BMK (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, Hijiri...you seem surpised that SilkTork is in favor of the IBAN, yet you were the one who proposed it in the first place. Have you changed your mind or something? (Wait, maybe you have.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Why would you think that? I wasn't the one to propose an IBAN (John Carter was first, then Catflap08, then Dennis Brown), I opposed an IBAN for the reasons given above until after the current thread started, and I'm still skeptical about an indefinite (read: permanent) IBAN, since punishing me by having a "permanent" ban on my record seems to be Catflap and John Carter's motivation (why else would Catflap propose an interaction ban with me specifically if he has no intention of interacting with anyone on-wiki anyway?). I know this isn't the actual meaning of "indefinite", which here should actually be "as long as necessary", but that's clearly not how some users are reading it.

@BMK: Technically you're right since if I alter an old edit by Catflap by accident AGF should protect me from accusations, but what if someone reverts such an edit and calls it an IBAN violation, I'm then effectively not allowed to revert back. This means that even if Catflap is retired I am still restricted by an IBAN while he is not (a de facto one-way IBAN).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I mispoke. I meant to say that you were in favor of it in the first place. But just like all the other discussions about the issue, this is really going nowhere, so IBAN or not, this needs to end. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Hold on a sec, I didn't say I was against an IBAN, I just said that making it indefinite, given the fact that one of the subjects is retiring, seems more punitive than preventative. I agree this needs to end, hence my above agreement to the IBAN. Unlike Catflap, I actually want to get back to creating articles, which I was doing happily in accordance with SilkTork's advice until Catflap and John Carter decided to reignite this dispute on the editor retention talk page. (Seriously, check the dates: that's exactly what happened, and I don't appreciate people insinuating that it's my fault that it came to this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't do two year bans - the ban will be indefinite. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, it means that the ban's time is not fixed. We generally don't listen to appeals to lift bans until 12 months have passed, but after 12 months if an appeal is successful the ban can be lifted. The arguments you are making are part of the reason we want the ban. Our priority is building the encyclopedia - folks who suck out the energy of those building the encyclopedia need to be restricted or removed. The community is patient and tolerant, because pretty much everyone has encountered problems in editing at some point, but after a reasonable period of giving advice, assistance and warnings, our patience and tolerance wears out. It has now worn out. The more you persist in arguing with folks, the clearer it is that something needs to be done. It is time for you to take a deep breath and let it all go. The community loves a user who can handle themself and walk away from a disruptive dispute. As regards damaging your reputation by getting an i-ban - well, your reputation is already damaged. But you can start to rebuild it by the way you deal with this situation now. And as regards Catflap making an edit you disagree with - well, if the edit harms the encyclopedia someone is highly likely to remove it without your intervention. From my own involvement in an editorial conflict between you two, I found your editorial stance to be the one that was the more inappropriate, and Catflap's edits to be what we expect of users. Your attempts to suppress his edits were unpleasant, and you were close to being temporarily removed from editing Wikipedia for such an approach. In your favour you initially listened to my advice, and responded well. But you have since lost the plot. Listen to me again - stop this chest beating, and adopt a more collaborative approach to editing or you will find yourself not just facing a restriction on interacting with one user, but a restriction on editing Wikipedia. What is being adopted here is designed to help Wikipedia and to help both you and Catflap. Take note of that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Okay, I understand all that, and that's why I'm prepared to accept an indefinite ban that's actually indefinite (i.e., not permanent, but that can be lifted after an appropriate period of time if certain conditions like one user not actually editing the encyclopedia any more for one reason or the other). But (Decided the rest of this reply belonged on SilkTork's talk page, since it has nothing to do with the IBAN discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: From my own involvement in an editorial conflict between you two, I found your editorial stance to be the one that was the more inappropriate, and Catflap's edits to be what we expect of users. Your attempts to suppress his edits were unpleasant, and you were close to being temporarily removed from editing Wikipedia for such an approach. From a look over the issues raised, and linked here, I think that is a good assessment. Hijiri88, you may not "appreciate people insinuating that it's [your] fault that it came to this." You should seriously consider it, though, regardless of "appreciation". Begoon ^talk 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Begoon: SilkTork asked me and Catflap to strike our ad hominem remarks from a talk page. I did, Catflap didn't. Catflap was asked to do so again; he openly refused, and actually continued posting further ad hominem remarks. I complained about this, and SilkTork told me to go edit articles in an unrelated area and forget about it. I did. Catflap and John Carter then started calling me "ignorant" and an "idiot" on an entirely new forum. I showed up to defend myself against this. Even if you think the latter move by me was a bad idea, it should be pretty obvious who the aggressor was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Hijiri88: Please be informed that I never called you an “idiot”. As I made it clear this was a general note as indeed under current rules anyone can come along and edit any article under any IP address. The famous word “penis” can be inserted into any article and unless the article is patrolled by somebody that word can stay for a considerable time - certainly some bot will run over articles, but the current situation I find to be unproductive and the “penis” example to be the most extreme one. It might come as a surprise to you but I do not have you on my mind day in and day out. I am on my part only interested in certain subject areas. So yes if somebody does insert words like “penis” or any completely unrelated statements into an article is to me an idiot and this in my books is a current flaw in en. Wikipedia, but this in the long run ends up in another discussion and this thread is not the appropriate space. My work in Wikipedia is related only to certain subject areas and Hijiri88 is not one of them. Also please note that I have been active on Wikipedia not since 2012 but 2008 ([63]) under this name and ever since have not edited under any other name unless I forgot to sign in which was then taken care of automatically. Please also note that your ongoing enumeration of edits and once even a statement made about “winning” a dispute are to my mind disconcerting to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You posted a retirement notice immediately after I rewrote the Kokuchūkai article to say what reliable sources say about it rather than what you want them to say about it. You said you were retiring because of an "ignorant clique" of "POV pushers" and the fact that "any idiot can edit an article". You clearly think I am a member of this ignorant clique of POV pushers. Was I wrong to interpret your use of the word "idiot" to refer not to users who insert the word "penis" into random articles, but to people who deem generally ignorant of the subject matter? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I find this statement to be worrying to say the least [64]. To me it is at this point a futile task to interpret your actions here or elsewhere. You seem more interested in a feud and so far I have no IBAN between me and any other editor – and you?--Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit I find this edit to be somewhat sad as well as it is about the city I currently reside in [65]. I do make my own conclusions now. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather obvious, and, frankly, rather obnoxious, evidence of petty misconduct, particularly as the sentence is sourced. It is to my eyes clear evidence that there is a very real chance Hijiri will continue to engage in forms of harassment and abuse perhaps independent and outside of direct interaction, and to my eyes is at least potentially, under the circumstances, grounds for a block. @SilkTork:, and any other admins, any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

No John Carter, Catflap is shooting himself in the foot with these last two posts. If you actually looked at the edit history, Hijiri is talking about an edit made yesterday, where Catflap replaced a sourced sentence with an unsourced one. It was only today that Catflap basically readded the sentence with its sources and changed a single word (excommunicated→expelled), which is what he and Hijiri have been fighting over this whole time. If anyone should be blocked, it's Catflap. He shouldn't be editing that page while this discussion is ongoing, because it might appear to others that he's trying to "lock in" his version of the page just before the IBAN comes into effect and Hijiri can't revert or alter it. That coupled with him being "[worried]" that Hijiri called him out on a talk page rather than revert him, and him thinking it's "somewhat sad" that Hijiri tagged a vague sentence for clarification (who speculated?) simply because he has a personal connection to the article's subject. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: BTW you should sign your posts. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You did know that what Catflap was talking about was the Karlsruhe page, which Hijiri has only edited once here, as is indicated in the link Catflap provided, right? If anyone is shooting themselves in the foot here, it would seem to me to be Hijiri, by so obviously seeming to add dubious claims to an article which he has never displayed any previous interest in, but is now, apparently, interested in perhaps because Catflap lives there, and, well, you, for not bothering to actually look at the link Catflap provided. And considering you have chosen to make a rather obvious insulting overreaction to a single mistake in a rather long history of editing, I think that maybe, BTW, I can ask you to actually read the comments to which you are responding before making comments which have nothing to do with the topics under discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sturmgewehr88Nope sorry. As I am not active in Wikipedia 24h a day I do take things step by step. The edit on the excommunication business I reverted since sources presented were unbalanced. I waited for what to happen on the talk page and then inserted additional references. Please note that editing the article on the city I reside in to be a somewhat abnormal act. This is not about content but a feud – I have no time to engage on that level. So who is shooting who’s foot is to questioned after all. At this point I do really ask myself if some individuals do not have a life to live. This is getting way out of hand. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing what has happened which in my books is a somewhat irrational behaviour by the editor in question I would only not only ask for an IBAN but a TBAN against Hijiri88 to edit any articles within the category Nichiren Buddhism. This is the area I mostly concentrate on and I want to carry on doing so in the chain of events he can edit the article on my home town to his heart’s content if he feels a need to do so.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I did know which article he was talking about, and you claim that Hijiri edited said article just because Catflap lives there. And how exactly did Hijiri come across this information? I see a link to Baden-Wurttemburg on Catflap's userpage, but no link to Karlsruhe. So, how did Hijiri come across this information? How do you know he came across it at all? And so what if he added a "whom?" tag; is it insulting for him to edit the article just because Catflap lives there? I think Catflap is overreacting if he honestly is taking this as a personal insult. So yes, I looked at the diff. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: So you read Hijiri's challenge on the talk page, and then you readded the text with your preferred wording (which you already know Hijiri objects to). You are willingly partaking in this feud if that's really what it has come to. You now think he should also get a TBAN because he challenged you on a talk page rather than reverting you? I can already tell you that I won't support one. If he had vandalized the article on your hometown that's a different story, but considering the edit he actually made, you just need to chill out. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh and look, someone other than Hijiri disagrees with you over Nichiren Buddhism. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, for the record I don't personally have a preferred wording for the Gakkai sentence. John Carter and Catflap made unsubstantiated claims that the "facts" were such-and-such and that "consensus" had determined thus. I pointed out that they needed sources for this, and Catflap reinserted the previous sources that couldn't possibly back him up (the one I checked clearly says nothing of the sort, two of the three that I haven't checked predate 1997). I pointed this out. Since this thread has not been closed yet and WP:EDR not updated yet, I took the IBAN to not be in place yet, so my posting on the talk page can't be a violation. I left the talk page notes in the hope that either Catflap or John Carter would finally learn to edit in accordance with WP:V (and WP:VNT) and fix the problem themselves. For all I know, they could be right about the "facts", but I merely pointed out that they needpost-1997 sources that support these facts. This appears to be a chronic problem with Catflap, and is why I am certain he will get a CIR block sooner or later.

As for the Karlsruhe edit: I (occasionally) make minor gnomish edits to articles outside my preferred field that I am reading, if I find an obvious problem like what looks like one non-notable author's opinion being cited in the lead as a commonly-held view (apologies to Mr. Ihle if I am wrong). I had no idea Catflap lived in the place, or that he had ever edited the page before. The assertion that I somehow magicked knowledge of Catflap's current residence in order to make an innocuous edit to an article on the town just to harass him is patently ridiculous.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE Perhaps this has gone on long enough and should simply be decided by an uninvolved administrator. Keeping this open any longer is not likely to produce a different, nor a better result. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion has been open a week now, and I agree it would be not unreasonable for it to be reviewed and closed now. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I was the first one to support closing, and I'm still eager to see this finished at the earliest opportunity. Close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would only like to add that the existing warning to Hijiri documented at WP:RESTRICT about "User:Elvenscout742 (now renamed to User:Hijiri88) [has] been warned to neither poke the bear nor "grave dance"" be perhaps mentioned again, to ensure that he does neither as a result after this i-ban either. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While I would request the closer to review whether the edit to Karlsruhe qualifies as "poking the bear", behavior Hijiri has previously been warned about, I would also request that the nature of the existing comment at WP:RESTRICT is at best somewhat dubiously worded regarding whether Hijiri is included in the current phrasing "They are also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed," or whether the "they" in that case is supposed to apply exclusively Tristan noir. If the latter, it would be I think appropriate to change the phrasing to more clearly indicate that. If the former, then we may have had some violations already. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: stop trying to find every way possible to get Hijiri blocked. The sentence "they are also topic-banned..." by itself does seem vague, but coupled with preceeding sentences and even the following sentences it should be obvious to anyone who speaks English who "they" refers to (i.e. not Hijiri). He was not "poking the bear"; he didn't even know Catflap lived in Karlsruhe until after he made the edit. And again, Catflap shouldn't get upset over something so trivial. This is just getting ridiculous. A question for the admins: will an IBAN between Hijiri88 and John Carter also be in effect? I would strongly support one. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, request closure from an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just gonna add this before contacting an admin to close. Recent events, combined with the fact that both users have openly admitted to at least receiving email contact badmouthing me, make it pretty obvious that Catflap08 and John Carter have been engaged in off-site collusion and coordinating for the latter to fight the former's battles. This would also explain the frankly bizarre interpretations John Carter has had of this dispute all along (getting Kenji Miyazawa mixed up with Daisaku Ikeda, for instance): he might have been just repeating what was in the emails, without looking at the actual content. I will not pursue repercussions for what's already finished, but if it seems like this behaviour is continuing after the IBAN is in place further action may be necessary. It is entirely inappropriate for one party in a mutual IBAN to be making off-wiki contact with their non-IBANned friends to get them to oppose the other party on their behalf. John Carter and I never directly interacted once in ten years before the recent Catflap affair, but for the last month or so he has been on my tail constantly; if this continues after I stop interacting with Catflap it will be pretty obvious which party has violated the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Peter Damian appeal to revoke 2009 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.

---

Copied from Jimbo Wales' talk page. as requested. Begoon ^talk 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am editor Peter Damian. I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2003, and started (or was the major contributor to) many articles in Wikipedia, including logic and set theory, architecture, London places, and in particular medieval logic and philosophy, on which I am a published author, [66]. I was banned in August 2009 after accusing an administrator and ex-arbitrator of sockpuppeting.

After the ban I edited from other accounts, creating a number of articles and improving many others. This upset many Wikipedians – no one has ever complained to my knowledge about the quality of the content, but I was breaking the rules. So I stopped, and haven't touched Wikipedia in any significant way for nearly 3 years. (I occasionally edit Jimmy's page as an IP). I am a frequent contributor to Wikipediocracy and I wrote some of the exposés that found their way into the mainstream media.

I appeal to the community to revoke the ban of 2009. Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban, but I welcome comments from other members of the community. user:Peter Damian

• End ban - I'll get this started. Does anybody remember what this ban was originally about? Or what great end has been served by alienating a subject expert from participation in writing the encyclopedia? "Peter" is a very reasonable voice at Wikipediocracy; he's capable of being a productive Wikipedian. There are plenty of critics of WMF and the dysfunctionality of some aspects of Wikipedia who are currently working to build the encyclopedia in a productive way — myself included. There has been enough water under the bridge. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - HERE is the last stable version of Peter's courtesy-blanked User page. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Carrite [| This would be one place to look ], [|| more history ], He even made it to [| Arbcom ]. Since he has a history of socking (per Arbcom) I'd want to see a CU done to see that he hadn't socked prior to this writing this note. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia sure is a funny place. In the section above I see a topic ban appeal, placed around 20 seconds after it was permissible to do so, after the countdown template for appeal on his user page ticked to zero (no, really...), by a user whose talk page archives and contributions shriek conflict from day one, and don't improve much over time. Yeah, that's you, Kosh. And now you'd like a checkuser on a guy appealing a 5 year old ban? This truly is the twilight zone. Can you do something about that horrendous signature, by the way? Thanks. Begoon ^talk 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Actually, my unban request was a day later (1 year and 1 day later ), yes, I had a countdown on my page, that's true. If I were banned from Wikipedia and wanted to get unbanned, I would totally expect a CU would be run on me to make sure I hadn't socked during my ban, as that would look pretty bad on my part, so it's not too far fetched to request that. However, if the consensus in this discussion is that a CU isn't necessary, I'll strike that request myself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral (edit conflict) As a rule, I'm generally in favor of the Wikipedia:Standard offer, and as far as I can tell, the criteria are met here. But I do see an issue with the comment regarding the signatories of the ban. A surprisingly large number are blocked, a fair characterization on that account. A couple have left or renamed a bit of a stretch, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one. There is only a single obvious sock in the version of the discussion linked from his block log, which to me makes the claim regarding the involvement of sockpuppets in the ban discussion seem rather dubious considering how lopsided the discussion was. More generally, focusing attention on who !voted for the ban, when its clear the ban was properly enacted with a strong consensus of !voting editors, makes me worry there may be a lingering battlefield mentality. Maybe I'm reading too much into that one sentence, lets hope so. Monty₈₄₅ 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Standard offer. I think KoshVorlon's suggestion of verification a reasonable one. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• End ban I believe Peter Damian has much to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• End ban per Wikipedia:Standard offer. Begoon ^talk 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Carrite and not with Monty. I see that final sentence as saying basically "Nobody's left who asked for the ban", i.e. "I won't be able to resume old conflicts" (it's hard to fight with an inactive user!) and "there's no point in notifying them, so the whole discussion will depend on people who are uninvolved". I would be opposed to an unban request from someone who attempted to seek real-life harm against another user (for example, Ecoleetage), or from someone who has a history of advanced vandalism (for example, Robdurbar), but when you're banned after a series of personal conflicts, we should acquiesce to what's basically a request to start over. Moreover, you've demonstrated that you're interested in contributing encyclopedic content: it's radically different from when we get an unban request from someone who wasn't particularly active in starting and/or improving articles, because we can expect that you'll help us in writing the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban. Admittedly, I don't see item 2 of the Standard offer met, but the circumstances involved here have been discussed at length, um, elsewhere, shall we say, and from what I can tell of the discussion there, if it is accurate, this editor's personal behavior may not be worse than some of the others involved in that matter, and may have, in a sense, been more in keeping with current policies and guidelines regarding content anyway. I advise that the content related to the ban is now under discretionary sanctions, and that it might be very much a bad idea to unilaterally play hero on that content right now, but I think that there are enough other editors who are aware of the occasional POV pushing on that topic to maybe keep the content up to level. One could always, however, go to the FTN, where I think Peter might even fairly regularly see some people he knows already. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• I think we should lift Peter's ban and welcome him back. He obviously cares about the project, and has done a lot of good even while banned (for instance, by doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Wifione case). Frankly, I think Peter's concerns about FT2 (which led to his ban) have proven to be borne out. I think Peter has a lot to offer and I can't think of any good reason why he should remain banned at this point. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sure Blocks are cheap. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A little part of me dies everytime someone repeats that nostrum. Blocks aren't cheap. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hahaha, it hurt me too. Can't believe there are any little parts of you left. Arkon (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Touché. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Arkon, you have made light of a holy thing. Please be more respectful in your remarks. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Three years is a long time to be dormant. It sounds like time has been served. My comment is that when an editor returns like this, they have dozens of eyes on them. Should he fall into battleground behavior, it's an uncontroversial reblock so the potential benefits outweight the potential costs, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban.--MONGO 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support: lifting of this ban. Time served, agreed. Please give this editor a new chance. Fylbecatulous talk 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Revoke ban. The origin of the ban was a conflict between PD and... FT2 (I wrote "a then arbitrator" at first, but I see MastCell has already named him, so what the hell), who was forced to leave the committee in disgrace in early 2009. There was a lot of bad blood between them. In my opinion Peter was far less at fault than FT2, but he (Peter) is a hot-blooded fellow who lost his temper repeatedly after suffering much provocation and dishonest dealing. If anybody doubts that version of events, I can give details and diffs, but after all this time it's perhaps not necessary to revive the old scandal. Peter should have been unbanned long ago. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
• Support: lifting of this ban, pr all of the above. This is *way* overdue. (PS, I´m not an admin, but I hope I can have may say, still?) Huldra (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support but with absolutely zero tolerance for any misbehavior whatsoever. As said above, blocks aren't cheap, it frequently takes a lot of energy to get someone re-blocked once a block is lifted. I don't want that in this case. BMK (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban. I was inactive for a long time and sat out all of this drama. Looking back at some of the relevant discussions with the benefit of hindsight makes this look far overdue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per MastCell and Bishonen. Andreas JN466 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Lift ban per WP:OFFER; a lot of water has flowed under that bridge. Welcome back. Miniapolis 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting - and from looking into the background to this, I have to suggest that the original ban was questionable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban. I'd be delighted to welcome Peter back. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Honestly, the very concept of Peter Damian returning makes me feel ill. Just to make sure we're talking about the same user: this is the person who claims to be writing a book length- and format "expose" on Wikipedia that discusses specific editors (COI declaration: I'm one of them) by real-world name? That Peter Damian? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If he can hold himself to your standards of behaviour, I'll join you in opposition. Other than that, shut up, really. You're discredited everywhere that matters. Everyone knows, you know. Begoon ^talk 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That I was an asshole as a teenager? Absolutely. But, as you've just so nicely demonstrated, the way it's understood is an inaccurate one. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How old were you when you made the comments about setting an editor alight with oil? Genuine question. Begoon ^talk 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support The comments I have seen from PD regarding Wikipedia have been constructive and insightful. As noted by others a lot of water has been passed under the bridge since then. He should be allowed to contribute here. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting. Long overdue. Free speech, Oliver. That he is writing a critique of Scientology this cult is not grounds for banning him. It's grounds for applause. Get it straight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  "But free speech!" == "Literally the nicest thing I can say about this is that it's not actually against the law". Yes, I'm free to refute anything he or anyone else says - if I am totally ignorant of the streisand effect. Yes, I'm free to sue him - if I'm totally ignorant of the streisand effect, have far more disposable income than I actually have, don't plan to get anything done for at least six months, and enjoy what WO does when one pokes the bear. That he is writing a critique of Wikipedia is not grounds for banning him; that he is so incredibly apathetic to the idea of what happens to actual, living people is. Tell you what; when you've had a stream of death threats from people, mounds upon mounds of hideous, defamatory commentary, and basically had to live under a rock for a year, then you can come to me and tell me that you have the slightest idea what is actually practical in that situation, and how you're incredibly comfortable letting a member of the same weird clique as the issuers of said defamatory commentary and death threats hang out in your home space. Until then, I'd suggest you put just the slightest amount of energy into empathy and understanding that people may have legitimate safety concerns with rewarding people who egg on and support an environment that contains those kinds of people. Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Before he posted his reply I redacted the part of my original comment that said "sue him if he lies" for the reasons Oliver lays out above. It was a stupid, thoughtless comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't a "stream of death threats" but a death threat, from someone Oliver won't name but who is apparently "associated with" Peter ... or, at least, someone claiming to be someone associated with Peter. I presume that's meant to mean someone from Wikipediocracy. I've asked Oliver to name the sender so the moderators can ban them from Wikipediocracy, but he won't. Oliver didn't report this to the police. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: you have very deliberately selectively quoted and interpreted what I actually said, in order to reduce the impact of it as much as possible. Do you genuinely wonder why I didn't trust you enough to handle the situation reasonably to give you the details? Or is this just some sick game to you? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for having misrepresented you. If you'll show me where I've done that, I will definitely correct the record. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you find PD using your 'real-world name' problematic when it features prominently on your user page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

He'll probably clarify that at the same time that he justifies suggesting use of a pen to punch a... Oh never mind, it's pointless. Begoon ^talk 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You want me to clarify what the difference is between my real-world name being associated with my userpage, and my real-world name being the title of a chapter of a book explicitly designed to crap all over whatever the chapter covers? Really? Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support. This should be an easy decision. I look forward to his upcoming contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I admit to not being familiar with the specifics of what @Ironholds: is noting, and mean no offense in my support of the proposal. More information? A statement from PD?JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I've read enough now to be continue with my strong support. No offense to those who oppose. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page, Oliver explains that it was someone else that sent him a death threat. I've asked for clarification. Presently, it seems like a rather extreme attempt to keep someone out who has had the temerity to criticise him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I had a problem with being criticised I wouldn't work for the Foundation. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for a mixture of reasons I can and can't talk about. I really don't see much value to many of the exposés published on WO and he hasn't shown that he has the ability to stay civil when he disagrees with others. The book that he likes to parade around is worrying; why should we let someone back into the community who is planning on breaking our mores is a very public way? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Fuck no. This is a person obsessed with Wikipedia, obsessed with outing Wikipedians, and who has been actually banned by the UK WMF chapter from attending events, and who openly admits ban evasion. Why would this be a good idea? Guy (Help!) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fuck yeah. But I can't, because I already voted. So indent'n'all. You're often right Guy, and I've often agreed with you. You're wrong today. Begoon ^talk 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• The UK WMF retracted that ban and apologized. I also find it hilarious that anyone here who spends as many hours editing Wikipedia as some of the editors here would call Mr. Damian's interest in WP "obsessive." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Elsewhere, Peter has posted this

  I would be very grateful if someone could point out that the ban was revoked, and apology was made, and the notice on the mailing list taken down by the WMF. ...
  "All, there's been a bit more discussion on Peter Damian in a thread above. I really want to make this clear, however, to everyone, so I'm starting a new section: Peter Damian is not banned from any Wikimedia UK events. We were, in late 2011, worried about his attending an event at the British Library, and we reacted to that by banning him from attending it. This evolved into a 'general ban from events'. However, it was pointed out to us that this ban was perhaps an overreaction, and indeed after having met with Peter in person over a cup of tea, we are quite happy that he is not a 'threat to security'. As a result, we rethought the ban - it was, shall we say, a decision made in haste. We retracted it, and issued an apology for the phrasing. I'm happy to repeat that: Peter is not a threat to our member's security." Quoting Richard Symonds (WMUK)

He says you know this, Guy. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

He'd be wrong about that. I know his real-world identity, I know the reports of outing and the reasons why people I know and respect refused to go to any meeting where he was present, but I have never been to a WMFUK meeting or met, to the best of my knowledge, any of those involved, in person. Cla68 also misses the point about obsessive interest. I'm not banned. If I was, I like to think I'd leave the project alone completely for at least a year before even thinking of appealing. As I understand it, PD was banned for cause and still continued to turn up at meetings and such. That's not healthy. However, I am prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt IFF PD will give an unequivocal and binding undertaking to abide by the "friendly space" policy, and if the past accusations of sockpuppetry can be shown to be false. My biggest concern is the outing, whether or not it comes under the guise of "citizen journalism" (a label that is open to egregious abuse since it exists outside of the framework of editorial oversight and press regulation). I do welcome Cla68's new tolerance of offsite outing, and I trust that he will now be petitioning ArbCom to remove the ban on Philip Sandifer. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Pot/kettle again Guy. Have you ever dropped my real name in a public, online conversation off-wiki? Of course, I already know the answer. Cla68 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Request more evidence: I would like to see the case where Mr. Damian was banned, and a list of accusers who Mr. Damian said have been banned, left, and were sock puppets, his defense then, and his defense now as to why the original decision was in error. They should all be notified of the request by Mr. Damian to lift the ban and allowed to express their side of the story--whatever that was. We need to hear from the accusers for this to be a fair plea IMHO. (I put same on Jimbo's page). David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I am a bit troubled with the rush to judgment without following the reasonable procedures I requested above. What if the person making the plea is not being completely honest about what happened? After all, Mr. Damian openly admitted to defying the rules. David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What "rush to judgment"? Who's making a judgement, anywhere, yet? You do talk some crap, Tornheim. I believe that's been noted elsewhere. Begoon ^talk 23:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please strike the ad hominem and uncivil behavior. There is clearly rush to judgment that he is innocent without looking at the evidence. Look at the time frame between the request and all the votes. Where is the evidence? Where are the voices of those who asked that he be banned? David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, actually, David, if you were to read the comments of others here, you would see that this is something that many other editors already know something about. It would be extremely irrational for you to continue to assert that editors like Bishonen, who was very active and highly regarded at the time too, have not looked at the evidence, or, for that matter, known the evidence for some time. What you seem to be requesting is that other editors go out of their way to make it easier for you to not have to look for the evidence, which is another matter entirely. I can also say that many of the other people who have expressed opinions have probably already seen the evidence I have seen elsewhere, and are acting on having reviewed that evidence. While I can understand how it would clearly be a rush to judgment for you to make any sort of decision, this issue is, in a sense, almost the equivalent of the JFK assassination was in the US in the 1970s and 1980s. Virtually everyone who was there at the time remembers fairly clearly what happened, and, if you read the comments of others, like I said, you will see that many have in fact been aware of the evidence before expressing opinions. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That may all be true. But I doubt you would be happy if the Warren Commission's report was this and only this: "There was one shooter. We're sure of it. Case closed. We have no documents to share. Please trust us. We know what we are talking about and the evidence we looked at. You can go write your own book and investigate the evidence yourself if you think we are wrong. Have fun." I will note that I see only one voice that part of the original decision: Ironholds. Are the rest the users truly gone, or is this something that was just made up? We will soon find out.David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

David, in all honesty, the only person who seems to be unaware of the situation who has been involved to date is you, and the only person who seems to be arguing against "trusting" those who do know the situation is, again, you. And, yes, having looked at some of the names you pinged below, I see several who have been banned for years who are clearly gone, and others who retired, etc. etc. etc. If I might suggest something, rather than continuing to post here, maybe you look at the history of the incidents involved? John Carter (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me the person seeking relief should provide the evidence and do the notification as is required in law. Here apparently it is the judge who has to do the research. Bizarre. It seems to me you are suggesting that WP:INVOLVED parties are preferred over neutral 3rd parties like myself: I have no idea who this guy is or why he was banned. In law, judges and jury are supposed to be neutral and have no COI, not even to do independent research, and are only look at the material presented to them. Here it is more like anything goes and any kind of sophistry is permissible, and in this case it seems only those who have made up their mind in advance are welcomed and someone like me is ridiculed for asking reasonable questions. And you wonder why new editors don't trust the Wiki-court system? David Tornheim (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. I'm sure that folks will keep him on a short leash with regard to incivility, and we really could use some expertise on medieval philosophy articles. I hope that he can keep his temper in check and focus on improving Wikipedia rather than on settling scores and griping about the place's deficiencies. Deor (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I would question whether this is a good idea. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

1. It's my experience that Damien either hates the Wikipedia and everything it stands for, or at the very least hates it in his present form (he might be in favor of it it was run as a for-profit business with a small paid staff of editors, like Britannica, or something (not sure what exactly he would like to see, or if he himself knows).)
2. Given that, it's not clear to me why he would want to be here, except to either abet demoralization of the body of editors on some deep level, to gather material for his business (which is, in part, writing books and articles denigrating the Wikipedia), to valorize his personal hobbyhorses, or some other nefarious purpose.
3. And so because of the above points, a number of editors find interacting with this person painful and unpleasant, and I'm one of them. There are editors here who love the Wikipedia and want to build it up, and dealing with people who hate it want to tear it down as colleagues is asking an awful lot. Do we want to ask that of our volunteers.

I do agree that we ought to run ourselves more like a business. There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason, and one thing that successful and functional businesses do is recognize when you have this and act decisively. I am confident of one thing for sure: no one should be under the illusion that this sort of person would appreciate the gesture, or can, really. They just see it as a sign of weakness and so another reason to despise us. Herostratus (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and, to an extent, I think I even implicitly agreed with one of them. That being that he hasn't specifically said what he would do. Having said that, I think it rather obvious that his interests might well be in the field of philosophy, an area we are I think particularly bad at, and issues related to philosophy, including various forms of pseudoscience and dubious beliefs. Having myself indicated I would like to see an indication of what it is he would edit here, I am going to assume that it might be the area of philosophy where we need a lot of help. However, as others have said, I think every here knows, including Peter, that he will be likely on a short leash for some time, and can expect to be sanctioned again should conduct require it. And, honestly, one of the best ways to get critics to maybe soften their criticism is by letting them know just how difficult what is being done is. If we want to make "the book", when it gets published, more sympathetic, one of the best ways would be to make it easier for its author to realize how sometimes difficult and taxing trying to keep this thing together and in decent shape can be again. Who knows, he might even become, in a sense, more of a supporter of the editors involved, if not necessarily the system which I think about half of us have admitted at some time or another needs work. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason," Yes, I once employed one. 8-(

I don't see Peter Damian in this category though, even though he has been regularly presented as such, and he associates via Wikipediocracy with some who I certainly see as fitting that description - including WP admins. We shouldn't be fooled though by the bad press misrepresentation that some axe-grinders have tarred him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Editors are not site-banned for light or transient causes. This person clearly did something very wrong to earn this ban, and they give no indication how they would avoid the conduct that caused the ban in the first place. Indeed, the statement that, "Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban" seems to suggest that they don't feel that the original ban was justified. If they don't believe that the original ban was justified, then it may be very likely that they will return to the same problematic behavior as before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, extend the standard offer. This means no socking, no pursuing old grievances, no nonsense. If he's seriously turned a new leaf, let's let bygones be bygones. Jonathunder (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support for revoking the ban, per Bishonen, MastCell, Carrite, ATG, Begoon—i.e. not just because the thought of PD returning makes Ironholds feel ill. Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, be nice, we need to look out for our sickly children. Begoon ^talk 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Notification: @Ryan Postlethwaite:, @IMatthew:, @Chillum:, @Toddst1:, @Ironholds:, @Brothejr:, @Madman:, @Tenant23:, @Who then was a gentleman?:, @Nja247:, @Baseball Bugs:, @Mikaey:, @Ottava Rima:, @Roux:, @Mazca:, @Javert:, @Bullzeye:, @JamieS93:, @Jennavecia:, @Rodhullandemu:, @Tznkai:, @Will Beback:, @IMatthew:, @Pastor Theo:, @Snow:, @Mythdon:, @Tznkai:, @Ottava Rima:, @Until It Sleeps:, @Jeni: According to the above account, "Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban..." Is that true? David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Running through the list there are indeed a number of "retired" banners, others who haven't edited for years, a banned user or two, and at least one blocked sock. If you count those who have edited less than half a dozen times this year (probably to keep tools) as those having "left," the assertion certainly seems correct. Obviously there are others who are still around and active. The phrasing is a bit melodramatic and it does not appear that any socks created to persecute PD were engaged in the ban debate. Carrite (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. You are free to use me as an example of what may be possible when Wikipedia's bans and blocks are all... just... stopped. jps (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support — but with a codicil. Peter Damian is an asset that Wikipedia sorely needs. I fear you may unban, unblock, restore his ability to contribute here, and then, at the first conflict or disagreement, if he figuratively raises his voice, slam him down with the strictest possible penalty. Allow me to point out why this would be a grievous error. The man who stands behinds the account is a scholar (Wikipedia needs more of those), an expert and a published author in difficult subjects (Wikipedia needs more of those), accomplished in his use of the English language (Oh my does Wikipedia need more of those), and most unsettling to some of you, he is a man of principle. He cannot watch something unethical or underhanded being done without taking a stand and standing against it. He's upbraided me severely in private for some things I've been soft on at that 'other site,' and shown me his mettle. He will be honest with you. If you can take that (as you do make astonishing allowances for some established contributors), then let him resume his place here. If you can't take the sometime protestations of an honest man, then don't.→StaniStani 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Meh, sure PD has a lot to offer Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how well he'll get along with the current management here in the asylum. Certainly worth a try, but even if he finds things too constrictive here hopefully he'll continue to contribute at that mysterious other place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This has actually bothered me for a while. He's an expert and the encyclopedia will be better with his participation than without. Keep our readers first: all else is secondary. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - since we put up with other folks who have subject matter expertise who also occasoinally boil over, I can't see why not. As I recall, he bascially got banned because he dared to question one of the arbs .. who later turned out to deserve questioning. And the Wifione stuff was well done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that editors who seek to provoke Damien or renew old conflicts with him should treated no less strictly than he is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban - clear net positive to the project Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban - Alot of behaviour while banned has been driven by anger from someone who has the goal of a quality 'pedia at heart. Reconciliation better than more angst. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Chaotic Neutral: Peter Damien is entirely capable of producing above-average editorial work on this project; I don't think there's a lot of doubt about this. And some of the back story (going all the way back to November 2007) that led to his ban has been found, in retrospect, to be highly suspect. (In fact, it was suspect pretty much as soon as some of it happened, and ultimately led to the "resignation" of an arbitrator and the reprimanding of an oversighter.) Having said that, Peter was unblocked once before under the tutelage of one of the most respected Wikipedians of the time (Thatcher), and was unable to keep to the straight and narrow or anywhere close to it, which led in time to the longterm ban under which he currently finds himself. Along the way, he's authored defamatory blogs/web postings, made legal threats serious enough that they were part of the instigation for the Legal Fees Assistance Program, and published many comments off-site that indicate that he views Wikipedia and Wikipedians through a distorted lens (I'm being polite here). If Peter Damien could stick to what he's really good at (which is content - his initial block for an extreme personal attack was bang on and if he did it today would still result in an immediate indefinite block), and if the community can support him on staying focused (both by redirecting him when he seems to be going off on tangents, and by creating a buffer zone if someone attempts to provoke), then there's the chance of a detente here that will benefit the project. I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock, but I wouldn't be a good person to help out in facilitating a return to the project, based on his reaction the only time we met (and I didn't even know who he was at the time). Risker (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comments and concerns I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, I believe in the standard offer, and a great number of experienced editors above have spoken up in support of Peter and his potential value as a contributor, some even going further to provide perspectives on the incidences that led to his siteban that suggest that he received a disproportionate amount of blame for said conflicts. On the other, I find the tone and content of his request leave me extremely underwhelmed, and indeed concerned about where this users priorities lay. As others have noted, there's little-to-nothing in his comments to suggest that he recognizes where his former approach was problematic, nor much in the way of assurances that he can keep his approach within community standards now. Indeed, he says very little about the circumstances of his ban other than comments which vaguely dismiss those who participated on the discussion that led to his ban. That attitude is disconcerting even before you put it together with the fact that even some of those who support the lifting of the ban describe him as a hothead and the fact that he continued to edit for three years after his ban, until caught.

Of even more concern are the implications raised about the user's ambivalence to the project broadly by some of what I'm hearing here -- that the user has been banned from certain WMF events for general disruptiveness, that they have shown a willingness to out other users and draw them into off-site drama (surely something we should not be taking lightly), and the fact that he is writing a book detailing his views on the "dysfunction" of Wikipedia all seem to suggest a user whose priorities may be less based in the desire to build the encyclopedia than they are based in a fixation on the social and organizational aspects of the project and their own tumultuous history within it. One of the few things PD does say for himself by way of arguing for his value to the project is that he's spent time during his ban writing articles for Wikipediocracy, and he seems to take pride in the fact that some of them have attracted media attention. But the mere fact that a person has a lot to say about the inner workings of Wikipedia doesn't mean they truly understand the same, or that they are capable of collaborating in a productive manner here, especially if there has been evidence to the contrary. And if the sum total of the evidence he can supply for his understanding of Wikipedia behavioural policy is that he has contributed to the (often tortured and misrepresentative) media interpretation of the project, I'm not altogether impressed. This user has had six years with which to consider the wording of their request here, during which time they have clearly spent a great deal of time thinking about Wikipedia. That all they came up with in all that time is the above leaves me wondering just how well they understand what our current policies will require of them.

Look, it's clear from the !votes so far that it's all but a foregone conclusion that the user will be welcomed back into the fold, and I really hope that he'll be the asset his supporters here seem believe he will be. But it would sit better with this one editor if we had a more detailed discussion of what went wrong before and more assurances from Peter that he's learned from past mistakes (whether he was the most problematic party in the previous conflicts or not). I'm also concerned by some of the "and furthermore, any scrutiny of his actions above and beyond the normal should be discouraged" type of comments above. We're talking about a user who has asked us to overturn a siteban, despite the fact that he ignored said ban for years and has taken his conflicts here outside the site. He should be prepared for a great deal of scrutiny as he returns here -- should even welcome it if his request and desire to return to the community are above-board. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If you all haven't noticed, WP is failing. It's shedding editors like insects from a sheep dipped in a flea bath. We need editors, especially incredibly educated and smart ones like Mr. Damian on the project to try to turn this thing around before the cold, dark ocean closes over our heads and all our hard work disappears into the murky depths of ocean Internet. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Noting, as Ealdgyth and Mastcell did, the very helpful work he did on the Wifione case, the fact that he has expertise we need, and my belief if (and that is an if, not a foregone conclusion) there are problems we can handle them. And I prefer hot-blooded to cold-blooded (referring to Bishonen's comment). Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. And the guy deserves a big, big apology from all of us for ever being banned at all. What a sad, sorry affair. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on my personal experience of being a target, my experience as a trustee of WMUK in 2013, and the reasons why at that time the UK chapter events ban was withdrawn by the board. For those that are unaware, trustees may make decisions as a board to protect the interests of the charity, this includes avoiding pointless expense in the face of legal threats. WMUK's concern at the time was the number of Wikimedians attending events in the UK who were realistically worried at being publicly derided or outed by someone with "Peter Damian's" track record of "citizen journalism". I have met "Peter" in real life and feel he makes perfectly good points about things that are plain wrong about the Wikimedia community and the surrounding politics, I include his valid complaint about WMUK fundraising banners which were then withdrawn; lesson learned. However I feel the community should only un-ban in the light of a long problematic track record, when there has been a firm commitment to an equivalent of the wmf:Friendly space policy both for on-wiki and off-wiki behaviour whenever it pertains to Wikimedia. If "Peter" or others with similar citizen journalism hobbies could avoid aggressive/malicious hounding of any Wikimedian who dares to have an opinion, and instead focus on evidence based investigative journalism for the institution, projects or individual figures in central political roles, such as WMF board of trustees (i.e. not their sex lives or gossip about their children), that would be super. When that is seen to be happening I'll change my !vote. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment If (and it seems inevitable now) Peter Damian gets unblocked, will he have broken the record for longest overturned site ban? Bosstopher (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Damian Can editors at least try to get his name right? Although this connection has been exploited in the past to portray him as The Antichrist, that isn't helpful here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Carrite, Nyttend et al. said it best, and I haven't been convinced by any of the opposes (a couple actually made me laugh at their audacity). Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban. It can always be reinstated if the user causes difficulties onwiki. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Maintain ban Given the unrepentant unban request, book and WMUK stuff, I don't see how unbanning this editor could possibly end well. I thought that we'd moved on from the era where productive but chronically disruptive editors were tolerated, and I really have no desire to go back there again. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What WMUK stuff? Surely you don't mean the event ban they imposed, then realised they'd made (yet another) serious mistake and apologised? Why would you still hold that against someone, when even WMUK would no longer do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know this editor personally, so I've reviewed some of the content he's written. We need him back.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment At present I have no opinion on the ban, which I read about on Jimbo's talk page. I request that a link to the original banning be placed at the top of this section, so that people can, uh, read about it before making up their minds. Coretheapple (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• conditional support I'd like a topic ban from anything other than content editing and talk pages related to that content. That includes a ban from the drama boards. Revisit in 6 months. I honestly don't see this ending well, as I worry he's only here to stir up trouble. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• (EC) Support - Valuable contributor, and generally a decent fellow. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please unblock User:Morgan Katarn

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, admins. I have a serious request. I know that it is more than 3 years over but my desire is still to unblock my old User:Morgan Katarn. I feel sorry for my sockpuppet actions but this account has to be unblocked. I talked to the Bureaucrats and they said that they will make a Courtesy Vanishing on my old User:Morgan Katarn if this account is unblocked. And I would appreciate that if you accept my desire. Unblock this account and then I will let the Bureaucrats do a Courtesy Vanishing and after that, I will leave the Wikipedia completely and I will never make a stupid action again. I will leave the Wikipedia. So this user has to be unblocked. Thanks! 91.113.38.214 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So, here you are, evading a block by editing as an IP, to ask of favor of the community. Well, I oppose it. BMK (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See this. BMK (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If you intend to leave Wikipedia, there is no readon to unblock you. Just walk away. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the auld account was under his real name, hence the desirability of courtesy vanishing. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely, I'd think. [67] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Are IPs banned from editing. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A ban applies to the person, not the internet protocol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Which Bureaucrats have told you this? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The request came through the mailing list and the user was told that they are not eligible for a courtesy vanishing as they are currently blocked. This isn't an uncommon situation and I'm not sure why it matters which bureaucrat made the statement. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain to you why I asked, if you ask, but thanks for information. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is a serious request. The bureaucrats told me on the email that they will do a courtesy vanishing at once but this account needs to be unblocked. It is almost 4 years ago when I got blocked with this account. I fell very sorry of what I've done with that account. Can you please unblock this account? Please don't be so stubborn at all and aggree. This is a very serious request. Please do so and then you can block this user again after the courtesy vanishing ok? But then block this account not for vandalism, just because of the reason that I decided to leave the Wikipedia. 194.118.255.163 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there is just a lot of confusion about your request. You are requesting an unblock of an account, even though you say you are planning to leave Wikipedia. And with the link Andy provided, we now know that this isn't your real name but that of a Star Wars character. So what is the purpose of unblocking an account if you aren't planning on using it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound, there are plenty of people who (weirdly) named their kids after StarWars characters. What I'd suggest to the user is that he make the request at Meta for a global renaming of his account. He can go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest on any wiki. Hypothetically, he would have to make a link to his old account on the newly named page (e.g., writing on the talk page "I used to be user:Morgan Katarn") but this is not particularly enforceable. He can ask for a new username like "Renamed user 223343242" if he wants. Risker (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Risker: This account is tagged as a sock of Furko Nellis, which is also a Star Wars character. I can't see any good faith reason for this account to be requesting an unblock/courtesy vanishing, but I'm fairly jaded. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is, essentially, to skip the unblocking, recognize there's no such thing as a courtesy vanishing, and get the account renamed if he wants to get it renamed. There are no reported socks for several years, and those accounts would have been blocked for vandalism whether or not they were socks. Some people do mature over time and recognize they've messed up. Incidentally, the bureaucrats should have explained all of this to the user when he emailed them. We should as a community completely remove any reference to the 'crats from the 'rename/vanish' cycle since they no longer have any authority to do renaming; that some individual 'crats are either stewards or global renamers has nothing to do with their enwiki permissions. Risker (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we hear from the OP what the purpose behind the request is? Courtesy vanishings shoulnd;t be handed out like candy, they're a courtesy from the community, and should generally be granted only to users who were in good standing. If a user who is not in good standing wants one, there should be a good reason behind it.

Perhaps the beaureaucrat in question can vouch for the OP's reason, without saying what it is, perhaps that would be sufficient, but without something to base it on, I see no reason to extend a courtesy here. BMK (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I tell you the reason why I want to have courtesy vanishing for my User:Morgan Katarn. The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable because I made contributions about cities here in Austria where I live and I do not wish that people around the world can see these contributions in a very quick way. So the main reason why I request a courtesy vanishing is because first of all the name change and another reason is that the contributions of this user should be harder to find. It is awful enough that the contributions of each user exist for the rest of my whole life on the Wikipedia. So hopefully you understand my reason. Please don't ask further more. I'd very appreciate that if you would cooperate and do a courtesy vanishing on this user. Thanks! 194.118.255.163 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely this discussion is back to front. If there is a good reason for the rule that courtesy-vanishing is only for users in good standing, and we want to follow the rule, then the request should be refused. If we are prepared to waive the rule, then just vanish him and be done with it. Unblocking one of his half-dozen accounts will not magically return him to good standing, and unblock-vanish-reblock is just process for the sake of it.

OP, what about your first account, Furko Nellis, and all the others listed in the SPI? JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable, this is the part I don't get and it looks like you won't be returning to explain. Why do you care about clearing the "good name" of a fictional character? I completely understand if it were your name but I don't see how anyone in Austria could associate you, the person, with these sock accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll, perhaps it is a troll. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This person's reasons for wanting a courtesy vanishing are ludicrous. Someone please close this thread. BMK (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

2015-04-16 vandalism by 75.146.221.233

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

---

Please see Special:Contributions/75.146.221.233. This IP editor has started running amok today. It is beyond four edits, albeit to just two articles. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:PRECISE and pornographic film actresses

This seems a little too long to post at WP:ANRFC, so...

There was a debate that seemed to start with this thread over whether pornographic film actresses with a common name should use the identifier (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). As is proven from the aforementioned thread, the result seemed to be the latter, shorter identifier. But...Number 57, an admin who possibly didn't see the result of that discussion (and who does appear to have been acting in good faith, mind you), closed two smaller related discussions ([68] [69]) in favor of the former, longer identifier.

After the Aja (actress) move, editors were directed to this discussion, which has stalled. Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier, I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency. The first time I submitted a move request, it was open for nearly a month; and, as you can see from that diff, I then posted it at ANRFC, and that request was then almost open for a month itself. (SN: I'm not sure if Number 57 even has any more interest in this, as s/he made no comments in this discussion that took place on his/her own talk page.)

There are also two more open move discussions that need assessing: [70] [71] Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be simply solved by removing any article that is not sourced to reliable independent sources (the porn fans have redefined reliable and independent to allow them to include a number of unreliable sources with vested interests in the industry, because the vast majority of porn "stars" are not covered in the mainstream media at all). Guy (Help!) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to quote others who I feel have made excellent and salient points on this topic. These are from various discussions. Pings are included so the User know they are begin mentioned here...

• [72]Film may be pornographic, actors or actresses are NOT. The usage is derogatory and cannot be condoned, especially in a BLP. Instead of this terminology, pornographic film actor/actress should be used. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 12:24 pm, 4 March 2015, Wednesday (1 month, 10 days ago) (UTC−8)
• [73]From the Aja (actress) discussion, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: "I know it when I see it." Porn is a genre (is it even listed on the Film Genre template?), but those who perform in its films are acting. They are thus actors. What, do people actually think it's like a reality show, with hidden cameras or something? They are acting, they get paid to act. If she was offered the next "role of a lifetime" in the next Star Wars or something she and her agent would jump at the chance. Acting, thus, is the profession, not the type of acting (are people who only do Stage work listed as "Stage actor"?). (EDIT:Just looked at her page, and the 'pornographic actress' label is given to her in the lead, so that makes clear her preferred genre type.) Randy Kryn 18:40 3 April, 2015
• [74]From the Savannah (pornographic actress) discussion, per WP:PRECISE. There is absolutely no reason to include "pornographic" in the disambiguator, and none of the oppose !votes here have given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, to insist on using the adjective when it is not necessary is POV, as it carries with it the implication that she is not a legitimate actress. That is not our call to make.  — Amakuru (talk) 4:06 am, 9 March 2015, Monday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−7)
• [75], same discussion as above, Came across the Aja discussion and realized that some people may think porn actors are working in some kind of reality show (or worse, hidden camera program). They are actors, acting in a film. They get paid to act. I don't think Wikipedia lists other actors according to their genre (Horror film actor, Comedy actress, etc.) so it seems odd that one genre (and I know it when I see it, which, my first name withstanding, isn't often) has been selected for more title identification. Randy Kryn 14:07 5 April, 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the basic reasoning that performing in pornographic productions is what these people DO not WHO they are, plain and simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what administrative intervention is being asked here. Are you trying to restart the debate? Scalhotrod appears to be summarising arguments for one side (BTW I don't accept that porn performers get paid to "act". They get paid to be filmed having sex, which is not "acting" by any definition. Indeed it is in some ways closer to a "reality show" for that reason. Any acting is incidental. As for the last comment, we always disambiguate by what people do not "who they are", so I don't even begion to understand what point is being made.) Paul B (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B, that's a fair question about my point. What I was trying to say is regardless of how we characterize the nature of their work, porn performers are still actors and actresses. The Internet Adult Film Database, roughly the IMDB of porn, is full of thousands of entries for "Non-sex" roles for these same people. If they weren't being recorded on a reproducible and distributable media, we could just label them all "sex workers" and call it day, but that is not the case. Even you admit that they act, even if its incidental. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought what I was requesting was pretty simple, Paul Barlow: whether to use (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). Some of the articles that are still listed under the longer identifier can't be moved, and their respective requested move discussions have stalled; thus for those, an admin does need to assess them. (SN: JzG, with all due respect, your feelings about pornography in general isn't even the issue here.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what my personal feelings are about pornography. I only commented on the substitution of unreliable sources for reliable ones by groups of like-minded editors after echo-chamber discussions where they agree this is the only possible solution to the absence of actually reliable sources for the content they want to write about. Same applies to bandcruft. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Um...your first sentence was the only part of your response that I understood. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Two users from WP Pornography are on a drive to remove the distinction between film and film actresses and pornstars in disambiguation, which is being discussed at WT Pornography but not at WT Film and WT Theatre. The citing of WP:PRECISE is a misunderstanding since (dab) terms use category terms such as (John Lennon song) not (Lennon song) which are not WP:SHORTEST. The two users have placed several RMs, most of which have failed, but 1 cited above is an exception in having passed. There have also been repeated undiscussed moves, which hopefully have now been reverted by admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi and JzG are right on target. There's an established practice/naming convention which enjoyed consensus support; there's no consensus to change it; but a small number of editors now are using fait accompli tactics, forum shopping, and WP:CANVASSing to get their way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have documentation of disruptive editing, then an editing restriction may be imposed. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, if the discussion was also being held at the other two forums, that would be forum shopping. The whole purpose of this thread is to ask for consistency; nothing else. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for some users to understand. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The OP is attempting to take a local consensus from a single page move discussion, with comment from a handful of editors, and turn it into a project-wide consensus to be applied to all pages. This is not how consensus works. If nothing else, one discussion closed one way and two others the other way; why not see that as indicative of the global consensus? If you want to establish a global consensus to change 'porgnographic actress' → 'actress' then this needs a discussion at the proper forum with wide input from editors, not just the result of a single RM that happened to go the way you like. GoldenRing (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You're completely incorrect. I did state: "Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier..." but right after that I said: "I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency." In other words, some shouldn't say (pornographic actress) while others say (actress); they should all say the same thing (how is this still not clear?). And it's ironic that you bring up WP:LOCALCONSENSUS considering the discussion that closed in favor of the shorter identifier had more editors comment in contrast to the two editors that commented in each of the other two discussions (which I was neither aware of nor commented in, btw). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Update Erpert has just created a new bio at (actress) and another editor moved Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress)) to Talk:Taylor Hayes (actress) despite a RM having just closed against the move. So these editors are determined... In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you're talking about Casey Calvert (actress), and if you'll recall, a consistent result to the issue has not been done. And another user moving the other article has nothing to do with me. (Have I moved any articles since the discussions started? No, but you have.) Why are you still holding that stick, anyway? (You've even been told to stop by several editors.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Erpert, anyone who looks at the article history can see that your claim that "moving the other article has nothing to do with me" is transparently false. You initiated the move at Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress); you edit warred without opening talk page discussion after your move was reversed, and you refused to substantively participate when talk page discussions were opened, instead casting aspersions and personalizing the discussion. You've been told to stop this, over and over[76], and this needs to stop now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) , 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Where in the world did you get the idea that WP:HOUND was a suggestion? You're not above the rules here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above is WP:HOUNDing you or anyone. As for Talk:Aja (actress)#Japanese actress "been told to stop by several editors" is bizarre, I hadn't noticed it, but I find it bizarre that you as a non-admin take it upon you to put a purple "procedural close" round anyone disagreeing with you on a Talk page. Never seen anything like it.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is listed in a different thread, so instead of steering the discussion in that direction, I'm not going to bring that here. But as for closing the discussion you just mentioned:

1. Non-admins can procedurally close discussions.
2. I clearly stated in the rationale why I closed it: to avoid forum-shopping on the issue. There are even diffs in the rationale that state that the suggestion to close it was given by different editors; did you not read them?

Anyway, as I said to Number 57 when I alerted him/her about this discussion, I'm not complaining about the way s/he closed the two discussions s/he closed at all; all I requested was title consistency. But I gave an additional comment in the now-revived (thankfully) discussion on the porn WikiProject talk page, so I have no problem if someone closes this thread. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Not so fast, Erpert. An involved editor cannot close a discussion, admin or not. You were obviously involved. Your explanation of the close shows reasons that don't justify a non-admin closure. And the outcome wasn't clear-cut, as policy requires. And closing it based on comments in a different discussion, in which you were also involved, is completely unjustifiable. As In ictu oculi quite accurately pointed out, this is an unprecedented departure from policy and practice, and should be reversed without any further delay. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • (Swimming right past the bait...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this close would have been completely inappropriate even if coming from an uninvolved admin, since it suggested (wrongly) that the result of the discussion was to move discussion of a mainstream Japanese actress and fashion model with an ambig problem with the article in question to WT:PORNO(!). Has anyone asked User:Steel1943 if closing the "Japanese actress" thread was actually what they were "suggesting" in the linked diff? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What I was stating on my diff was that the result of one article's RM isn't an appropriate reason to close a discussion on a naming convention page. I had no opinion on what was to be merged into that discussion, but yes, essentially, I felt as though he close was inappropriate given the discussion's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically, though, both discussions had to do with naming conventions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Moderation of Collections?

Greetings Admins,

Two weeks ago, Extension:Gather was enabled on beta for English Wikipedia mobile users, allowing logged in mobile users to create lists of articles. More stats will be shared soon on how the feature has been used so far. Meanwhile, we have drafted a document to discuss further moderation of created Collections--how flagging would work? What do we want to avoid, what do we want to achieve, etc. Please check and add comments/suggestions. Many thanks. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Under current policy WP:Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site it seems any such user pages would be speedily deleted if they don't relate to our work (for example non-editors making a random collections of their favorite bands). It seems to me there are a few possibilities here.

1. We could enforce existing policy and delete-on-sight all collections unrelated to our work here. (Possibly assigning a bot to just bulk-delete them.)
2. We could make these pages an exception to WP:NOTWEBHOST and work up some new acceptability policy for them. (For example a list titled "Likely Rapists", including convicted rapists along with politicians-they-hate would be flagrant BLP violation.) And we could devote substantial editor-time to policing (?)hundreds of thousands(?) of such pages.
3. We could accept this as a WMF project and exempt such pages from our policies and Community management, and let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them. Alsee (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the final option. We already have too few admins to perform the work; no good reason to add an extra responsibility. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As already mentioned in the shared draft, this is not meant to overload admins, if it is agreed that moderation scenarios could depend on different user groups, then be it, that is why we have this discussion. :-) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I still have to ask the question: Does the WMF actually know what editors and Admins actually do here? My contributions are small, but getting larger as time goes by and I learn. This "Gather" application creates "collections" of articles, to be personally maintained by end users, right? People they are somehow expecting to register as editors in order to make their collections? So, in effect, we will be creating a whole new class of editor; one who is interested in generating information for personal use, but not necessarily contributing to actual content. And the Admins will be expected to clean up the mess made by these inexperienced "collection editors" who know nothing about our policies and guidelines? It has taken me MONTHS to learn how to navigate Wikipedia policy and culture, and there are plenty of editors who are familiar with it - and refuse to abide by it! No wonder the Admin corps is shrinking - they are already overworked.

And to follow this, the WMF is going to suddenly allow 1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook automatically? Again, without experience - and suddenly where is the anonymity we swear by? The mind boggles at the vandalism, intentional and otherwise.

Do you know what us "little guy" editors really want? How about an easy way to connect with my Watchlist from my phone? THAT would be something cool to have. To be able to conveniently and intuitively respond to Talk Page messages from my phone, or to see when somebody has vandalized a page I care about. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Endorse ScrapIron's sentiments and option 3. These collections, having no encyclopaedic value, should not have to be managed by administrators of the encyclopaedia. BethNaught (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Eternal April? In all fairness, I don't mind getting lots of new editors, and who knows but that maybe this will attract new people. However, (1) there should be higher priorities for improvements, e.g. the watchlist-via-phone suggestion, and (2) when there are so few admins, don't expect us to start moderating something else. Unless you hire some paid editors to be professional admins, you'll have to remember that we're all volunteers here. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we can decide that in addition to AbuseFilter, which is planned to run on the lists, moderation scenarios, if agreed, doesn't have to depend on admins.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, I would suggest to all admins that they decline to deal with collections (having no encylopedic value), but if something problematic is brought to their attention, that they ping a random selection of WMF staff to deal with it. I'm sure they'll get very bored with that very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook": citation needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that citations were required on the comment boards, but suffice to say the WMF plan is to complete their "Unified Login" project, where one user logs in to all WMF sites - followed buy the "Facebook Unified Login" initiative, where people can log in directly from their facebook accounts - as many websites already do. A recent report shows 1.2 billion unique Facebook accounts log in at least monthly.Treat the information as you desire; as I am not putting it in an article, I don't plan on providing citations. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Like i figured. You are totally wrong. The WMF's unified login has nothing to do with the unified login of Facebook. You should read the latest announcement before making unfounded statements. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If it were true, Wikipediocracy wouldn't have covered it on April Fools' Day. (Or would they? ...) BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I got caught by an April Fool's Day joke, so be it. I had not read a follow up on it, and - to be brutally honest - I would not put such an idea past the WMF. "mea culpa; mea maxima culpa" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)I find the whole WP:NOT thing a total bogus argument here. It's too black an white. Because we are also NOT an encyclopedia (in the traditional sense) and we ARE a web host (also in the traditional sense).. and we are even a memorial site. All are (in)valid up until some vague gray area that we sort of collectively 'sense' that is right. If we start throwing everything that doesn't fit what we currently are under the bus on first sight, then we might as well put a bow on the entire website and call it quits collectively. A sentiment I personally tend to gravitate towards more and more every day. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I really, really try not to be one of those people who automatically poo-poo every new idea the WMF puts forward, but I cannot help but wonder how out-of-touch with the day to day realities here the staff has to be to come up with an idea this terrible, and then two weeks after they enable it ask us admins how we are going to police it for them. We aren't. Do it yourselves if it such a great idea. Don't dump new responsibilities on unpaid volunteers who can already barely keep up and expect us to just craft a policy out of thin air for a feature we do not desire or even understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just had a look at the list of "collections" linked to from the above page, and it already had one called "stupid" that contained a single BLP. (I've "hidden" it.) This will need policing if we want to keep it vaguely compliant with policies like BLP, if the WMF are counting on getting the community to do this then they should have asked first, and I doubt they'll find many volunteers given the very limited value of this feature. Hut 8.5 22:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The first experiment in this project is a pilot feature for providing users with an opportunity to create and share lists of articles - How is this different than a Watchlist? The only difference I can see at first glance is that these new lists would be static, unless you took off articles or put them on, while a watchlist is continually updated when a page (and not just articles) gets edited so it is dynamic. So, these would just be pages with lists of articles and you could "share" them basically how you can share any page, by linking to it...I'm not sure how much supervision would be needed unless these were annotated lists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A few hours ago I came across the list "Evil Corporations" and hid it, but had no way to find out what other lists had been created by the same person. So this is not just wrong in theory, it is problematic in reality. It is difficult being an administrator on this site if people are going to inflict this sort of burden on us. ϢereSpielChequers 04:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently, when you click on the username from the list view, or from the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GatherLists page, you are directed to a page with the user's created lists in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Gather/by/username. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. But when you've hidden a page you no longer have a username for it in the list view.... So normal admin workflows don't apply because these are not standard pages. Make this a way of creating pages in userspace and much of the problem goes away. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Um, how is this different from Wikipedia:Books, a feature we've had with little controversy for, oh, 6 years? Some people complain first, and then later try to figure out a reason to complain... --Jayron32 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• It has a PDF export functionality that is actually useful. This extension has no redeeming value. MER-C 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it primarily provides a similar functionality of making collections of articles, but with a focus on mobile usability. It should lso help with learning lessons on how to improve watchlist functionalities for mobile and desktop.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Request option one, bulk delete by bot – These must be deleted under Wikipedia policies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this extension does not have an API. MER-C 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Gotta laugh. For years we've been asking for multiple watchlists for registered editors (and hey, shared watchlists for registered editors might be useful) but instead we get this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

True, and this has been addressed in the FAQ--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the English Wikipedia community has no power over how the WMF uses its time and employees, and we do not have a way to make sure the WMF actually makes itself useful -- the useful tools we have are developped by our own volunteers via userscripts or external resources. This proposed gizmo is neither useful nor harmful to us and the pages generated by it will be treated exactly as any other userspace or Book: page would under our current policies. If we judge from the current usage of Book-space, I don't supposed the additional work imposed on our administrators to moderate these "lists" will be very significant -- if it creates more work than the benefits it brings, I'm sure the community will agree on ways to prevent its abuse. WMF must at least act responsibly in ensuring this "extension" works without a hitch on desktops (depite its mobile-friendliness) to allow the wide majority of our administrators to work with without obstacles. Creating more toys for people to contribute in ways that don't actually improve content shouldn't become yet another source of problems for the rest of the volunteer community to deal with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Melamrawy (WMF): Assuming I would like to see how amazingly life-changing this Extension is for myself, how do I actually create a list? Mobile Wikipedia is so shit (for admnistrative duties and talk page discussions and various clerking things) that even on my phone and tablet I use the desktop version, so please show me where I can make use of the Gather thing. It's not on my Beta features page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, if you have beta enabled (on mobile view, in settings) you will get a message while browsing articles inviting you to create a collection, or else, click the watchlist start and then you choose to add to watchlist or to a new collection. And as agreed, this is not meant to overburden admins (or any specific user group) with tasks, the product is in early experimentation phase, and the early discussion is to help decide on how to move forward with it--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mobile view makes it impossible for me to perform my administrative/clerking tasks and engage in discussion, so even on my phone I use Desktop. Where can I create a list using the Gather extension? Or are you trying to tell-me-without-saying-it that your shiny new buttons are Mobile-only? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a mobile feature, as clearly mentioned :-). From mobile or desktop, you can navigate, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, in settings, from the drop down menu on the left, you can enable beta features and hence experiment the feature. As mentioned, if the discussion is showing more inclination to treat the lists with less supervision as Liz (talk · contribs) suggested, or to treat them identically like Wikipedia:Books, or to form any other alternate model that doesn't involve admins then we opt to that. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF): What percentage of active editors (more than 10 edits in the last 30 days or some similar metrics) edit primarily using Mobile and not Desktop? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, probably very few, since mobile is currently pretty poor. But this new extension, sadly, doesn't improve that. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going for option 3 per my comments on the previous announcement, all of which are still relevant. MER-C 08:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the WMF product manager for this feature. Thank you for sharing your criticism and concerns. I think I have gathered them all here, but let me know if something is missing:

• This content is not encyclopedic (and therefore doesn’t belong on wp). Neither are personal books, but they have "Export" feature so are useful.
• Moderation tools suck and rely too heavily on admins
• Only on mobile
• Would rather have multiple watchlists/ are annoyed the foundation is not prioritizing features that you (ore even all admin) are asking for.

I think these are all reasonable. Am I missing anything? I wont go into every point, but I do want to share some thoughts on the first point. I share not to convince you, but to hear your take on them. I think of collections as new ways for readers to find content on an encyclopedia. Right now, most of our users come for a specific fact and then leave (I owe you a citation here, but our analytics team confirmed with me yesterday that the median number of pageviews is 1). So you have built this beautiful massive library of knowledge and most people aren't really browsing as much as they could. One goal of this pilot is to help people find interesting, objective encyclopedic content using subjective groupings. The primary reason they are associated with a single user is so that the subjectivity is clear and not mistaken for fact. I think this fits with our mission, but curious to hear if you do not. As Melamrawy (WMF) has pointed out, this is just the first stage for the feature and we hope to make it more useful in the future. We are reaching out in the very early stages to see what you think about the feature and moderation as well. Given that at core, this is essentially a list of pages, do you have any ideas for things that would make this more useful either for readers or as an admin tool? Thanks! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I believed that collections would be a useful way to acheive that goal, I would be more supportive. However, I don't understand how they will draw in that many people. First, people on mobile have to register an account (which currently requires the app, I believe), then start adding pages to their watchlist, which will tell them about collections. The kind of people who come for one fact then leave won't log in or notice these things exist.

Suppose that a significant number of people log in and make collections. The point, as I understand it, is to share them on off-wiki channels? (I wouldn't expect readers to navigate to a special: page to discover lists.) But the types of links that get shared on social media don't really include encyclopaedia articles; mostly it's armchair activism, funny stuff and memes, etc.

If the point is to share the lists with other users, well, that is a smaller target for increasing readership, but also, depending on how pages are marked as being in collections, it could be extremely similar to categories. How about you add them to mobile view?

This is why I don't think this is useful, though if you have some statistics to disprove my premises I'd love to hear them. BethNaught (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

These are all fair points.

1. I agree: people do not share articles on social. I think this is primarily because they are so neutral. By adding a bit of subjectivity, we are just testing to see if that moves the needle or doesn't. We are also exploring sharing from another angle via the share-a-fact feature that just launched on our mobile apps this month (on ios today). Here is the techcrunch article. There is an interesting startup called UpWorthy which recognized that people are sharing a lot on facebook and tried different tactics to get them to share interesting political and progressive materials. This is far far far more subdued experiment.
2. I also agree that any shift away from a quick fact lookup will take some time. I don't expect major engagement from quick-fact-looker-uppers anytime soon. This is another reason it is important to remember that this really is just a first stage--if we can start generating more collections (discovery is currently an issue) from more-than-casual readers or casual editors, then we can start to surface them in a way that does not detract from primary content and see if people find it more useful than categories.
3. Categories: I think one issue I see with current categories as a browse tool is that it is too neutral. If I want to find important German Philosophers, I have trouble using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers because nobody is able to take an opinion on who the influential ones are. However, if a user smarter than I am made this list, I can benefit from subjective knowledge. FWIW, I am also exploring getting categories onto mobile, but its going to be a little bit of an experiment. Okay, I have to run to another meeting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and please let me know if you find anything I said to be off. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Those all seem to be reasonable points. To be honest, I'm still very wary, as I'm sure others will be, of integration with social media. The other issue is why WMF is acting on mobile, not core users on desktop – but that's question 4, which you have declined to answer now. BethNaught (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason I am acting on mobile is because my team is the mobile team.  :) More so than that, because it is lower-trafficked, it is easier to pilot and experiment with things on mobile rather than desktop. Despite those reasons, we are making attempts to bring this from mobile to desktop. Set an alarm for 3 months and come harass me if you don't see progress there. ;) Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all again for your feedback. Given the sentiments and positions expressed (Alsee's option#3 seems to be the winner), my team and I will look to other solutions for moderation of collections. I don't think we will remove the gather-hide permission from the Admin group just yet, but my expectation is that admin's will not be taking an active part in moderation. This is early in the development of the feature, so I would be happy to resume this conversation at later point if you feel the situation has changed enough to warrant it. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So the WMF is going to hire moderators to deal with this content but leave other moderation to volunteers. That's a big change and requires some thought, in particular if someone is blocked by WMF moderators are they also blocked from editing other parts of wikipedia and vice versa? Are you going to set up another service like wp:Refund so that people can request that WMF staff reconsider the deletion of their lists? ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey WereSpielChequers, lets clear this misunderstanding :-). The current situation of moderation is that lists could be hidden, but the users themselves aren't banned. Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, unless you are an admin yourself, and definitely WMF isn't going to hire moderators to take care of a specific feature on a long-term, this would be a weird model. It is good that we are starting the conversation early, and it is good to hear the different voices. Ideally, the decision made collaboratively should depend on how to best maintain the feature in a way that aligns with our existing systems and make the best use of the feature for the movement.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mealrawy: Wait, what? the users themselves aren't banned -> Blocked users (locally or globally) would still be able to use Gather? And what do you mean Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, will there be a different user-right "Gather admin" (or equivalent) that is distinct from "standard local adminship"? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melamrawy, I was responding to Jkatz (WMF) saying that the WMF would look to other ways to moderate collections. As far as I'm aware the only serious options are that the community does it as volunteers or the WMF pays people to do it. Allowing totally unmoderated content on this site is a non-starter and while AI moderation is pretty good, it isn't close to 100% and it takes time and good examples to set it up. As for blocking users, I count myself as very light handed on that, but just as some attack pages earn their creator a block, so will some attack lists, and other list creators will get blocked because otherwise they will just go on creating and recreating the same attack lists. If you want examples of what I'm talking about go through the articles that I have deleted per {{G10}}. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's lots of unclear communication in this thread, and part of it is caused by lack of key information, and part of it is caused by the terminology being used. Generally speaking, Wikipedians (whether administrators or editors) don't moderate anything; we use much more specific terms to cover the activities that I believe Jkatz (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF) are thinking about. We do recent changes patrol, new page patrol, or page curation to review newly added content; and we may use various other tools to identify instances of other problematic content. If something needs to be removed, we revert it, revision-delete it, or possibly delete the entire page. Sometimes we even suppress or suppress-delete content. For most websites, all of these tasks fall under the scope of "moderation"; but because we're a lot more picky about our content than, say, Facebook, we are a lot more fine-grained in describing the tasks related to management of the content.

  I don't think that many people have noticed yet, but these pages will go into the Special:namespace, not into the creator's own userspace. (Yes, they'll be in there with Special:Block and Special:Watchlist and Special:New pages feed and all those other automatically generated pages. This extension adds user-created content into the Special:namespace.) I've tried to explain why this is not a good idea, but perhaps someone else can also do this. As best I can figure, the reason it's in the Special:namespace is that it's sort of vaguely considered to relate to watchlists. I've read just about all the documentation available (although I can't read the underlying code well enough to understand it), and I don't see the connection, either philosophically or technically; however, if the theory is that these pages are closely related to watchlists, then that is an argument to move watchlists into the userspace rather than an argument to permit user-created content into the Special:namespace. I've made that argument already on phabricator. To the best of my knowledge, there's no ability for administrators to do anything in the Special:namespace otherwise, so I don't think this should even be available at the beta level until these issues are adequately addressed. (To me, putting user-created content into the Special:namespace is roughly equivalent to keeping the staff fridge in the basement boiler room.)

  There is also no provision at this time for deletion of this content, only "hiding" - and the "hiding" will still allow the creator to see the content. I see this as a problem as well: Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to allow anyone to keep a 'gathering' of articles with a header describing them as "Bitches I've been stalking" or "Military installations I'm planning to blow up" or....well, a lot of us are quite familiar with the kinds of things that users can create. These need to be DELETED, not hidden. They may even need to be deletion-suppressed, reported to emergency@wmf and the users blocked. I'm relatively indifferent to people keeping lists of stuff in their userspace, so I don't have any concerns about the philosophy behind these pages. Risker (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for anyone else, but my understanding of the situation, based upon discussions at the Project managers talk page and WMF edits at the project page, is that the WMF posted here on Admins noticeboard because they initially pictured Admins doing the work, and my understanding of the current situation is that they take this discussion as us rejecting *admins* doing the work..... and my understanding of the current situation is that their solution is to steamroll forwards with the project based on the idea of assigning this work to *editors* rather than *admins*. Speaking for myself, the WMF has a painfully poor understanding of who we are or how we work. They have no conception of "the Community" in any meaningful sense. We're just a bunch of random Facebook users, and if they set up a DATING NETWORK, then by-golly some random users will show up and do whatever work needs to be done to manage it (because that's what we are, an infinite MAGICAL pool of free labor).... and if ADMINS don't want to get involved that's fine, the Dating Network won't take up any admin time. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. My most recent post to the Project Manager's page was an offer to help him take this to Village Pump, to get a Community Consensus regarding the plan of "editors" moderating collections rather than "admins". Much of my efforts for the last few months has been desperately trying to get the WMF to constructively engage with us in that sort of manner. Alsee (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alsee hmm, I am not sure where did the assumptions of dating service and random facebook users come from, but I have replied to your points on Project managers talk page. Thanks for your points Risker, agreed that "moderation" could better be replaced with "maintenance", also agreed on the need of complete deletion, and sending emergency email to ensure no real threat/damage is taking place. This should be something to develop for the upcoming sprints.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF) Sorry, Dating Network was a Wiki-joke. WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE is the same policy link as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The policy says in part:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Lists of "my favorite bands" are out-of-scope distraction from our work, and in bulk they become disruptive. Alsee (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Right Alsee, maintaining someone else's list of favorite bands, should not be anyone's task at first place, as the drafted document explains, the point behind discussing methods of flagging, revision and deletion, is mainly to ensure that legal policies are met. Something, which regardless of this feature could still be violated, with content that exists under userspace, with creating a book or when multiple public watchlists are enabled for desktop, at some point. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

War edit

User removes the template in The Voice of Peace (marathon). --User:Green Zero — Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Your reason for asking for deletion wasn't one of our criteria for speedy deletion (like the uk:Вікіпедія:Критерії швидкого вилучення page), and please don't edit-war to ask again. If you want me to help you have it deleted, I can help you use the articles for deletion process, like uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати на вилучення. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the template for what it appeared they were aiming for, feel free to throw it off if you dont feel it meets it. I left a note at the original authors talkpage so they hopefully dont remove the tags from their own pages in future. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I demand immediate assistance

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 demand immediate assistance. It seems that a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry. The machinery of the SPI system seems to have been corrupted. We must root out this corruption at once. I need assistance from able-minded editors and administrators at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon. I have provided obvious evidence of sock puppetry, but a group of editors, including a partisan in related disputes, is trying to negate it. It would be appreciate if uninvolved persons could read the evidence, so that we can stamp out this corruption once and for all. There has never been a more clear case in the history of Wikipedia. I will not tolerate the continuance of this corruption. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does a SPI discussion in which only three people have participated provide evidence that "a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry"? RGloucester starts the SPI, Reaper Eternal explains policy - that we don't use checkuser in this particular context - and Bbb23 assesses the evidence. Even if Bbb23 is wrong (or even 'corrupt' - though we have had no evidence for that), there is precisely zero evidence of any sort of conspiracy being presented here AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked over everything and I see no evidence of any sockpuppetry. I also see no evidence of "corruption". Perhaps you need to adjust your perceptions, RGloucester, as I could point you to thousands of cases which are more clear than this one. Perhaps get up from the keyboard and walk it off. It seems you may be getting too emotionally involved in this instance. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you Know?

That framing your request for assistance from your fellow volunteers as a "demand" is the surest way to make people not want to help you? I demand a paycheck. Then we can talk. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is for the common good. No one can reject the collective will. That would be inhuman. There is clear sock puppetry. I don't know what people want from me. It is so clear as to be so clear as to be so clear. There is nothing more to be said. This must be dealt with AT ONCE. The evidence is absolute. Absolutely absolute. There is no room for anything less. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The only evidence for anything you have provided so far is that a single person disagrees with your assertions of sockpuppetry. That person might possibly be wrong. Even if they are, it provides precisely zero evidence of 'corruption'. I suggest that you either provide the evidence, or retract the claim - because otherwise the 'collective will' may very well go against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "you". Only the collective. Regardless, the "corruption" I speak of lies within the accused Dicklyon, who has participated in such corruption since the year 2011. Now that sock puppetry is added in, it is clear that he will not stop at nothing to get his way. He must be stopped! There is not enough time. He must be STOPPED. The evidence is provided at the SPI. It is as light as day. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think RGloucester is referring to me here. I think I plus bbb23 is the "complex of editors". You can review my edits from today to Talk:Blackfriars Massacre and RGloucester's and my talk page. But maybe I'm wrong: RGloucester, it would be helpful if you would be more specific about whose behavior is problematic here and notify them on their respective talk pages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non administrator comment) For the benefit of the OP, perhaps they could be temporarily prevented from continuing this, and have it handled by the admins? It really looks like they could use a break from this for a bit. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone must be problematic, for there is no "ONE". Combined we are a complex, separate we are non-existent. Destroy the sock puppet. The sock puppet must be destroyed. I will not allow the continuation of this corruption. One cannot criticise the person who sheds light on sock puppetry. One must challenge the master. It is the master who must be CHALLENGED. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to go ahead and say what we are all thinking: you are ranting like a crazy person. I don't think you are a crazy person though. So maybe you just need to calm down and consider the possibility that you are simply mistaken and there is not some vast conspiracy to promote socking? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I will not tolerate...I will not allow. This is not your call. You can choose to continue editing or stop, those are the choices that are available to you. Do not dig yourself into a deeper hole or you might not be able to get out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Dicklyon of this discussion. RGloucester, etiquette demands notice to involved parties when posting here about someone. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

CORRUPTION! The corrupt have no concern for etiquette! Do we grant them what they deny? Enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god. I decided to try to figure out what Rglou was ranting about. Maybe I didn't look deeply enough, but it appears the issue is whether "Blackfriars massacre" should have a capital M. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty close to accurate. A true shame. Two generally useful editors banging their heads together. Produced more heat than light. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Given the above, it seems self-evident that at this moment in time RGloucester has gone into full-blown hyperbolic rant mode, and accordingly doesn't stand the slightest chance of winning over anyone to his point of view. I would thus have to suggest that it would be in his own self-interest if he were to be blocked for a period of 24 hours so he can calm down, think about the point he is trying to get across, compile proper evidence, and then make a case that doesn't involve denial of the existence of contributors as individuals, assertions of being the personification of the collective will, and other attempts to channel Mao, Stalin and/or Charlie Chaplin. If he has a genuine issue, it will be better discussed calmly, and without calls for revolution and the return of the Patriotic Shortener. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this RGloucester/Dicklyon conflict for some time and while I have tended to side with RGloucester on the merits, I now believe that user has gone too far. There's something deeper and uglier here which needs timely treatment. Previously I was going to suggest a iban between the users but in the SPI and the thread above RGloucester has revealed that some preventative sanction might need be taken against that user. If they can't themselves take a time out, perhaps a block may help. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing his block log it is clear this is not the first time he has freaked out like this. Clearly very short blocks have failed to send the intended message, so I've just blocked for two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Both the block and its length seem appropriate and necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest one week, but two is just fine. Thanks for taking action. Still suspect an iban will be necessary. BusterD (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

For the record, within 24 hours of RGloucester's demand for assistance here, User:Dicklyon was blocked for violations of the sockpuppetry policy. Despite RGloucester's poor behavior above, it appears that he was correct in his initial assertion. It could be reasonably argued he disrupted the pedia to make a point, but if he'd been patient, he may not have gotten the same outcome. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is just sad and pathetic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Null edit needed on protected template

Would a helpful admin please make a null edit on {{sfn}}? Just open it and click save. I have added some TemplateData fields to it and would like to verify that everything has worked correctly, but changes don't take effect until an edit is made. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Done, did it work? NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  It did. May have to tweak it some, but the fields are now visible in the visual editor, which is what I was looking for. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure review of Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox

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.

---

Perhaps this unedifying discussion can now end? Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The close was requested at Requests for closure, as can be seen above. I closed the thread "Infobox" with this statement. One of the voters who disagrees my closure, has reverted the close and started edit-warring about it instead of taking it to the appropriate place, which is here. The question is: Was my closure of the thread (an RfC/straw poll on having or not having an infobox) correct? Kraxler (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Your closure was highly partisan, and was rightly reverted. I note that the editor who reverted you has already asked an independent admin to re-close it, or to find another who will do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) May I quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review#Pigsonthewing's discussion style (II): "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present." Well... Kraxler (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Kraxler, your non-admin close was reverted and a neutral admin close requested in its place. That is an acceptable request by the parties. Leave it to someone who gives less impression of having a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I don't have any dogs in this fight. My closing statement speaks for itself. Check it out, opinion vs. facts, partisanship vs. guidelines. But if you say that a NAC can be reverted and an admin closure asked for instead, I'll take your word for it. Kraxler (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) It reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Your remit to weigh arguments extends only to their immediately-apparent validity and application of policies and guidelines; your task is to gauge consensus, however flawed you - personally - believe the outcome to be. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you, you are the first user who actually opines on the question asked. The result was no consensus because none of the arguments had much weight. They all say what their personal preference is, one says the article looks better with it, the other says it looks better without it. The actual vote was 6 to 3 or so, but we all know the famous RfA question of four voters saying A without citing guidleines and one voter saying B with a convincing argument, and all admin candidates say "the outcome is B". This requires the closer to explain why the outcome was B, and not A. I explained clearly why the outcome was "no consensus". That's my remit as a closer. I didn't vote. I couldn't care less whether Beethoven has an infobox or not. On the contrary, Beethoven's infobox consisted only of the most basic entries, about five lines, and didn't look all that horrible. But the result of the discussion is determined by the !votes and guidelines, not by my opinion. Kraxler (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Kraxler, your close seems not have taken into account that when the discussion started on 24 December the article had an infobox. Those opposing did not make a convincing argument to remove it. It was removed without respect for the ongoing discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Gerda, the existence of the box (for 28 days) was expressly mentioned in the closing statement. Come on Gerda, I know you can read. Kraxler (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I didn't read far, - so much was wrong with it. - A closure - any closure - should be made by an independent person. You seem not to be the one. Kindly step back and let an uninvolved admin handle it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I have stepped back already. Per Guy, any uninvolved admin may close the debate at any time. Also, I don't think that people who voted in a discussion should say anything in a review of it, as a general principle, not just right here. Because it tends to rehash the whole argument again and again, and not to independently review an issue. Just to remind you, the issue here was not to add or to remove an infobox, the issue was whether my closure was correct under the guidelines and policies. That point has become moot. I'll withdraw this request. Kraxler (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Where was the "convincing argument" to add one in the first place Gerda? CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC) This was a talk page debate, not an RfC. I've summarised the debate as I see it at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven #Summary. Kraxler, you were attempting to game the system, and I expect an uninvolved editor reading that debate to see that. Not one of the arguments made by those wanting to remove the infobox stands up, and all of the arguments wanting to retain it has been addressed (but that's a debate for the talk page). When the debate started on 24 December 2014, the article had had an infobox since I restored it on 30 November 2014. After the debate started, the infobox was once again removed contrary to our normal practice of stopping the disputed edits once debate starts. It seems that by your logic, it is important to edit-war one's preferred version into the article for as long as possible, since that counts as "stability" and "status quo". That's not how we conduct ourselves on Wikipedia and you should be ashamed of using such divisive methods to achieve your preferred goal. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Please sign your posts. The stable version is the one that persisted for years, not for 28 days. The "status quo" at this moment is "no infobox". That's a fact. I repeat: he "status quo" at this moment is "no infobox". Do you dispute that? Kraxler (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog

CAT:CSD is looking a bit backlogged, it's been hovering around the 100 mark for a while now. Could somebody take a look through it sometime? Pishcal — ♣ 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by 103.226.86.254 at Koobface.

103.226.86.254 has been repeatedly vandalizing Koobface. Please see Special:Contributions/103.226.86.254 Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peaceray, thanks for raising this. More than one IP vandalising the article so I've semi-protected it for a couple of days until they get bored. You can also get a quick response to vandalism by drawing attention to it at WP:AIV -- Euryalus (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes them a few hours even if the vandalism is obvious. Delibzr (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends if Materialscientist is online or not. But we could always do with more admins patrolling AIV. Nominations welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2 1/2 year Backlog at WP:EF/R

There are unresolved requests at WP:EF/R dating back to 2013! If any admins with Edit Filter experience could dodge over there and close down some of the old requests (it seems clear that a 2-year old unfulfilled request is likely to be formally denied) and perhaps respond to some of the new requests (there are several recent requests for new edit filters that could use some work) that'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron32 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• If there are any trusted non-admins with experience with regexes and such, you could absolutely help out. I expect that a majority of admins (like myself) know too little of this type of work to be of much use with setting up edit filters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New editor removing other editor's comments

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

---

Hi! José Antonio Zapato (talk · contribs) is a new editor who has decided to dive into discussing the potential deletion of a redirection. He deleted a comment I made at an RfD for a redirect. When I reinserted the comment and informed him on his talk page that editors should not remove or alter other editors comments, he reverted my comment again as well as reverted my comment on his talk page. He cited WP:NPA for reverting my comment on the RfD the second time- I don't believe my comment was in any way a violation of this, although his citing wikipedia policy indicates he should know enough to not remove comments by other editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment reads like a sarcasm, but it is not actually offensive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have done this. I've removed a sarcastic comment directed at me personally by name. It is unhelpful in a discussion about redirects and attacks me specifically. Please advise the editor above to stop re-inserting it. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not same as attack. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate this incivility is tolerated. I had no quarrel nor interaction with this editor previous to his comment, but one sarcastic remark encourages an equally sarcastic response, and on and on until the database contains more sarcasm than encyclopedia. C'est la vie. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack in the grand schmee of things. It is pointless snark. Inexplicably you have both now edit-warred to the edge of 3RR over this issue. I've hatted the comment so you can alternately ignore it and still feel like you made your point. Please now both find something more productive to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's an important lesson here. Sometimes, people do things they shouldn't. Sometimes also, the appropriate response is to do nothing. Yes, the sarcasm was incivil and should not have happened. The appropriate response, in this case, should still have been nothing. Wikipedia does not have mechanisms for punishing minor violations of the civility policy (nor should it.) Instead, we need to be able to both recognize that the initial comment should not have been made, and also be OK with doing nothing in response. --Jayron32 03:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Andreas Lubitz DRV

There is a discussion about a merge outcome of an RfC. Given potential venue issues (I don't know that's it clear where such a discussion goes, here or DRV) I thought it wise to post a notification here. [77]. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A link problem

Not sure where to bring this up. I've periodically run into problems with Oregon legislature coming up red, while Oregon Legislature is blue. This shouldn't happen, as far as I'm aware. Not sure if any admins have powers to fix something like that, but it needs to be done because it messes up both links and search results. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created it as a redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mis-spelled name

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.

---

Dear administrators: The page entitled "Tzuriel Rafael" should be changed to "Tsuriel Raphael," which is how the person himself spells his name. I tried changing it myself and then found out I cannot do so because I'm not an administrator. TIA. Zozoulia 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation

Nadirali is unbanned since last year, he has violated his topic ban on numerous occasions.

• In this edit, he changed the title of a section from "Ethnicity and language" to "Nationalities/Ethnicities and languages", and right below that section, the article reads "..Indians in the United Arab Emirates|Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates|Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates". He also spaced between "[[Bengali language|Bengali]],[[Sindhi language|Sindhi]]". Editing the section title was clearly a major edit because section titles changes the basic meaning or even conclusion of the part that is written below. Most of that section concerns the backgrounds of the people coming from India and Pakistan.
• He made a page move[78], where we can read a major section about India.
• He added a new section to Astrology,[79] where we can find major sections[80][81] about India.
• This edit was major, the article mentions India about 8 times and mentions Pakistan about 7 times.
• [82][83] He has also disputed the factual accuracy of this article[84], that has section about India and he has also participated in the discussions.[85][86]

There are just more to mention, but I think that these few are enough. I have discussed this issue with both Worm That Turned and Dennis Brown.[87] One had unbanned him,[88] while other had blocked him for a month[89] after he had detected some of his topic ban violation upon returning from the site ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your final point first, since it's the only one I've investigated. Editing and discussing a broad-topic article that merely has a section on the banned subject, without editing that section, without discussing that section, and without editing or discussing the subject elsewhere, is not a ban violation. See the discussion about weather at WP:TBAN; if you're banned from weather, you're banned from editing the weather-related parts of the New York article, but you're allowed to edit the rest. Of course this isn't the case if the whole article is related to the subject, but child sexual abuse is definitely not just a South Asian issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the penultimate bullet: Shia Islam is a topic too broad for a ban from "articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed", and Albania definitely isn't included in it. This ban is for the country articles, for people and places originating/located in those countries, and for topics closely related to them, e.g. caste, as well as I/P/A-related components of other articles. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Astrology and public alcohol consumption are worldwide topics. A pagemove isn't relevant to the ban unless the entire page is affected, and neither this content nor its source is at all related to I/P/A. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is a violation only if he has edited about those countries and not the articles? Still, at least 2 of the diffs are topic ban violation. Per topic ban, he cannot contribute to these articles because these articles goes on to explain some of the important aspects of those subjects that are related with his topic ban. He made an edit on Liger[90] and the source[91] has mentioned "India" at least 5 times as well as its other locations. Not only once, but at least 2 times[92][93] he had been told not to contribute on those articles that have significantly covered these 3 nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

IP insisting on changing description of location.

Resolved

At Michael Jordan statue an IP starting with 2602:304:CEBF:8590 (from 23:07, 26 March 2015, from 22:28, 27 March 2015, from 01:08, 19 April 2015, and ending with variations (and a WP:SPA) has been chopping down the location description. Once I explained that Chicago WP:FA sculptures (such as Cloud Gate and Crown Fountain) have the same location description format, he decided to change them as well. Can someone take a look at this and figure out what can be done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the pages. Let me know if there's any others. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting restoration of 3 pages

Hello,

the pages for Clonazolam, Flubromazolam and Deschloroetizolam have recently been deleted for the lack of credible sources. Today a new study, "Characterization of the four designer benzodiazepines clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, and meclonazepam, and identification of their in vitro metabolites" was published, I hope that counts and the wiki pages for these novel substances can be restored. Feel free to add that reference yourself if you want to :)

Thank you! Aethyta (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Aethyta, it's best if you put in your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Request unblock of talk page

Talk page for a new account is restricted due to some segment being in a blacklist. I tried the full username in all the blacklists and it isn't in any of them. Didn't try all the possible segments of the requested username to see what was in a blacklist. I overrode and created the new account but found the talk page at [94] is blocked when I tried to leave a welcome template. Please create the new user's talk page (and leave a welcome message). Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Sarey" is globally blacklisted to block articles about Sarey Savy. I've created their userpage and talk page but any user space subpages they wish to create would still be blocked. Will forward this request to meta. Feel free to comment there. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

The article Anti-Pakistan Sentiment had been proposed for deletion and nobody has been contested it, so somebody please delete it Ankush 89 (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, where is discussion going on? I deleted "deletion tag" from article. Article is already well sourced, we can improve it further. Kindly mention or ping me if you want to say something. Thank you. --Human3015 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Title itself is incorrect. Hajme 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Interaction Ban between OccultZone and Zhanzhao

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

---

I'm raising this at the suggestion of @Yunshui:[95]

OccultZone and I as well as a few other editors were previously involved in a content dispute on the Rape in India article. My brother's barely-active account, DanS76 chimed in twice, and was identified as a sock of mine. An SPI was raised, during which we admitted our relationship, after which DanS76 retired his account to prevent any such issues in the future. I have also tried to keep away from the article since I saw how aggressive OccultZone could be. The problem is that OccultZone has it in his mind that I was still active there, and as a result, he was:

• blocked twice for edit-warring against a sock he thought was me,[96]
• raising 2 new (failed) SPIs against those same people in an attempt to link them to me [97][98] as well as an ANI,
• accusing other admins (some of them are mentioned below) of incompetency when they did not rule to his liking, and got told off for that,[99][100][101]
• threatening to action against them in ArbCom [102] (other admins have weighed in to say their sanctions against him were justified),
• admin shopping both on-and-off-wiki without success with his list of so-called "evidence" against me,
• and still trying to pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment.

Most of which I documented on my userpage but had hoped not to bring up. He was told repeatedly by many admins to move on after his ANI and 2 SPIs as well as other interaction with the admins i.e. (@DoRD:@Worm That Turned:@Callanecc:@Bgwhite:@Salvidrim!:@Mike V: off the top of my head), and he has found no new evidence against me that he had not previously declared. Some admins even explicitly warned him about his behaviour against me [103]. After he did not get the results he was looking for, he has upped his game from admin shopping to approaching an arbitrator Yunshui directly.

I don't even know what he hopes to achieve now that its been proven that all those other accounts (which were indeed socks but of someone else) were found to be unrelated to me, and my one alleged "sock" DanS76 is already retired. If he had found some new evidence of me allegedly socking, I would at least give him credit. But he's basically just taking the same closed cases and the same evidences, and going around looking for someone to finally agree with him. I've barely interacted with him or talked about him after the last SPI, but OccultZone doesn't seem to want to quit. As such, I would like to request an interaction ban between the both of us. If he finds new evidence of new socking activity that goes beyond the scope of the previous ANI and SPIs he previously raised against me, he's welcome to supercede the interaction ban and raise a new case against me. Else, I would like for him to just leave me alone. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support in the strongest possible terms. I'm amazed OccultZone is still on this, I've put of effort into looking into this case over the past few weeks. I can name another half a dozen Admins and checkusers that OccultZone has contacted regarding this. What's more, this is at least the second time that OccultZone has made accusations about Zhanzhao and then complained when Zhanzhao has defended himself. OccultZone needs to drop this and an interaction ban seems like the easiest way to make that happen. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Gets my vote. The encyclopedia is not well served by these two editors arguing with one another across multiple venues. (caveat: I was the editor who suggested Zhanzhao pursue an IBAN in the first place, so slightly involved.) Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So two votes already? Okay I hope that my below comment would clarify that how we should view this case.

In last 12 days, I discovered and found a lot of things in this case that I haven't even seen in long term abusers. How evident it is that this account was created for evading 3rr, after he could not edit war with IP anymore. Control + F, "eight years have passed" and check his IPs edits [104] [105], and then he created the account and continued the edit war, [106] [107], [108] [109][110] this sort of scenario has been a major factor in his small contribution history. Yes he admitted this IP in question to be his after few months,[111] after he had reverted with it[112] and the page was protected.

It is easy to accept that Zhanhao has abused multiple accounts policy since he joined en.wiki years, he was blocked once for evading his block with IP as well.[113] He explicitly states to have read the the WP:SOCK#LEGIT on an unblock request that was declined.[114] When I made an appropriate attempt to expose his on going abuse of multiple accounts,[115] he insisted that "it was my brother", and a problematic and a non policy based decision took place.[116]

And more recently I also found a few diffs that should overturn all previous decisions. Here he has clearly warned against recruiting any "family members", so even if his unbelievable notion of "my brother" has to be taken seriously, then his abuse of multiple accounts was 100% intended. See no way how we can reject an indef block for a case that was inappropriately closed just a few days ago. Per policy and standards, only indef block is appropriate for 6 years+ violation of WP:ILLEGIT. We cannot support sock puppetry.

Again, abuse is also evident with socking with IPs,[117][118][119][120] and proxies.[121][122][123] This range was recently rangeblocked by Mike V. He admits to to have abused this San Francisco range.[124] He has also reported suspected socks,[125][126][127] in every sense he has abused the policy.

• Apart from the talk pages and the articles, he has abused his two accounts across many namespaces. That would include multiple AfDs,([128][129], [130][131] critical RFC/UA ([132][133]) that saw de-sysopping, deletion review,([134][[135]), topic ban discussion of User:La goutte de pluie.[136][137], ANI,([138] [139], [140],[141], accepting own article for submission.[142].

• It also includes tag team edit warring, for evading 3rr. a)[143][144][145](account signed in after 58 days) b) [146][147][148] [149](this time 45 days after), Zhanzhao [150][151] and many more, list is just too large.

This account has only 2036 main article edits in 8 years and has saved at least 13 evasions of 3RR that can be confirmed. That means he has saved at least 13 blocks for violating 3rr rule through socking. If en.wiki has banned very productive editors for socking, why we have different rules for this editor?

His tendency is to bother, irritate many productive editors, often by using multiple accounts. Such as Lee788[152][153][154][155][156], Ahnan,[157][158][159][160][161] etc. That is how he has managed, I am his current target.

• Even now, he uselessly reverts my edits[162] and says that it was his brother who did it.[163] I never hound his contribution history. There is no doubt that we need indef block for this WP:NOTHERE case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am sure this [164] was a coincidence. As I said, which you showed on your 2nd link, That was one singular edit, and I have taken steps to prevent my account from being compromised again. Practically all your evidence are either from years ago, used in the previous SPIs/ANIs, and/or you've already shared them with other admins who ended up disagreeing with you. As for using a VPN service, its the nature of my job as I need to look at US websites that might have content blocked by location. I am sure a verification of the CU data will show that when I am logged on to it, it stays the same throughout and doesnt jump around as if I were trying to keep switching my IP. If I was really socking, I can easily abandon this account. Why would I even want to draw attention to my other so-called available accounts and risk them being linked? Your logic fails here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How many hours or days later it came up? You tried to misrepresent yourself only when you saw that you are going to be raided. Actually they just said nothing. Now that you agree with the you have greatly socked, now you tell that you will abandon this account and start a new account as technical details also match? Funny honestly, no wonder why people believe that you are gaming. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Original report looks like a fallacious attempt to troll and lacks rationality. He reported you on SPI and you gamed some admin. Now you cannot sock because you believe that he is watching you and that's why you want interaction ban? That is just ridiculous. Delibzr (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I even doubted the existence of WP:Deny recognition while I was reading. Delibzr (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Totally missed it. Yes he has made only 53 main article edits since the SPI, he wants to resume edit warring with the accounts and IPs like he always did? Yeah that seems better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And I made only about 60 edits btw October to February combined. In fact, the only reason I'm so active nowadays is to deal with your hassling me. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment One way or another, this dispute needs to end. It looks like an I-ban is the most likely solution with a prohibition on both users from filing more cases against each other at AE, ANI or SPI. If there are abuses on either side, another editor can file a complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is the first anything I filed against OZ, and only on the suggestion of the arbitrator that OZ approached. OZ has filed 2 separate SPIs, one ANI (which the first closing admin re-opened after receiving a mail from OZ, only for it to get closed again by another admin). Zhanzhao (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Which closing admin you are talking about? Have you got any proof about it? Mdann52 is not an admin. I am surprised you didn't notified VictoriaGrayson, Human3015, M Tracy Hunter, etc. who have been affected by your actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose IBAN unless actual evidence of disruption is presented. I'll give the OP this: I appreciate the bullet-points. To address them in order:

1. Looking only at the linked block-log (i.e., all the evidence presented), both blocks were repealed within a few hours without coming to term, apparently for being inappropriate blocks. This is not evidence in favour of OZ, but it certainly isn't evidence against him.
2. What is the definition of a "failed" SPI? One was endorsed for CU because the clerk agreed the activity was suspicious, the other appears to have warranted a CU. The fact that both those CUs turned up negatives is not a reason for an IBAN, since apparently the SPI clerks shared OZ's concerns: are we to IBAN all SPI clerks from interacting with users they had wrongly suspected of sockpuppetry?
3. This point is confusing. Of the three links, only one is a diff, and that not a post by OZ. None of the three pages have the word "incompetent" anywhere on them, so it's difficult to make out the problem. Additionally, if OZ was accusing admins of incompetency, what does that have to do with an IBAN with the OP?
4. He accused a blocking admin (who had apparently, per supra, made a bad block against him) of making other bad blocks and needing to be restrained. If mentioning ArbCom counts as a threat that merits and IBAN ... why not IBAN him from the admin he was talking about, rather than some random user who doesn't like him?
5. The non-transparent off-wiki contact is concerning, but unfortunately an IBAN would not solve this one way or the other, since emails are not as far as I know actionable (as long as OZ was careful and only emailed users who agreed with him). There also seems to be nothing in the diffs to suggest that these emails were about the OP, which seems to be at best a minor AGF-violation on the part of the OP.
6. The last point presents no real evidence and is valid if the OP is in fact a good-faith contributor; if as OZ suggests the OP is in fact a problem editor who should be blocked, then this point is essentially invalid since OZ is right to "pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment". Which brings me to...

I have no opinion on whether the OP should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Given the OP's long history of editing articles in a wide variety of areas, it seems a bit inappropriate to accuse him of NOTHERE.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

*Yes the blocks were overturned, but he warred against what he assumed were my socks, as seen from the SPIs he raised. Also, Bgwhite who overturned the first block, explicitely said that he regretted it[165], while Worm That Turned said that both blocks were not wrong as well[166]. Other admins have weighed in on it too, if you look at OccultZone's talk page.

*I was actually referring to the results of the CU and behavioral analysis of the SPI clerks before they closed the case against his claims. I in fact welcomed them to do the CU if it would convince OZ he was wrong, which didn't work.

*These admins would also be the ones to tell him to move on, which he refused to.

*Just pointing out that he seems to think everyone is against him when he though he was edit warring with people he though were me, even admins giving him advice.

*I would welcome OZ to declare how many emails he had sent out about his case against me, and to whom. I don't see how there could have been an agreement, since he did not mention me at all to them on wiki before emailing them.

*He has raised 2 SPIs and one ANI against me, and this takes me away from contributing to wikipedia. As you pointed out, I edit on a wide range of articles. But my range and volume dropped significantly after this happened. And I'm not the only one affected. Even uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta[167]. Not to count the time wasted by all the SPI clerks and admins he has approached who have to go through the same "evidence" repeatedly case after case. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that the first admin to undo a block was the one to implement the next block. Doesn't change the fact that that admin was also immediately overruled. As for your request that I look at OZ's talk page: sorry, but when other users diligently provide all the evidence in a concise and comprehensive manner and are still ignored by admins who don't click on diffs, why should I be expected to go out and search for your evidence for you?
• I know what you were referring to. I fail to see how it is relevant to your IBAN request, though, when the clerks were apparently just as suspicious as OZ was.
• ...What?
• Yes, and how is that relevant to an IBAN with you in particular if he has been having disagreements with other users who he accused of being sockpuppets, and the admins who didn't block them? Most of what you're saying seems to be just a general smear campaign against OZ, rather than providing evidence of harassment against you that would merit an IBAN.
• Sorry, but that's not how it works. I genuinely wish people who admitted to engaging in potentially disruptive off-site email-contact were obliged to divulge what and to whom they wrote, but that's not how the game works. And if you don't know what was in those emails, you are treading a thin line in assuming that they were about you (you admit above that "he did not mention [you] at all to them on wiki before emailing them"). Emailing other users is not a violation of any policies or guidelines per se, and it seems to be something OZ does regularly and peaceably on a variety of issues. You are perfectly free to think that he is talking about you in the emails, but it is not a valid piece of evidence in favour of an IBAN.
• That seems to be something of a misrepresentation: according to the fourth chart on this page, if your edits decreased in number at any given time it was in mid-2013, and in the last month or so you've made the same number of mainspace edits that you had in the preceding eight months. If OZ's recent behaviour is distracting you from contributing to the encyclopedia, it certainly isn't reflected in your account's edit history. Your reference to "uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta" is curious as well: if Bgwhite wants to ask for an IBAN with OZ they are more than welcome to do so, but this thread is about an IBAN between you and OZ, so Bgwhite's time being wasted is not a valid piece of evidence for you to bring up. If Bgwhite feels that their time has been wasted as a result of the feud between you two, that is for them to decide and to state, not you. If they choose not to post in this thread after being pinged, then we shouldn't just assume they are in favour of an IBAN. Same goes for all the others.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn. Just noticed Salvidrim's post below. If this dispute can drive a user like that to swearing then I'm staying the hell away. I won't directly support an IBAN for the same reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm legitimately sorry if my vociferousness scared you off this discussion -- although to be brutally honest, I'd probably recommend to anyone who asks me to avoid this shitstorm too, so for your own peace of mind, you might want to steer clear of getting involved. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support IBAN, and I would even support a one-way OZ > Zhanzao IBAN if it came to that. OZ has been repeatedly warned by CUs (at least Callanecc and DoRD) to drop the fucking stick after arguing with us repeatedly and questioning our competence, and that he was venturing deep into harassment territory. OZ's total inability to move on when he is proven wrong by numerous CUs/admins agreeing that there are no sockpuppetry violations going despite repeated warnings is disheartening -- we've privately discussed the possibility of blocking him if he kept at it and luckily haven't had to yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't mislead others Salvidrim. Yes your judgement was highly innappropriate. Sad thing is that you even want to fix it, even after having compelling evidence that the abuse was intended. Have you checked those violations through IPs, proxies? Callanecc and DoRD already knows that I have proven the remaining suspects to be blatant sock puppets.(also check [168]) What a silly misrepresentation of outdated "warning" you have made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You shouldn't try to mislead others, yourself. Those accounts are clearly unrelated to Zhanzhao, and they aren't even related to the account you thought that they were, so why are you even mentioning them here? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) In addition, I don't see any evidence that Salvidrim! is trying to mislead anyone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes they are not related to Zhanzhao but Salvidrim is referring to the advice that was made in relation to these accounts.(of stillstanding/sonic) Though the matter is already resolved. Had I shown other diffs that time? Not. Salvidrim is treating like nothing has been changed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh fuck off, you've got your fingers buried deep in your ears and relentlessly refuse to hear anyhting we're saying. I'm walking away from this energy-sucking vortex that you're pumping and I'm not interested in engaging in renewed "discussion" with you. Attempting to respond in any logical or diplomatic manner will just allow things to devolve even further and enough time has been wasted by many admins/CUs trying to try to convince you that ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRATBLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPPETRY POLICY, a fact which you obviously prefer ignoring entirely. I hope you're at least enjoying yourself, although I can't imagine anyone being this wrong and obstinate and not feeling totally miserable. Cheers! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That essay is not supporting any of your assumptions. Cite the evidence/policy not speculations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• So much for that "brother", haven't we have heard many brother stories before? I agree with Hijri88 that there is no evidence of disruption, no personal attack, no wikihounding, just nothing from Occultzone. Interaction ban is not for suppressing the exposure of your dirty works such as socking even if someone wants to stick to that. Furthermore I believe that this request should be closed and requesting user should be indefinitely blocked, as long as socking is a matter of seriousness. SamuelDay1 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. I've been one of the clerks/CUs asked to review the Zhanzhao sockpuppetry case and I was not convinced with the behavioral evidence presented and the technical evidence did not support his claims. I'm growing concerned that OccultZone will continue to make sockpuppetry claims towards Zhanzhao, despite findings to the contrary. This is rising to the level where an interaction ban would be quite helpful. Mike V • Talk 15:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• How come you could not count 2 articles then? You counted "one article" and you were there to support "some of" the evidence, not even whole or half. And then you are citing a wrong SPI. Why you didn't even replied to what had been posted on your talk page? I had asked for the policy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support iban, even a one way OZ-->Z iban as proposed by Salvidrim!. I have, unfortunately, been in the middle of this since near the beginning, and if it takes an iban to separate these two, then so be it. OccultZone, after being told numerous times, by numerous people, that there is nothing actionable at this time against Zhanzhao or DanS, continues to pursue the case with an almost singular focus. This needs to stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? Wrong. I have made over 11,000 edits in last 16 days. No idea what you are talking about. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• 11,000 trivial edits to categories, talk pages, and the like don't obscure the obvious. Anyway, it appears that you are open to Begoon's advice, so I suggest that it would be best if you were to take it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are counting the last 50 edits or all 11,000 edits? How come you ignored thousands of edits to main the article? All of these edits are major. Though I wouldn't find it amazing since your miscalculation was also evident in the case of Resaltador. Since the matters make no sound it is generally better to leave. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support views of OccultZone --Human3015 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. Those two definitely don't go along, this whole thread speaks for itself. RE: Hijiri 88 "unless actual evidence of disruption is presented" — whatever else this post may not prove, it certainly proves disruption. Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. I've followed this, because OZ is an editor I recall from previous interaction. I like OZ, he's a well meaning editor, and dedicated, but boy do sticks adhere to his fingers... OZ, as many have told you, you need to leave others to deal with this, if there is anything to deal with. Your involvement has become obsessive, and I'm supporting this IBAN because I'd hate to see the block you are rushing towards become a reality. Please disengage entirely. Right now. Begoon ^talk 15:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are actually correct. Looking at the views of others, and everything else that is happening around I really find this all pretty lame myself now. Lets see... OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it alone, please. Don't reply here, or anywhere else about it, at all. The IBAN will still probably pass, but that won't matter, cos it'll be a dropped stick, right? This way you can maybe avoid major sanctions over this, and continue with your other valuable contributions. Begoon ^talk 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is nonsensical on so many levels.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Proposal is withdrawn by the requesting user per discussion below. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated: See next 2 subtopics Zhanzhao (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Thanks everyone for their votes. I not only agree with the oppose but also with the support votes. The reason why I didn't gave up, well it is because he continued to watch over my contributions. Yes the interaction ban is one choice, but there are clearly better things to try in this case. Had he said that he would not watch over my contributions, there would be no such circumstances either. He even considered my edits to Lee Kuan Yew to be related to with his dispute, and significantly reported to another admin. Though he might have knew later on that I was there only for fixing a factual error and I didn't even knew if he was there. Can be because of the popularity of the article.

I have also realized now, he is probably correct that he was not really a problem anymore for me that had been started since 23 March, unfortunately he became the target. That can be also a reason why he watched the contributions. In that case we can just return to our normal form. Having content dispute is one thing, but unnecessarily raising the conduct issues is different.[169] But hopefully, I can agree now. Normally how 2 editors act, that is what we will have to prefer from now. I am writing this not only because of a few realizations but also because of the seriousness that has been shown above by others.

So what anyone has to say about this? Indeed, if problems arises anywhere near to this level, we will find here ourselves again. Although I can really assure that it is not going to happen at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is only one question. Will you now drop this issue, entirely, and completely? That's what experienced editors, functionaries, and friends, have asked, no, begged you to do, for your own sake, and ours. It's a simple "yes/no" question. I suggest a one-word answer. Begoon ^talk 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I have stated above, especially the 2nd paragraph. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that as an assurance that you will not raise this issue again, at all, in any way, anywhere, and that sanctions may result should you do so. But then I worry...Begoon ^talk 17:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Declaration: If I can get his word here that he will stop continuing to reopen closed cases based on old evidence, I'll step away from his way. Thats what I've wanted to do since all this started. Again, IF he does find suspicious new socking activity thats clearly related to me (good evidence, not just tagging my name to another random SPI investigation), I have no problem with that. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Zhanzhao: I have already clarified that above. In the light of your latest agreement there is no need to make any SPI that would resemble the previous one, you can forget what happened before and from now it is like a new start since your recent agreement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Accepted. See my reply at bottom of next subtopic. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Can someone help me close this? Per the opening discussions above and the "Arbitration Break" subtopic, both me and OZ have agreed to clean start and move on. Plus the spill-over "Socking" subtopic has already been closed. Sorry for the time and trouble. (Message also copied at top of thread). Zhanzhao (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Socking

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.

---

So, what do we do about the rather obvious sock puppetry by Zhanzao?

Incidentally: from my Quackford English Ducktionary, "Suck puppetry: Sock puppetry, but done really badly". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got it right. It looks like that was the sole reason why Occultzone even bothered. Actually anyone would if a serious report confirming violation of so many years and supported by every necessary evidences would had been rejected and socks were treated were so greatly. I fail to find if any rules that would justify such abuse, or even a prior sock puppetry case. Automatically, I feel discriminated because I cannot sock even for one edit, while Zhanzhao can for every edit. Delibzr (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't encourage him. Sockpuppetry has only continued to be disproved by CUs and other admins since you yourself told OZ to drop it, JzG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That was before the WP:BROTHER comment above. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Occult had asked Jzg to see this set, and Jzg told him "that it's unlikely" per CU, but these socks are also blocked now and we are back to the convictions of socking where you found brother excuses, and now again questioning the heroic release from sock puppetry, though he really wanted to sock. If I have definitely told one to "stop using your family relatives, friends for socking", while I sock all time and upon conviction I tell that "I didn't socked, my brother helps and stalks my contribution history", would you believe it? How dense it would be. Delibzr (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TO Delibrzr, actually the context was totally different back then. If you looked at the thread where that about me supposing to know about meatpuppetry [170], it was quoted by DanS76, not me; it was from years ago; and the offending editor Ahnan was actively going to off-wiki forums to recruit people to come into Wikipedia to editwar on his side. When that policy was mentioned years ago, I didn't even think much about the family angle, it was just looking at the "off-wiki" part when I saw that. And you'll observe from the conversation that DanS76 was riling Ahnan up while I was trying to calm Ahnan down to prevent prevent escalation (yes, we don't always agree, which I pointed out before in the old SPI).Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That means that the named account still socked along with you, while warning others not to do the same. Hypocritical. I don't care how much you both were bullying Ahnan or any other editors you have. I am just saying that it all looks so fake, and unsupported by any rules. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• As the result of several SPIs, numerous CUs/clerks/admins have determined (both with behavioural and technical evidence) that: ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRABLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPETTRY POLICY.
  I don't know how much clearer this can be made. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• That barbaric shout is clearly unhelpful and it comes with no evidence and contrary to they have written above. "both with behavioural and technical evidence" definitely share mutuality when they are also admitted by the suspect. Why you are deceiving? I just asked if you will take same kind of heroic decision when anyone else would be convicted upon socking, which is still not answered by you. Delibzr (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Salvidrim! I reduced your 100px red rant down to 20px, which is bad enough. You're an admin, you should know better than to do shit like that. Please don't do it again. BMK (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, BMK. I dunno if OZ is contagious but it seems I am also having some trouble letting go of this -- how ironic that I should fall prey to the same pitfalls I am accusing OZ of digging himself in. These are hopefully my last words on this whole shitstorm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I understand precisely what you mean. BMK (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Declaration: As mentioned, I would not find any issue if a new SPI was raised against me by OZ based on suspicious new socking activity. The WP:BROTHER angle is no longer in the equation as DanS76 has quit. At risk of self-outing, I've even sent OZ and another 2 admins info about me and my family which shows that I actually have 2 brothers. However I can reveal that the 2nd one is overseas long-term, and (I asked) he does not edit on wikipedia. So even that is a non-issue. Its a waste of me, OZ, and everyone else's time to repeatedly defend myself again and again over the same evidence. I'm not afraid of continued scrutiny since I don't sock. I just want to move on and not have to continually return to a dead-horse-flogging-party with everyone else. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You have warned others against such meat puppetry as well and you clearly knew what can happen when you told others not to make such "mistake", lobbying one admin is not going to remove the heinous breach that you have done. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not lobby anyone. I only sent out the personal info to 3 people in response to OZ's claims I was making up the fact about having brothers - him being one the people I sent it to, and 2 other admins who volunteered to look at the info. And for that 2010 case, I repeating a warning to the other editor about recruiting someone fresh from outside wiki to help him in his edit war: I was not the one who posted the Meatpuppetry policy, so I only read a few lines above that thread about the quoted policy and was focused more on the "recruiting people from the outside to participate" bit, and barely though about that after the incident. I did not fully realize the implication of having someone who is also an editor in the same family and would edit similarly would face. Once asked about our relationship, I clarified it immediately, the admin suggested that we should make clear on our individual accounts that we were related/editing from the same IP, which was done. And that DanS76 has retired his account makes it doubly certain this would not be an issue anymore moving forward. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zhanzhao as multiple editors have raised concerns over your actions they want some outcome. I would propose that you should agree to restrict yourself to one account from now. No IPs or any accounts, any other violation can lead to indef. Any other account that you used before can be blocked now, as you have also confirmed that they are of no use. So would you agree? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SamuelDay1, I have no intention of violating any rules. Anything I have done, I did with the best of intentions. Anything I did wrong, I am prepared to deal wih it. If I intended to sock, I would have just abandoned this account which has so much baggage. But I continue with it, warts and all with all the SPI and block history, because I have always been transparent about everything I have done. Even OZ pointed out above of an instance when I accidentally edited while logged out, and logged in just to clarify it was me. So again, this was, is and will be the only account I use on wikipedia Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So I may consider that you have accepted my above proposal already? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes with a strong emphasis. Because irregardless of what others believe, editing with one account is what I have always done. You can also include a furter note that if there is evidence of meatpuppetry, WP:FAMILY or WP:BROTHER, that counts against me as well - if anyone else in my family begins to edit here, I think I will really just quit Wikipedia totally to avoid all this drama again. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zhanzhao has now agreed that he would restrict himself to one account and any other accounts(namely DanS76) can be blocked. Closing admin should log this entry as restriction to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Worm That Turned, OccultZone, Begoon, Hijiri88, Yunshui and others can also see that he has taken these concerns and is willing to move forward. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with it, thank you for your efforts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATED: As OccultZone has made it clear on my page that he would not be filing SPIs against me again, I will take his word for it since he has also promised Begoon the same. As mentioned repeatedly, I leave the door open to him filing a new SPI against me if he should notice new suspicious activity from me. This has always been my desired outcome. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is a good choice to limit with one account and leave other accounts behind. Both have agreed too. Delibzr (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog of 35 XFD items at WP:ANRFC

There are 35 XFD items at WP:ANRFC, including Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Plowback retained earnings, whose discussion started in February 2014. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because it is impossible to read that RfC to the end and retain your sanity, or indeed the will to live. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So after reading JzG's comment above, I had to go look.

So I read through it about 15 times or so. Checked the references (apparently OED removed theirs). Read the other past discussions. And just decided "there's always another admin"... - jc37 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply - At some point, it may default to No Consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

never heard of 'default to no consensus', not to mention then it'll be back in 2 months again and back here in 4 because everyone involved looks obsessive. This needs to close with a definite outcome, keep or delete doesn't matter (imo delete's the obvious outcome, but I lost the will to live halfway through so what do I know - and befoer some adminwit calls the emergency line no I meant this figuratively, so put that phone down ok? good boy) Anyway if admins spent less time abusing innocent IP users and more time closing discussions we wouldnt have these crazy backlogs what d oyou have to say about that? 134.208.33.104 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply -@134.208.33.104:. When users cannot agree on an outcome, it often defaults to No Consensus. With that said, I have not read the discussion, but hopefully we can come to some type of conclusion on this issue as well as others. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass delete

all these nonsense pages:

Long list of Flow pages

Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg Topic:Rojlee068l62rbes Topic:Rojmuz478euzkbd0 Topic:Rojpbg609yyqfv5w Topic:Rok9qy0hb4lz83gk Topic:Rokd7o2d2be9c0pc Topic:Rokh0uf34leugads Topic:Rokhdqlxmmeki3yo Topic:Rokhuo12yfszq3k4 Topic:Rol83nlzghf5okuo Topic:Rolak7dk1gfqaglg Topic:Rolo7ffkgptdyrgk Topic:Ron4h1kufe8a9dhs Topic:Ron5kdut6dnhr6a8 Topic:Ronqadmetsq9duv8 Topic:Ronsz8yhsrhq3890 Topic:Ronz285xqcpwt1ms Topic:Roo05eghv3ya58y8 Topic:Rop0ajryddhpd380 Topic:Ropbao6190moulxg Topic:Ropjm0fgltrwfkhw Topic:Ropnaopuy0b5yp2w Topic:Roqrf3692ilvpn5k Topic:Roqrofu6sf67kosw Topic:Rourbymankwkw0wg Topic:Rovvnaai47pp9u9w Topic:Row9rwq0lwuoimwo Topic:Rowtmyodz2a96cgg Topic:Royxd2frzdy34tcg Topic:Roz1zju2f5zcm9ao Topic:Rp173w44kner95dw Topic:Rp2dtrk2lptacpam Topic:Rp2pfb6ete6pq6fg Topic:Rp338uhkrre3jsht Topic:Rp4dla175w4lcztp Topic:Rp4pxylhbmoozq7e Topic:Rpbc3zcjhrrwtaza Topic:Rpcbhk1f6mn3feux Topic:Rpejgfwuwrxfc44h Topic:Rpgca5e9yyrhoqq5 Topic:Rphby1h9zx1b1e92 Topic:Rphxh6bjtrubqia3 Topic:Rpi8y4hbixkou0hr Topic:Rpmwuq30tmuzwi1w Topic:Rpvboeuey3a7vap0 Topic:Rpylhwd9sb2080iu Topic:Rpyw35b26qqw7m6k Topic:Rq0mvly4ns8eu51h Topic:Rq0n6hqf0yy3q8e1 Topic:Rqaaql5vrwzlvm6d Topic:Rqaaqx0q8mgegdxd Topic:Rqftrrgmeuj9t5y1 Topic:Rqjunzu26n44zemu Topic:Rrbgayby8t1e86qp Topic:Rrbguyj2id4xnvl3 Topic:Rrkh9dial4kvq2oj Topic:Rrqpstd5inl8d753 Topic:Rrtki2fpqy5qpiep Topic:Rrwiqwvglp15dhvn Topic:Rsjfvpurl90bee8v Topic:Rtpxvwm6db1mjka9 Topic:Rtu87jfo46sd2s55 Topic:Rueo96u36r6re27b Topic:Ruk9n3213mgoxkk8 Topic:Ruwvd55ysiww7guk Topic:Rv2t8psjovgz1j69 Topic:Rv6622xq0czv15cx Topic:Rvkxeg33vrib5sym Topic:Rvu8m6hu9v1y6pus Topic:Rw60o5ujcgk6sn8f Topic:Rw9cw3ry8v9kkrnw Topic:Rwad2z0bwqkkk40u Topic:Rwau9p89romw1ffl Topic:Rwefiaxjertddqgg Topic:Rwjv1p1jh4t2x9rb Topic:Rwxk7376w19x3vjl Topic:Rx8wxxhtt5lo3c69 Topic:Rx8yzkqkkdgq1csg Topic:Rxp0i0n2ixvgxwvb Topic:Rxucmu4nufxb70bl Topic:Rxx5219md50ah3tw Topic:Rxz81vitqtqjb6rf Topic:Ry2cvj5ihl64las4 Topic:Ry4gx8uw5sf95i8v Topic:Ry58yg9we6ybmtev Topic:Ry5abji7qaclwrch Topic:Ry5ah1y18hzdgc41 Topic:Ry927uc8m9xjr5nl Topic:Ry929mayo9smflj1 Topic:Ry92afpbxb6ckdko Topic:Ryn0bvtu96wssero Topic:Rypf2ks1i0cidumw Topic:Rz281tsrgcffg0bj Topic:Rz5by3nm618x1n4y Topic:Rz5cnqjkus7rqd7l Topic:Rz5cx55r30oyyvsh Topic:Rzo00ryg5ul02abn Topic:S00qtb5yibfw0q7x Topic:S05xxbcvxn1tofk4 Topic:S13nyy3jzxy5ahmr Topic:S181jfg27kor2tso Topic:S1c9ebcxnu4pppnj Topic:S1cjn6eiu9h5dlgk Topic:S1copfbky7gck0bj Topic:S1dqvr0dtp47h71a Topic:S1dr5fh98okcorc1 Topic:S1em4t7nn0p3nn8h Topic:S1h3933zeog0cpxe Topic:S1i6zqcol3471dkx Topic:S1q61dg0mhz4t9wx Topic:S1q61h8nfvq5ledq Topic:S1q7oxlwwt9r7rh0 Topic:S1qbdrfjaqng8ian Topic:S1qbe3suy3q2kqjq Topic:S1rb6cyeflv6xr0u Topic:S1rokyfexfgrds25 Topic:S1rsimizubqr25wm Topic:S1s9kwimy3w2q17j Topic:S1tjxiprhu4pq210 Topic:S1u4yp09cwg7ku3l Topic:S1v8pwwjdakbykgv Topic:S1v8qj55aa2c6rxg Topic:S1wdara6nyes2aj8 Topic:S1wvhwpoe9wskazr Topic:S1yrttgeogsxkzaf Topic:S1ys2ix7fqykm4ip Topic:S1ysor64e7ftn36e Topic:S214uoczkp47cfsx Topic:S22eceruv8s9u8sg Topic:S22f5pwu98gqltl1 Topic:S22olnmzgd49twr0 Topic:S22zgkpn8ixojs1p Topic:S2399mivp8txsu3m Topic:S23kgr0jal6zroqo Topic:S23kkclhy8znphxq Topic:S23uj2m46ddqu1ho Topic:S23uradqq4mcu6t7 Topic:S241yfb05mdit5lw Topic:S2420aqeh58prjku Topic:S242pi3lqt3zv3ep Topic:S24382ardxqkme01 Topic:S24ac64e6mbvijzb Topic:S250cdau3plwcumm Topic:S25ozqoyyyti90qz Topic:S265wunk0r2d402s Topic:S284f48h4hc8q2k1 Topic:S2idzg0eoe9fuu7e Topic:S2jtnhujc0f480sf Topic:S2mti8w8pww07s5t Topic:S2mtqnqvnkubl0g1 Topic:S2n4acq720znw1xf Topic:S2n8v8tnlfrk509z Topic:S2ql633g5m56vlhd Topic:S2rbb4w1p9qdfp0n Topic:S2t1dxc6dlmyjirr Topic:S2v4qeax80w8yeg7 Topic:S32c3vyqzrrpkecf Topic:S34v0h47jrigscnz Topic:S3529auswuu84azj Topic:S352i4v9e2g8lvdm Topic:S352n0v45qkgo5jf Topic:S3fk630d1w86krt3 Topic:S3gqo83y6prj9uz0 Topic:S3grrxbq6z10f8hx Topic:S3i5bi461ihp3g4o Topic:S3i5durwbrwlq6lf Topic:S3ilu64hv0ycp5kw Topic:S3l0bi92tf3dx207 Topic:S3l0za726rend89a Topic:S3sq5imdhyrmn7hg Topic:S3t1c9ave8zb7v0n Topic:S3wy4k7w3zoxc0x3 Topic:S3y884fqbhu664zp Topic:S437gf01r85go7bv Topic:S52i493buoig5v4s Topic:S5mi9ix8l1qn486g Topic:S5mjsn123wnqf82u Topic:S5qvrfumqu66qb00 Topic:S5vpjymr68meixvl Topic:S6cs27cpna857ain Topic:S6r2nyjqw6af3st6 Topic:S6wasloi43b4txyx Topic:S7f9yyfbu0cqivmn Topic:S7fii863nue66tsd Topic:S7fijf7mt6qjh7a2 Topic:S7j7ks4mk1c7npxq Topic:S7j7s3mmp0wrk72r Topic:S7pkgvv2nowwcijn Topic:S7s05wstqxtvymoh Topic:S81252venaxzoacn Topic:S886rl0zmi63q8bo Topic:S8tlwqzsjokxw2ay Topic:S8w89gu6pjik08q8 Topic:S98ey9t0l32jcvlr Topic:S9dmg8qdq4b30yg6 Topic:S9etkj8n5nbv7pog Topic:S9votlzzkv0yz49e Topic:S9vousecxfm7f5kk Topic:Sadzz6ecrahbu1rh Topic:Saumrf14fgkug35n Topic:Sb0u3fyy1eox4y5g Topic:Sb1ovdic23s3w8ms Topic:Sbzpql0r1xfvzjk0 Topic:Scmix26xcsl8zlgt Topic:Sczumpu0926ovh8u Topic:Sdf3qvfyxvn5r4lo Topic:Sdpnsn4qfydc0y48 Topic:Sdxauohvvrq5i7fy Topic:Se3tpvby1zseihkh Topic:Se3zqvmtbemna05e Topic:Sej3daex9w9p6zu0 Topic:Selbmxmvhx79462g Topic:Senxuld08yrnaule Topic:Seqg4ts1ay08x3o6 Topic:Seqg94edqaui3b32 Topic:Seqgdo6zmsl0o7gn Topic:Seqggexsxnvye8eq Topic:Seqgogbw48ji9390 Topic:Seqgu61ja0eh7tam Topic:Seqh1ikl71hsz3uq Topic:Seqhhrkyxc56ig2b Topic:Seqhil7wy61c5k2m Topic:Seqhlxh1winmcwrn Topic:Sf3nr52mh35a3w8u Topic:Sf3oyufm6m7jwr6v Topic:Sf53jzebwy4uc4nz Topic:Sf85yion468u58jl Topic:Sf85zvk94qlq36ym Topic:Sf8606zkb1v2n18s Topic:Sf860wthjg0yf80p Topic:Sfk375xm0dt1hcgo Topic:Sfptvodwoeocxkx1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• These are WP:Flow test pages. See here, the software would previously recreate the pages if deleted, now it appears we literally cannot perform the delete function on these pages at all. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  Admins can delete content using the dropdown menu ("...") on each topic and on each post, e.g. admins can try creating/deleting topics and posts at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. There's no delete link in the header-tab currently (for topics and boards), but that is coming soon with phab:T90970. A number of other deletion features and bugs are also being worked on at the moment or in the near future (e.g. phab:T62552 and phab:T94944).
  re: the inscrutable names of these topics, they plan to re-examine this at some point soon. That issue is tracked at phab:T59154. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This needs escalating back to the devs and WMF. It's not as if we don't have a gazillion backlogs already, without this extra crap. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive use of multiple accounts

All these users appear to be socks of each other. All have majority of their edits in userspace, similar looking user pages, and have made silly comments on each others' talk pages inviting them to view their sandboxes.

• Eunbee199513 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AnthonyAguila24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unknown624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renee1483 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anillaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ms.popsie21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ellieclang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Minho12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ParaSaCompArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuatemalaRichmonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link Patsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SupermanKael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hannakimithree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wakashita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JaLoves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kelly120913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I smell a college class (in the nicest possible sense of the word). Amortias (T)(C) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of these users have also caused some page-move trouble. Kelly120913/sandbox and Wikipedia:Ricky Gutierrez should be moved back to where they came from. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved them into the mainspace (which is what it appeared they were trying to do) and tagged the redirects for speedy as implausible typos. Amortias (T)(C) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Ricky Gutierrez (artist) should be moved to the sandbox or to draft namespace. It does not have any refs at all and may get CSD'd. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I did put up a few blp prods last night and then they went back into the sandbox oddly. Some of them seem to have redirects I couldn't put the real name as they did that already. (Also I did create one redirect and sent one a message) it was odd last night though when I saw it. — Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW might want to add these: User talk:Kielloggs, User talk:Yellybelly, User talk:Ellasexygandara and User talk:Nikkilodeon (which this one I sent a note to about putting a redirect for). — Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a known college project: Wikipedia:School and university projects/Philippines artists lists 28 accounts. Alsee (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I too thought this was sock puppetry when I first saw it because of the spooky uniformity of edit patterns.

@Anillaj: @Ascension221: @JaLoves: @Kelly120913: @Yellybelly: @Unknown624: please announce yourselves properly on the project page and get your lecturer to explain why they are not teaching you how to use <ref> tags and are allowing very poorly linked and referenced articles to be moved into mainspace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Wgolf: I am shocked to see you using external link format for wikilinks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:UBX Renamed and Broken Userboxes

As many of you may have noticed already, User:UBX has been renamed resulting in all userboxes hosted under it to become red links on your userpages. The main thread about this is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:UBX -> User:UBX~enwiki Broke Everything. I am posting this here to stop others from opening side threads and ask people to instead direct comments to the above linked thread. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's now fixed. And I'm alright. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request alteration of WP:EDR entry's wording

Hey, about two years ago Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was banned from editing Japanese literature articles and interacting with me. The precise wording by User:DangerousPanda was A mutual IB between them and User:Elvenscout742 (now renamed to User:Hijiri88) was originally in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IB for Tristan. They are also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed. Although the IB was lifted for Elvenscout, they have been warned to neither poke the bear nor "grave dance".

The last sentence was actually not supported by anything in the thread except a statement by User:Zad68 that I should continue refraining from interacting with Tristan noir as I already had been doing. The latter user's later comment makes it impossible to interpret the earlier statement as an accusation that I had been at fault. I didn't oppose the addition of a warning to me initially, since it didn't have any negative consequences, but that has now changed. The gender-neutral plural wording "they are also topic-banned" has also been misinterpreted as applying to me, which is the exact opposite of the consensus of that thread.

This, on top of the fact that I've gone over two years without either "poking the bear" or "grave-dancing" with regard to Tristan noir (who hasn't even edited in over a year), inclines me to ask for the last sentence of Tristan noir's IBAN/TBAN to be removed, and for "they are" to be changed to "they [Tristan noir] are".

I was going to just message DangerousPanda, but that user hasn't edited in four months, apparently as a result of ArbCom desysopping him. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make the change myself.

So I'm here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• First thing: I support clarification of the pronoun "they" to something equally gender-neutral but that doesn't cause potential singular/plural confusion. That seems noncontroversial. As for the note of the warning to you, I think it was 100% appropriate, but is no longer necessary to keep it displayed one year later, especially since there does not seem to have been further issues and Tristan has been gone for over a year. I am also uncomfortable with the word "fabricated" because of its connotations, but a wording change at this point seems like a bit futile, so we could leave it. My new proposed wording: "Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. Tristan is also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed.". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that Tristan has also expressed unease at the use of the verb "fabrication" (see my talk), I'm looking for alternative that would still accurately describe the events without imposing the overly negative connotations. Perhaps "initiated" might be better? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Following an incident initiated by Tristan" works. TN doesn't seem to mind it either. By the way, it's technically inaccurate to say he has abided by the ban since February 2013. Just to clarify, since the "incident" in question involved TN not editing for an extended period and emerging immediately when I mentioned them in order to present a skewed picture to an admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Instigated by"? Squinge (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Given it's the admin noticeboards, "ignited" is probably the best word. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Squinge + Blackmane: Technically the incident was that once the earlier mutual IBAN was put in place the user stopped editing, then after close to two months I edited an article he had previously edited, and he immediately complained to the admin who had closed the previous thread. He then started editing a large number of articles on my favourite topic, in which he had never edited before, and then when I responded I was blocked for violating the IBAN. The general consensus was that TN had violated the IBAN by closely watching my edits while not editing himself, and baiting me with the Japanese classical literature edits. There was no admin noticeboard activity involved in the "incident", so Blackmane's "ignited" argument doesn't really work. :P

@Salvidrim: I am not opposed to any of the verbs that have been presented as alternatives for "fabricated". Looking back on it now, I think what DP meant was that the "incident" I had supposedly instigated was in fact made up by TN, which would explain the choice of words. All of the options change this meaning, but it's not really a problem. I don't think anyone would oppose you changing the word to "initiated", so if you wouldn't mind doing the honours and changing the "they" to "Tristan" and removing the last sentence as well?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My "ignited" comment was meant to be facetious as every regular to the admin noticeboards that "incidents" have a tendency to devolve into fiascoes, debacles or perhaps even conflagrations, hence "ignited". Salvidrim's edited text is and explicit wording avoids confusion. Blackmane (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since it's been five days with no opposition, and no comment for three days, and this thread is therefore in danger of getting archived without a close, I'm making the changes, in accordance with User:Salvidrim's emendations, myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not so fast, Hijiri88. I propose that, if we are to follow Salvidrim's suggestions, that we let said user and admin Salvidrim adjust the wording. And since you just commented (and I did), this won't be archived. Ping Salvidrim... Drmies (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• No objections, so I was about to update the wording as proposed anyways, so whoever implements it matters little. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that. I think that on principle it's not a good idea for the involved editor to go ahead and make changes involving their own restrictions. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Drmies in theory, hence my coming here rather than doing it myself from the beginning. I only made the change myself after discussion had taken place here because I was worried that (like the original discussion of the incident) the thread would get archived without anyone actually making the change that everyone had already agreed to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's considered good practice to have an admin make changes to editor restrictions or sanctions after it's been reviewed on AN, if only to avoid the drama when another editor views the page history and, without doing due diligence, sees an editor changing their own restrictions. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Level scaling

The Solapur city has enough references now, can its quality level be changed from start class to mid class or some higher value??? Ankush 89 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question for the Administrators' Noticeboard. In future try WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse for questions like this. Anyway have you read the assessement criteria for whatever wikiprojects quality rating you're referring to e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Assessment or Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment#Quality scale, including the detailed criteria if it has one? If you have and are still confused does the wikiproject have a way to request assessement? If they do (both cities and India do, look at the earlier linked help pages) I suggest you ask for one. If they don't have one or for whatever reason you want to do the assessement yourself, I suggest you ask on the appropriate wikiprojects talk page. BTW, I'm not aware any wikiproject has such a thing as a mid class quality value. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the article talk page, there's a template at the top mentioning Wikiprojects that track the article, with links to the quality scales used by those wikiprojects. You could either ask at the talk pages of the named wikiprojects, or just examine the quality scales and change the article ratings yourself if you think the criteria are met. In practice nobody pays much attention to those ratings though, except for the GA and FA ratings. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That blacklist entry may not be needed now - I think back then we could not protect a redlink. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Huggle reporting 1k+ edits per minute

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 the last few minutes the Edits per minute counter in huggle has steadily climbed from the average 100 epm to around 1000. I've never seen it that high and wikipulse seems to confirm this. Is there a problem with wikipedia? This is pretty weird, and I don't know where to post it so I'm just going to leave it here. Hopefully we can get some answers. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• MediaWiki message delivery is currently delivering massive numbers of messages related to SUL finalization. I suspect that may be what is being detected. Monty₈₄₅ 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That would explain it, thanks! Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was amused by seeing those notices go to User:Vandal, who is now User:Vandal~enwiki‎ BMK (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It also auto-created User:Vanda1~commonswiki, which was subsequently reported at WP:UAA by the bot as a potentially disruptive sock acct. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

CfD backlog

There is currently a backlog at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure that goes all the way to January. jps (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter has now closed one discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And I have closed several more CFD's last week, this is not the only case.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

Admins are too busy giving each other high-fives for all their hard work. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, your comment is insulting and unhelpful. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if all these admins did what they promised at their RfA, there would not be a backlog, would there? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, look at that! I closed the oldest outstanding CfD! Could you show the community how many you closed in the time since this thread was opened? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts has a pattern: he insults admins in general whenever he sees an opening to do so, but will humbly request their services on the noticeboards whenever he needs them. It seems that admins are A-OK with him when he wants their services. BMK (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar to you, Ken. You cry for their help, but when they don't help you, you "ban" them from your talkpage, like a small child who doesn't get his way. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Never happened. BMK (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I've banned two admins from my talk page in 11 years here, neither of whom I ever asked for help. Both were jerks. BMK (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:RPP

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

---

There appears to be a backlog of 8 hours and 18 requests at WP:RPP. If any admins are free, could they start looking at these requests please? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The board is pretty much caught up as of now. Thanks for the alert. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:UAA

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

---

RFPP may be caught up, but UAA is backlogged. BMK (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Caught up as of now, BMK. See you tomorrow, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. BMK (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Close please...

I started an RfC at Talk:G. Edward Griffin on the characterisation of laetrile within the article, a response to repeated demands by one user to substantially change the lede in this regard.

The RfC has been running for a while, I think consensus is pretty clear, but we are still seeing new requests for edits based on the same arguments. I have no wish to pursue sanctions against this editor, who I think is sincere and in general a very good sort, but I think that if we cannot draw a line under this and move on, then the endless argufying will lead to sanctions, and that would be a bad outcome for everyone.

So, if someone could pop by and review the open RfCs on that page, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING76.118.223.82 (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just a request for someone to close the RFC. This kind of request is radically different from what WP:Canvassing considers to be problematic. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Do I hear quacking? Guy (Help!) 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Another UAA backlog

If there are any admins hanging around, can you please free up the backlog of user reported filings at the UAA board? Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The board is caught up again but fills up fast, so any help throughout the day would be appreciated. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Long standing request for admin help

Chaps and chapesses, I have a longstanding request for admin assistance on my talk page. I have tried the IRC channel the other day and today to no avail. All I need is someone experienced in these matters to answer on my talk page. I'm surprised this has taken a while since I usually receive an answer very fast indeed. I wonder if that means that I have posed a difficult problem. Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Idiocracy

Someone please explain to me how is this considered vandalism. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by a user and an anti-vandal bot. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If a valid edit is reverted by an anti-vandal bot, the message from the anti-vandal bot includes instructions on how to report false positives. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't address the issue with the registered editor reverting the IP edit except to note, as another poster did, that the IP edit didn't include an edit summary. In my opinion, this thread wasn't worth opening here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For your sake, I hope you are not suggesting that any edit without an edit summary is vandalism. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Pinging involved editor @Andyjsmith:. You changed a long-standing three-column reflist to a 30em-per-column reflist. According to WP:BRD (Bold-revert-discuss), you boldly changed the columning, presumably the editor did not feel it proper to break that long-standing status quo and reverted it, and it is time for you to discuss (at the article talk Talk:SpaceX or directly to the editor at User talk:Andyjsmith) if you still feel strongly that this change is legitimate. Please note that you have technically went over the WP:3RR limit (3 reverts on one page within 24 hours), and you can be blocked for that. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't broken 3RR, and I have yet to see an explanation how my edit constitutes vandalism. I also don't agree that this minor change, which improves reflist on smaller displays, requires a discussion. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A helpful tip is to include edit summaries to your edits explaining your rationales, so that others can know what you are doing and don't jump to conclusions of vandalism. PS. Please don't edit-war with MarnetteD at Imprint Entertainment over a single empty line break. While the columning parameter change was legitimate as per below, this one literally has no visible effect and such repeated reverting can be seen as unconstructive. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry - if I happen to need your advice, I will ask for it on your personal talkpage, not on this noticeboard. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Replying with hostility to a helpful comment is not helpful. Edits that are made without edit summaries and without talk page discussion are often reverted.

• The edit was clearly rolled back as if it were vandalism. It is clearly not vandalism! It's a barely noticeable minor edit to the ref list that presumably served a legitimate purpose. Andyjsmith is clearly the one in the wrong here. Don't revert good faith edits without any explanation!! BRD is a helpful dispute resolution method but it's not a damn license to edit war without explanation! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for information: specifying a fixed number of columns has been deprecated for some time: see Template:Reflist#Columns for detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well there you go then, case closed. That's good information, thanks. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Still not "vandalism" by our definition though. BMK (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, not only was it not vandalism but it's the preferred format. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Right! I had it backwards. BMK (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• IP users as always have to fix everything after registerd users and what do we get? called vandals....134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are still some users and a few administrators with common sense, otherwise Wikipedia would quickly become obsolete. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"IP users as always have to fix everything..." Riiiight. BMK (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are IP users who do good work. The reason why I don't register a regular username can already be (indirectly) seen here - sooner or later I would get a bunch of stalkers reverting me and a couple of administrators blocking me at their leisure. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This IP6 editor has been identified as a long-term disruptor at the project pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7/Archive and Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal. He's been edit warring at Jessica Barth, Quantum Leap, Vignette (road tax), Freed from Desire, Salem (TV series), Mercator (retail), Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song) and filing trivial complaints at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Trouble_with_User:Binksternet and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#User:Binksternet.27s_long-term_malice. It's highly likely that he is a banned editor hiding under the anonymity of various IPs. This person is not here to improve the encyclopedia. It is within policy to revert all of the edits of a banned or blocked user. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I went to a little fishing with my previous comment, and I caught a big one here - I rest my case. Also, this case has already been solved with Swarm's assistance, so it can now be closed. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

2001:7e8:c624:b001:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7, you shouldn't be closing this case. You're involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, you can close it for me. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This should not be closed at all. The very title of this section insults the very process we have here, the OP insults the majority of our contributors and almost all of our administrators,[171] flippant attitude[172] and admitted trolling of the OP[173] deserves some administrative attention here. Examining the user's (few) contributions, they are obviously here only to stir up trouble. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, calm down. Maybe this section will not be closed, but it is going to be archived soon. To clear things up - the person you said I insulted is not an administrator, my attitude is of no concern to anyone but myself, what you call trolling was baiting a reverting stalker at best, and with your last sentence you have even identified yourself as one. Well done. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You were advised to take the dispute to the article talk page. Why did you not take that advice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm illiterate. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that word means what you think it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when you and I can have an objective discussion together about how we can improve Wikipedia instead of edit warring, Binksternet. Sadly, that seems as far away from your goals as Andromeda Galaxy is away from the Milky Way. Looking at the two WP links that you have provided here in an attempt to make a point, you are right and wrong. It is true that I, as a person, am of far greater importance than Wikipedia or the entire Internet combined, and so are you, Binksternet, even if my personal opinion of you is almost entirely negative. However, I do disagree with your second WP link where you seem to intimate that I'm a vandal, even after the administrator Swarm cleared it up that I'm obviously not. Apparently, you have a history of such actions against any editor who dares to object your inappropriate everyday-actions, even when (yet another) administrator blatantly tells you that you are wrong and orders you to correct your mistakes, which instead you prefer to carry on wherever you see fit (even to this noticeboard). Be well, Binksternet. It has been a pleasure talking to you, and I hope to see you respond again soon. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IBAN notice

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:The_Rambling_Man#Contravention_of_IBAN

Would someone take a look at this and address it one way or other? Thanks. - jc37 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's really no point in IBANs if no-one cares about enforcing them. The best outcome here would be for Medeis to apologise and explain that it was a momentary lapse. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• It would probably help if someone actually notified Medeis of this discussion. I've just let them know about it on their talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a technical objection to an RfC which was wrongly worded. ITN/R is based on the assumption that any item listed on it has significantly strong support overall as to its importance that repeatedly listing it is a waste of time. Therefore, the question at hand should be, "does consensus actually exist to retain this item?" not "is there consensus to remove this item?" In fact, given any lack of strong consensus the item should be removed. I believe I made that clear in my original statement.

That being said, there's no TBAN on either of us, I made no personal comment, but purely on the topic (we are both allowed to edit any topic at ITN or related to it, even if the other has edited or created the same thread, as per the original 2012 IBAN discussions, so long as we do not revert each other or refer directly to each other's comments). The RfC itself is not a comment. I did not respond to any comment of TRM's. We have agreed and disagreed on dozens of items either or both of us has worked on or nominated with this being the first suggestion one cannot object to the wording of an RfC. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This was a direct contravention of the IBAN. The comment was made as a direct response to my proposal. It's clear. Not to mention that your own statement was not only erroneous, but that you were told as much by at least two other editors. As it is both incorrect and a contravention of the IBAN ("These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted."), it'd be best for you to strike it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Medeis: you're wrong. Now forget it and move on. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologising when you're wrong is more appropriate than forgetting it... --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but forced apologies are not apologies. I'd rather he decided that for himself. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the patently erroneous nature of Medies' edit, it would be helpful and equitable if the IBAN was enacted equally. Or else we should remove the IBAN altogether and go for a free-for-all once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to move on, I did not start this, and I agree that a forced apology is not an apology. Had I called TRM "disgusting" in an edit summary I might apologize for it, although I'd actually just expect to be blocked or desysoped instead. But RfC's and section titles and blurbs don't belong to anyone, and given we've both been editing the same threads, since the IBAn was put in place explicitly allowing us to do so since the beginning of 2013, I am not sure what has changed. Merely objecting that an RfC begs the question is not a personal comment.

I still believe that any RfC about an item on ITN/R should be worded, "Is there consensus to keep the item", not otherwise, given the whole notion is based on an assumed consensus which in many cases never existed. I did not call TRM disgusting in an edit summary within the last week, or even address any of his edits of the RfC thread: I avoided reading them as I am supposed to. Note that I have not commented further in any way on the RfC, do not know its current status, and have been happy to accept the status quo.

Nor did I say on 9 March 2015 that "It matters not a jot what you have to say here, this is not about you, has nothing to do with you and your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion stands, as does the IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 5:40 pm, (UTC−4)" when Baseball Bugs suggested dropping the IBAN at least between the two of them, if not me.

I suggest any concerned admin read the original three ANI discussions beginning in November 2012 that made it quite clear that TRM and I could still edit the same pages and threads, just not address each personally other or revert or characterize each other's edits. Edits are not the same as nominations, and for two years neither TRM nor I has complained when I or he has disagreed on the merits of a thread at ITN or elsewhere, regardless of who nominated it. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, the IBAN should be implemented equally. This is a clear infringement of the terms of the IBAN. There's little else to discuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have no intention of continuing this, filing a counter-complaint, or explaining myself further, but it did occur to me sleeping on the matter that the topic involved in the ITN/R discussion is one that seems to be dear to TRM's heart. So, out of good faith, I will admit no wrong, but simply refrain from commenting in threads he starts on that topic going forward. It matters to him, and I can understand that. If an admin wants further comment please ping me. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, the IBAN should be implemented equally. This is a clear infringement of the terms of the IBAN. There's little else to discuss. The "dearness to my heart" is a red herring, and let's not forget that not only did Medeis deliberately comment in objection to my own comment, she did it with false assertions, clearly indicated to her by numerous other editors. It's the absolutely abject and flagrant abuse of the IBAN that needs to be addressed, in equality to the way I have been dragged through ANI some four, five, six times under false pretences. This is a clear and absolute violation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I can see why the entire Wikipedia universe holds most admins in disdain. This obvious case of IBAN infraction has been overlooked for a fortnight, and yet the resulting discussion is inevitable. Someone will say "Medeis, please play nicely" and conclude the post. So when that happens, please remove the IBAN altogether so that I can freely express my concerns over a number of her edits and false assertions without being subject to yet another trip to ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is, of course, a step you can personally take which would instantly raise the average quality level of the admin corps. BMK (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't do that, Beyond My Ken. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Does something about the irony of one of the worst admins on Wikipedia complaining about the quality of the admins on Wikipedia not bother (or amuse) you? BMK (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just taking a cursory glance at your talkpage and its history demonstrates that you are far from being in any position to criticise the behaviour of any other single person on Wikipedia. That's irony! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems you overlooked one fairly salient fact: I ain't an admin, who, I recall, "are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... [They] should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." BMK (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Glass houses Kenny, glass houses. And, ironically, for all your persistent stalking and criticism, you don't actually do anything about it. Time to put up or shut up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Manny, Manny, Manny, what are we going to do with you?

Manny, I'm not some fool you can goad into tilting at windmills for your amusement. But you know what I think is interesting, Manny? Here we are, on the Administrators' noticeboard, where any number of administrators hang out. I posted a commented referring to you as "one of the worst admins on Wikipedia" about eleven hours ago, and not a single admin has seen fit to contradict me or speak out on your behalf.

Do you think that means something, Manny? Do you think that perhaps it might mean that they know, as do I, that showing any pattern of misusing your tools would be difficult, if not impossible, and that because of that there's little to no chance of getting you desysopped by ArbCom, but that they also know that your combative attitude, rudeness, lack of collegiality, incivility, self-centeredness, and general unpleasantness makes you the poster child for the type of person who should never have received the bit in the first place, and that is what makes you one of the worse admins on the project? Do you think that might be possible, Manny, that your fellow admins don't think very highly of you either? BMK (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously Ken, either do something about it or stop stalking me and making personal attacks against me. Continuing to do that will result in your account being blocked. And actually, since none of this is relevant to this topic, I suggest you either continue it at an appropriate venue or get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Continuing to do that will result in your account being blocked." Manny, can you clarify for me -- was that a prediction of a possible future action being taken by another admin, or were you seriously threatening -- right here on the Administrators' noticeboard, in front of all these admins -- to block me for a discussion in which you are quite obviously WP:INVOLVED?

So, "stalking you"-- by which I presume you mean WP:HARASSMENT, since we don't call it "Wikistalking" any more -- is a very serious charge, Manny. I presume you're prepared to back it up with evidence presented at AN/I? (BTW, I doubt very much whether a long-term editor's evaluating your worth as an admin is ever going to be considered to be a "personal attack", but you can try.) BMK (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's commonplace to be blocked for calling someone a "jerk". Now then, stop disrupting this discussion for your own pleasure, and take it where it counts, if you have any courage to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my question above -- were you threatening to block me for a discussion in which you are quite clearly WP:INVOLVED? BMK (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, Manny, you opened up this subject area when you wrote "Honestly, I can see why the entire Wikipedia universe holds most admins in disdain." BMK (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. You have, separately, called me a jerk. That's (another) personal attack for which you can be blocked. It's all very simple. And no, your interjection, as you were informed by Sluzzelin, was neither needed nor wanted. Now, go do something practical about your complaints, or stop trotting out the same broken record. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's "irrelevant" to ask an admin whether he was threatening to block an editor over a discussion in which the admin was involved? That's an interesting view you have of your duties and responsibilities to the community, Manny.

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to your formal charge of WP:HARASSMENT at AN/I, and all the evidence you're going to produce of my following you around to articles and talk pages I've never been to before simply to criticize you. Should be interesting. (Oh ... wait ... when you wrote "stalkiing", was that ... rhetoric?) BMK (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

BBC Technology journalist wants to talk to admin(s) about checkuser

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.

---

BBC Technology journalist, Rory Cellan-Jones, would like to talk CU with someone. This is follow up from the Grant Shapps sockpuppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive. Anyone interested can contact Rory on Twitter @ruskin147 Nthep (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I passed him on to Jimbo. As usual with Wikipedia dramas of this sort, the details can't be discussed publicly but people still want to talk about it so they fill in the gaps with speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This has already made its way to WP:RFAR. anybody who actually knows anything about it is not likely to be feeling very talkative on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Legitimate requests such as this, from bona fide journalists, are not a matter for Arbcom, and should not be hatted in the above manner. Both WMUK (as this is a UK issue) and WMF have professional media officers whose job it is to handle such queries (and who have been doing so in this case) and to whom RCJ should be referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. Of course responding to a query from a journalist is not a matter for arbcom. The propriety of what one specifc CU may or may not have already told another journalist is the matter now before arbcom, making it unlikely (and probably inadvisable) for any other CUs to feel like discussiong this in public lest they too be dragged before the committee. I can assure the entire functionaries team is well aware of the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI on OTRS auto-responses

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know that following an internal discussion amongst the OTRS team, which was preceded by a discussion on Commons, we have went ahead and enabled auto-responses for English-language permissions tickets. As a result, you may notice an increase in users mentioning ticket numbers when attempting to get their files undeleted, an increase in AbuseFilter hits caused by non-OTRS members adding their own templates or other activity relating to this change.

If you have any questions feel free to drop a line here or at the WP:OTRS/N. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?

With 63 threads of its own at the time of this writing, transcluding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure onto this board makes it unduly long and cumbersome. Wouldn't it make sense to dispense with the transclusion?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It also gets them done, albeit slowly - which is hardly a surprise since they would not be on the list if they were easy. As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I read the board backwards, from the bottom up, so when I hit the closure section I just stop reading and go to my next task. BMK (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep them transcluded per the first bullet point at the top - "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (my bolding). Otherwise the RfC backlog will be logged here as a normal incident that will then disappear off this page in a couple of days with no action. Maybe if a few admins actually did something about the backlog, it wouldn't have a massive transclusion... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the problem is, was, and probably will continue to be that stuff gets listed there that does not need a formal close by an uninvolved admin. The difficulty is establishing some sort of uniform standard for what should and should not require a formal close. Not sure what to do about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice you've repeatedly asserted that funny belief at this noticeboard over time, but in all reality, it does not improve anything at all and often doesn't gel with reality. Even using your excuse, it takes a few short seconds (or minutes) to specify those items which don't actually need to be closed - I've certainly done that, but it hasn't changed the inordinate delay for the discussions required to be closed by an administrator to actually be closed by an admin. The actual problem which brought the listings here in the first place is that an inadequate number of duly elected administrators properly participate in this task (which is perhaps ironic given the number of promises made during RfAs promising to clear backlogs). It was hoped that more eyes would improve that situation by transcluding the discussion here, and I can say it certainly has improved since the listings were brought here, though not nearly as much as was probably hoped at the time. Of course the other reality is that many of these closures take a significant amount of time to do properly and are sometimes too complex or difficult for the administrators who are less experienced at this type of thing. That said, it is also very convenient to blame everyone else except the numerous users who voluntarily sought tools but at the same time will not do what it is they were elected to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some doesn't, some does, but like it or not, we have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit. If you don't want to, then fine, but I think it's a basic courtesy that when people launch RfCs and such they should be able to expect that the time spend discussing the issues will result in some form of closure. Yes, in many cases it doesn't need an actual admin, but it seems to make people more inclined to draw a line under things if it is. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • But sometimes the discussion reaches a natural conclusion, and a formal close is just that, a complete formality and totally unnecessary. Unfortunately, the difference doesn't seem to be recognized by Cunard, who is basically the editor compiling the list, and thus it grows like Topsy, with the discussions that really do need to be closed mixed in with the petty ones that have run out of steam, with everyone basically disinterested, or actually in rough agreement. BMK (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • And contributing is the fact that when admins like me remove items that don't need to be admin-closed, Cunard and others restore them, even undoing an edit that says "this won't be done by an admin, so stop wasting our time". When you're asking for admin action, and a passing uninvolved admin says "no action is necessary", don't go and revert him: you've gotten your admin response. Either it's a suitable response, in which case you need to drop it, or it really needs action, in which case you should make a bigger request (e.g. laying out reasons why a closure is necessary), not simply putting it back and making it look like nobody's touched it yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Despite the fact the second editor who reverted your edit is currently blocked for sockpuppetry, I agree with what you've said generally. However, I think the objection with your edit was not that it won't be done by an admin; instead, the objection was that it was deleting the request which should be archived. I'm sure we had some brief discussion (though I can't remember what came of it) in relation to whether requests should be archived or simply deleted. I'm not spectacularly fussed what happens with those types of requests but think if archiving is taking place, then bot-automated archiving should be done more promptly. It would mean the backlog wouldn't appear so lengthy and we'd be able to more easily ascertain what proportion of requests listed by any given editor were actually unnecessary without having to look through the page's history. While I know there will always be some dispute regarding whether archiving is necessary, perhaps it would be helpful if we could all agree to increase the frequency of archiving by the bot in the interim? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
          • If your objection is simply that I didn't allow the bot to archive the requests, why would you just revert me? Wouldn't you instead spend a while adding a bunch of little "no" templates to all of the ones I removed? (Hmm, takes a while, especially since nobody will ever check the archive...Wonder why I remove resolved items?) Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Well in the meantime, I've just manually archived about 10 discussions which were closed 2 days ago; 24 hours of display is more than enough yet the bot didn't archive them. I still think an increased frequency for the bot to archive would help because now there are just about 26 requests (22 rfcs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually look at the ANRFC section when I visit this page, because I'm not that interested in closing other people's threads. But as a non-admin am I even allowed? If the answer is no, could this be made a bit more clear than it already is? There was a certain recent occurrence where one non-admin posting a large number of ANRFCs requesting "experienced editors" "close" them, without actually going through the discussions themselves and seeing if they needed to be closed, and another non-admin came along and "closed" the already finished and un-templated RFC as a result, providing a dubious interpretation of the "consensus" and leading to a minor fustercluck. The problem on that particular discussion is already resolved, but User:JzG above says "we [admins] have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit". I have my doubts as to whether someone who actually held the mop in question would close an weeks-ago un-templated RFC with a dubious consensus claim, but is it safe to interpret JzG's comment and the fact that ANRFC is on the administrators' noticeboard to mean that admins are generally supposed to be the ones who perform these closes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-admins who busy themselves with NAC on this board. Usually when an admin's accountability is under question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can close RfCs as long as they are uninvolved. Contentious ones may be best left to admins because drama. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As evident here Guy, truer words have seldom been spoken. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes they should remain here. While some may not need formal closure, it is very frustrating when no one seems to find those that do. AN is a good place for them to go as there is a high degree of visibility. Finally (and off-topic), I'd suggest pointing anyone looking for the mop to consider closing a number of these. It's a non-admin task that tells you a lot about how good of an admin they'll be. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  I heartily second everything Hobit just said directly above : ) - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to use {{fakeheader}}s

I propose that we continue using ANRFC as we currently do, but that all requests be placed under {{fakeheader}}s, which would significantly reduce clutter in the TOC while maintaining the same level of usability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a noticeboard. Notices on a noticeboard aren't "clutter", they're notices. Just because you may not care for them, doesn't make them any less valid than any other notice here requesting admin attention. - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I happen to care for them. I'm not proposing that we remove anything! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's an idea but would it not be easier to just use {{toclimit|3}} or similar? Most of the space is taken up by items in need of closing. tutterMouse (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be wary of doing this because sometimes active AN threads make use of "deeper" threading levels... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• True but I think it's a compromise that works as well as your proposal, breaks in long conversations do matter after all. I have a question, does {{fake heading}} have an ability to be used as section anchors as a regular header would? It's also a bit disappointing as they're coded specifically to fit in with Vector which is great if you're using Vector, looks out of place otherwise. tutterMouse (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as an excellent compromise. Being able to use the links in the TOC without having to scroll way down to get to the first thread on this board would be a big help. Efficacy and ergonomics were my main concern and Salvidrim!'s proposal addresses that quite well.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• If it's possible to make sure the TOC at the subpage still shows the full list (so that there's a place to see a summary of the requests for closure for my own workflow), I wouldn't have a problem with this. Sunrise (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  That's not what they are proposing. What they seem to be proposing is to remove the individual entries from the TOC, because apparently they can't be bothered to even look at the backlog, Much less allow it to show rather than be "hidden".

  The idea guys is that this allows those who might not notice the backlog to jump in and close some of these individual discussions, since discussions are closed one at a time, individually.

  And you can't say you're "confused" over whether the discussion listings are part of the transclusion, because I made sure they are under a subheader.

  And I apologise for my annoyance over this, but really, you're all coming across to me like the snobs who don't want "those people" playing in "their" sandbox. Well, the point here is that Wikipedia is built on a consensus model. I'm sorry that posting notices to a noticeboard bothers you all so. But this is the administrator's noticeboard. There simply is no better place to post a request for closure. And having discussions closed is actually just a bit more important than your TOC proclivities. - jc37 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• i wanted to list a discussion at ANI for admin closure for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doors22_-_a_longtime.2C_POV-pushing_editor but there is no spot for ANI in the section above, just deletion, RFC, and moves... what to do? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I guess in future you'd goto WP:AN/RFC, it's where they're transcluded from. tutterMouse (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

it is not an RFC... but OK. I will just do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's not but it is a different sort of RFC, one for closure requests ("requests for closure" over "requests for comment"). Just the sort of problem with having the same acronym for two different things. tutterMouse (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User page profanity

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.

---

What is the policy on user pages like ==MOTHERFUCKER== Shit Bitch Ass Damn Fuck

?? Iceblock (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The julia ginsburg (talk · contribs). The user has not made any edits since their four contributions over a year ago. I'll blank the page after posting this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, User:Johnuniq! Iceblock (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the policy is to delete the page as it is just pure vandalism. I've made the nomination. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Any admin who disagrees may reinstate it if they wish. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why so? It does meet G3, doesn't it? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There is always room for interpretation, based on the other edits from the account, it was likely vandalism, but if you took AGF to the limit, you could come up with some other interpretation. Ultimately, it could have just been left there, and done no harm, as it may be another 4 years before anyone else lands on that particular use page, and the person landing there may not be offended anyway. Blanking it mostly solved the problem to, what are the odds of someone looking in the history, and seeing the vandalism? Deleting the page under G3 is also clearly permissible under policy. Even with the invitation from the deleting admin to reinstate it if another admin merely wishes to, which is as low a standard as you can ask for, another admin would still need some reason to justify tool use to restore it, which I doubt there will be, so it will stay deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Had the account been something like User:Beetrootsalad, I probably wouldn't have bothered. With a personal name on it, I don't like to take a chance. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

TheGracefulSlick

Moved to AN/I. BMK (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Should we start directing users to Special:GlobalRenameRequest?

Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. –xeno^talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User violated personal attacks

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

---

A user by the name of Kuniwa egregiously violated Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks on my talk page, with profanity no less. He just told me to "go fuck [myself]". I'm demanding he be blocked. Thanks. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to this no doubt. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's side are you on, Harry. If you take a look at Kuniwa's edit right here, you'll see he's nothing but a vandal. He added that over 11,000 people had been killed in the earthquake, when everybody knows nowhere near that many were killed. And then he violated WP:NPA. He should still be blocked. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not obviously vandalism. 11500 could be a typo for 1500. Your response is over-the-top and unwarranted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks he's a vandal. Kuniwa just got blocked indefinitely for his disruptive editing. Do you still think my response was "unwarrented", DrKiernan? :) Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the side of civility. If you expect civility you have to be civil yourself, even in the face of vandalism. IME using profanity on someone else's talk page will often lead them to respond in kind. Neither is right of course. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You think it acceptable to call someone a prick and tell them to get a fucking life and then complain when they respond in kind. Look to your own behavior first. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made an additional request of User:Scaravich105nj here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The irony here is hard to miss, complaining that someone said "go fuck yourself" and demanding they be blocked when you just got finished calling them a prick, goddamn vandal, and a douchebag in a single edit. You are lucky not to be blocked yourself right now, so I hope your agreement on your talk is something you take to heart and actually do. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, to each his own, Beeblebrox, to each his own. You know the old saying, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You aren't seriously trying to defend that edit, are you? This doesn't fill me with confidence that you understand why that was wrong and are sincere in your promise not to act like that in the future. You have drawn attention to yourself with this ill-advised thread, as I'm sure you must realize by now. Acting like that again would not be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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