Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283

ECP postings to AN

So, the ECP RfC closed with the guaranteed to be messy requirement of posting every protection to AN. Looking at User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report, the protection is being used, but I'm having a hard time reconciling them to AN postings. HJ Mitchell in closing the RfC you included the Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review... requirement, but it appears to lack a mechanism for use, the protection policy was updated likewise, but I can't see dragging in these admins for "policy violations". How were you expecting this to actually be implemented? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm all for throwing this requirement out the window. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, implementation is not within the closer's remit—the closer determines what the consensus is and pulls out key themes from the discussion. So speaking as the closer, I'd have to say there isn't a consensus for how the notifications should be implemented, though the idea of using MusikAnimal's bot seemed to have quite a bit of support. Speaking for myself, I imagine the use of ECP to be very rare. There have been a few times in the past that I would have killed for something like this and I've had to fully protect articles to prevent grotesque vandalism from autoconfirmed sleepers, but we're probably talking about a few dozen cases in six and a half years as an admin dealing mainly with vandalism and long-term abuse; having looked at MusikBot's report, it seems it's being used for create protections—which is a very good use case that I hadn't thought of. Anyway, being so rare, I hoped that the protecting admin would leave a note at AN with their rationale so that it could be reviewed; if it was obviously necessary, there needn't be any comments, or there can be a discussion if someone feels that ECP is overkill (the idea being to discourage and correct excessive use and to refine the criteria for use—and we might come across another use case that nobody had thought of). I hoped we might have bot-reporting as a fallback, because admins less familiar with the policy on use of ECP will likely be less familiar with the requirement to notify AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So this is leaving the mess - where a requirement for action has been established but following the policy is very cumbersome. I'll call the recent admins here to AN to explain post their recent actions - but if it is acceptable to ignore this policy by default then it really shouldn't be a "policy". — xaosflux ^Talk 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the bot report has been transcluded above; I would be happy to call that sufficient. BethNaught (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it is too, in which case the policy should be amended to remove the action requirement for administrators. Of course, bots may stall or fail - but anyone can always look at the log and call any admin to task to explain their action. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I ECP'ed some PRODded perennially-recreated spam magnets, in lieu of fully locking them. I fear I wasn't aware of this requirement, sorry - I shall endeavour to make good. Seems odd to require posting every ECP but not a higher level ... particularly as User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report exists and seems to do literally the thing demanded. Should I just fully lock these in future, or spam AN? - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Xaosflux, the RfC was merely closed by HJ Mitchell, who in my opinion, did an excellent job. It's not in the closer's remit to carry out any implementations that may be required as a result of the consensus. Strictly speaking, that would be he job of the people who called for it. FWIW, I don't agree either that admins should answer to AN every time they use the new feature, and I said so strongly in my vote on the RfC. That kind of thing is a subtle strawman use by the community of an RfC to undermine the responsibility and maturity we have vested in our admins when we elected them; therefore 'call any admin to task to explain their action' is an unwise comment.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• There was consensus at the RFC that admins have to post here when applying EC protection. This isn't the place to change that; if you don't like policy, then you should take it to a new RFC. We can't just undermine the result of the RFC simply because a few admins can't be bothered to post here every time they apply this level of protection (which should be very rarely). Just my two cents. Omni Flames (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Read again what I wrote. No, I do not like the 'policy' but I did not say it ought to be changed - it's bad faith to take people;s comments out of context; wheter we like it or not, on Wkipedia we work by consensus, Omni Flames. What you may not recognise however (yet), is where the community often uses any kind of RfC to introduce an element of mistrust in our corps of admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think you might be being a little harsh on Omni Flames there, my friend. From the indentation, it doesn't actually look like he's replying to you, and OF means well in my experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell is correct here, my comment wasn't aimed directly at you Kudpung, but rather it was intended as a general comment towards all of the conversation participants so far that if you want to change an RFC result, AN is not the place to do it. My apologies for the confusion, I can see how it might have seemed that way. Omni Flames (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking strictly as the closer, setting my own opinions on ECP to one side (except the bits in parentheses): There was a consensus that these protections should be rare, and that when they're done, there should be a note here so that the community were aware and could discuss it. In fact, a lot of supporters of the new policy were very wary of ECP being over-used or creeping in to be as normal as semi-protection is today; many even made their supports conditional on the principle of minimal use or on there being some sort of announcement. I didn't, for what it's worth, read this as mistrust of the admin corps but rather a desire to track use, define criteria, and explore use cases (for example, David's use of ECP for salt is a use case that wasn't thought of in the RfC, but one that looks like an extremely good use of ECP to me): ECP is new, so we don't have an established 'best practice' for it like we do with most things. Regardless, the requirement for logging was one of the outcomes of the RfC. Implementation wasn't a significant subject of discussion, and so is outwith the remit of the closer.

  Speaking personally, I think tracking these protections is a good idea so we can get an idea of where it's being used and for what, and that it would be a shame to abandon something that was supported by a lot of RfC participants before it's even been tried. And a quick note to AN along the lines of "I extended-confirmed protected Foo for a week because some nutter was using autoconfirmed socks to repeatedly insert gross BLP violations" is hardly "cumbersome" in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• The extended confirmed bullet point at MediaWiki:Protect-text should probably be updated with the requirement to notify AN - Evad37 [talk] 12:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please revise or revert if I misunderstood something. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Cheers, thank you! I had no idea the new protection level contained a bureaucratic boobytrap ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has a point here which I ignored: that of tracking the performance of the new feature. However, the new feature's use will be lost on me because due to the added layer of bureaucracy, I will probably continue to use the harsher, but less contentious Full Protection, especially when I salt pages. That said, due to the increasing criticisms and lack of confidence in the admin corps as a whole, it should not come as a surprise when we start to become sensitive to it. Off topic, sure, but these are partly also the reasons why we are getting so few new admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What are people's opinions on use of ECP for salting?

Discussion moved to WT:PP

While we're here - if this was a use case that wasn't considered, it might be worth talking about. After filing a lot of PRODs, I thought I should do my duty and help clear the backlog I was adding to. So I started clearing expired PRODs, and oh my goodness we have a lot of spammers, many of whom return (usually under other names). So I looked up how to salt things. My reasoning for using ECP was: multiply-recreated spammy articles about companies or people. Autoconfirmed is too light to deal with the problem, full protection seems drastic (in general we want as little locking of articles as possible). ECP seemed a way to make sure it would be generally-sensible users at least, without requiring admin intervention. The alternative would have been fully locking. What do others think? - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC) I think this is an excellent use case, but I think the discussion regarding that should be at WT:PP... --Izno (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Good point; I'll go there and see if you've started a discussion there. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC) WP:MULTI--and as I didn't start the discussion, seems rude to steal the discussion away. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Good point - Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#What_are_people.27s_opinions_on_use_of_ECP_for_salting.3F - please continue there. - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Blatant incivility at User talk:Jimbo Wales

Would someone take a look at this diff? Am guessing no one should oppose this editor. The incident is apparently because of yesterday's AN/I thread. Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

In the context, I think he's equating "you were rude to me so I'm going to be rude back" with "she had it coming", and thus comparing his own sense of victimhood when people tell him to knock off the ad hominems, with the feelings of rape victims. It's a grossly inappropriate comment and if he keeps it up, rather than it just being a moment of frustration, I won't hesitate to block and I doubt any other admin will either, but I don't read it as him actually saying people shouldn't oppose him. To be frank, nobody in that thread (including Jimbo) comes out of it with much credit. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've templated him but it just looks like "don't dare oppose me-anyone!" We all differ and if we can't this place is in a lot of trouble.We hope (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(including Jimbo) - I think Jimbo's comment was spot on, and a rare instance of sanity on this topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea what he was talking about. All I know is that he's milking it with looking for block on Cassianto now and it's wasting a lot of time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So, if you tell someone to fuck off, and then apologise, you're OK. Thanks Jimbo. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat of a straw man. He said "A single time", and I think it's implicit that the hypothetical apology is sincere. In such a case, I agree that it might be forgiven. Such cases are exceedingly rare, and they are not what is being discussed in that thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"A single time" - that's pretty poor form though. It's either OK all the time or none of the time. It's the latter if anyone is struggling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So you would block a 2-week editor who crosses the bright line out of ignorance—quite understandable ignorance, given the level of discourse in most other online talk venues—and then apologizes with apparent sincerity. Ok, just clarifying. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, as I'm not an admin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When you say "It's either OK all the time or none of the time", you are not allowing that there is any other than a literal interpretation of what has been said but "A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way" can also be understood figuratively. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So if I told you to f-off and "quickly" apologised, that would be fine and you'd be OK with that? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The significance of language can be nuanced. We say that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Yes, language can harm. But oftentimes language calls for interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's high time that we add the section "Wikipedia is not a Kindergarten" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Do kindergarteners say "F.U." to each other? Or is that more of an "adult" thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear which side Count Iblis is arguing. It could be, Wikipedia is not a kindergarten, so grow up and grow a thicker skin and stop being such a sissy offended by little words like "fuck off you miserable excuse for a human being", or Wikipedia is not a kindergarten, so grow up and stop using such words. It might be clearer if he had used middle-school instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what he meant, but both are correct. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I went to a rougher school but we all knew how to use "motherfucking asshole", not necessarily to someone's face but still we all knew it. Being adult does not preclude the use of expletives (although apparently you're more intelligent if you freely express yourself with expletives, because reasons.) Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Being adult means treating others with Common Human Respect, the kind you don't have to earn and can't lose, no matter what the circumstances. It's much more than words, but I don't know how you can seriously tell someone to go fuck themselves while showing CHR. I wouldn't say that to the most evil child molester in the world, and not only because it wouldn't serve any purpose but to maybe make me feel better. It should go without saying that these are only my opinions, stemming from how and where I was raised. But my opinions are as legitimate as anyone's, and, while I don't constantly carp about this, I don't shut up completely about it just because I'm in the minority among vocal editors. I've been gradually seeing more and more who pretty much agree with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

But where I come from (Australia), "motherfucking asshole" is a perfectly polite and normal way of saying hello to someone...--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they were referring to this thread. Could someone please close it, like the one at ANI? --Boson (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AC/Case/Fuck off has a nice ring to it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the plot got lost here somewhere, because someone says fuck. That's not inherently uncivil. After all, I just said it, but not in an uncivil way. If you tell someone "You're a fucking idiot", yes, that's rude and uncivil, but so is telling them "You're an idiot." Telling someone to fuck off when they raise a legitimate concern is uncivil. So is telling them to shut up and go away, or doing really anything other than addressing in good faith the concern they raised. That's the problem, not the particular language used in doing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against StuRat

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.

---

StuRat (talk · contribs) is a long-established, and extremely prolific, contributor to the Reference Desks. His contributions cannot really be classified as "vandalism", he does not (unlike some contributors) espouse any particular political agenda, he does not engage in debates on controversial issues, and he does not have a history of making personal attacks on other editors. However, the vast majority of his contributions are an expression of his own opinions and speculations, without any sourcing or references (to Wikipedia or elsewhere), and are very frequently inaccurate. This is not the purpose of the Reference Desks, which is to provide sourced information to people who ask questions. The matter has been raised repeatedly with StuRat over the years, but he shows no apparent intention to change his behaviour.

His most recent contributions, all examples of the pattern, are given below. Emphasis added.

[1] "I would think banning one particular retailer... This seems patently unfair to me..."

[2] "A proportion of those presumably were contracted..."

[3] "...maybe 10 minutes at normal temps... might have eventually died." (This is the worst recent example, IMO, as he's discussing a subject (electrocution) about which (a) he evidently knows very little, (b) has potential to cause death or serious injury).

[4] "Visually, I'd go with tardigrades."

There are many thousands of similar postings in the Reference Desk archives.

Recently, Adam Bishop proposed that we establish a template to disclaim the accuracy of any answers that StuRat gives on the desks ([5]) - this proposal may not have been entirely serious and was quickly closed, but it was supported, while it was open, by Viennese Waltz.

This proposal is entirely serious. In view of his persistent unhelpful behaviour, and his failure to take notice of many criticisms of this behaviour over the years, I would invite community discussion, in accordance with WP:CBAN, on the community banning of StuRat from the Reference Desks. If a less drastic sanction that prevents him from posting unsourced speculation in answer to serious questions is available, I would support that - but I believe the time has come to prevent him from doing it, and a WP:TBAN may be the only effective option. Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support complete ban from the reference desks and all associated pages. I withdrew entirely from the reference desks out of frustration at constantly coming across StuRat posting his (generally ill-informed) opinions as fact and his total inability to comprehend the notion that the Reference Desks are a place for people to provide answers not conjecture, and being faced each time with having to decide whether to challenge or remove his opinions (and face the inevitable backlash from him, as even when he clearly knows nothing about the topic in question he dislikes anyone pointing it out), or letting it slide despite the near-certainty that whatever advice he's giving is wrong. Regardless of whether the proposal was a joke, if he's not banned from treating the Reference Desks as his private chatroom I'd endorse the creation of a {{don't trust anything StuRat says}} template and an explicit permission for anyone to append it to any of his Ref Desk posts without being accused of personal attacks. We're not talking the occasional blip, we're talking literally thousands of problematic comments. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Simply linking to my edit history in no way proves that I have thousands of BAD edits. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - While StuRat may be one of the most prolific offenders, the Reference Desks have for many years been little more than forums, places to engage in stimulating discussions of various topics. Attempts to reform the desks, including one by me, have received responses ranging from "Meh" to "Best not to offend experienced editors". Until such time as there is a more serious approach to RD in general, it is unfair to single out any participant for criticism. The problem is with the community's laissez-faire attitude to RD, not with any individual, and StuRat should be viewed as a symptom, not the illness. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If anyone has a problem with any editor, take it to that editor's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban, but support any intervention that could make StuRat admit that there is a problem here. Idle speculation on the RD's is not helpful, and bland dismissal of the complaint here is not helpful, either. It would be eversonice if StuRat could (a) say "Okay, I'm sorry, I'll try to tone it down a little with the speculation", and then (b) for questions where he'd like to think he knows he answer but in fact doesn't, just sit back and let someone who does actually know the topic, answer. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If only as a thought experiment, I would suggest an alternative sanction, posed as a challenge: for a period of N months, StuRat is to construct his RD answers without using the words "I think", "It seems to me", "presumably", and "speculate". —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC), edited 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't it better to explicitly say so, whenever one speculates ? StuRat (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely. And I know you're honest enough that you wouldn't speculate without saying so. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose there are plenty of other "contributors" to the ref desks who actually state falsehoods as fact, they don't even try to cover the fact they are ignorant of the subject matter. Moreover, when they're picked up on it, they descend into walls of text and never accept their discretions nor improve from it. That's considerably worse than using the language that StuRat is being hung, drawn and quartered for employing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the problem (which does exist, it's not just StuRat here, most editors there include myself are contributing to the problem to some degree) is caused by the way the Ref Desk is set up, which invites forum like discussions. So, what is happening is to be expected. People who have the time to invest a lot of time in the Ref Desk will end up giving their opinions more. If we take a look at the StackExchange website, you see that the format chosen there works better to address this problem. Comments are separated from answers, answers are judged by a voting system and the OP can choose the best answer. Answerers gain reputation points based on the points they get for their answers. What makes the Ref Desk particularly vulnerable to this problem is the fact that there aren't a lot of questions asked compared to the number of contributors. This makes each new question a de-facto new forum topic for the regulars to start posting on. Perhaps we can do one simple thing to improve things, if all Ref Deskers also start to contribute to StackExchange like I've been doing, then that may change the way answers are given in general. At least that's my personal experience. Count Iblis (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - my original proposal on the RD talk page was indeed not meant to be taken seriously; I just meant to point out again that we've tried and failed to deal with this in the past. I don't expect anything to happen this time either, but I support this proposal anyway. It's possible that StuRat does actually give factual answers on the desks I don't visit (computers, math, science), but I would support a ban from Humanities and Language, at least. At the same time, to echo the comments above: no, it's not just StuRat, and yes, to some degree we all sometimes treat the RD as a forum for inside jokes (including me). But StuRat definitely sticks out as the contributor with the least useful input, and the least self-awareness about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• For a few of my factual answers on those two desks, see User_talk:StuRat/lang_correct and User_talk:StuRat/hum_correct. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, see my reasons in the subsection below. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose An insulting bit of overkill. While we don't need this at this time,but fewer "I suppose" based unreferenced answers in areas outside the contributor's area of experience and training would improve the Ref Desk. It is annoying when a naive answer conflates the low amperage high voltage shock from a fence charger with the electrocution from a 120v appliance dropped into a bathtub. A contributor should not assume he knows everything about everything. One RefDesk regular snarls at questioners that they could have Googled their question and gotten the answer in 10 seconds. A Ref Desk regular could similarly Google the question or search Wikipedia for an article with an answer rather than just pulling the answer out of his ass and saying "I suppose...". We already prohibit our volunteers from giving legal or medical advice. Some contributors are subject matter experts within some subject areas, and have dealt with some areas of discourse professionally on a daily basis. But I have often found that a family member or friend who is a lawyer, doctor,or chemist of great experience will hesitate to give a definitive answer to simple questions similar to those on the Ref Desk. They would want to hit the reference books or online resources before giving an answer someone relied on in guiding their actions. We already prohibit our volunteers from giving legal or medical advice. Edison (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Edison's viewpoint, but StuRat apparently does not. What, if anything, can we do about it? If a TBAN is overkill, what alternatives are there? Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If a user states something that's clearly incorrect, you could say "That's not correct" and cite a reason why. Or, go to the user's talk page and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment I saw this thread yesterday and I was very surprised to see it. I occasionally edit at the Science ref desk where I see StuRat. I have thought in the past that some of their edits were less than "well informed", but to be honest, I never perceived them as a major problem. However, it is clear that some members of the community do see a problem. One alternative to a TB is to restrict the number of edits per day to a specific ref page. For instance, they could be restricted to 3 edits per day on the science ref page. This potentially reduces the workload on those who feel they have to correct or comment on StuRat's edits. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some questions can't be taken seriously. The questions do not need to be removed from the reference desks. They have to be handled differently. When an editor weighs in on a poorly positioned question, they are not necessarily "answering" it. Consider the question on "Three second rule", found on the Miscellaneous desk, and cited above. StuRat wrote "A proportion of those presumably were contracted..." Here is the discussion in Archives. Do we seriously care if, in the course of such a discussion, one of our contributors uses the imprecise language of presumably? This falls under the heading of conversational English. Here is the discussion on "Minions", on the Science desk. Yes, StuRat said "Visually, I'd go with tardigrades." But the question is not to be taken seriously. It poses What are these supposed to be? Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Anyone who doesn't want to read StuRat's guesses is free to ignore them, and anyone is free to provide better answers. No one has said that StuRat is giving legal or medical advice, which would be a real problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose StuRat is a long-established, and extremely prolific and generous contributor to the Reference Desks. The problems mentioned are minor compared to the damage that the administrative ban called for by Tevildo would do, and I am relieved to see no consensus here on such selective victimisation. However a different solution is available, which I invite StuRat to consider. Can we agree to a voluntary style guide that requires answers that we give at the Ref. Desks to be kept in small font, the same as off-topic or joking comments unless they contain at least one actual relevant reference link? Agreeing to that means no humiliation, no loss of StuRat's future contributions, and can set a good example voluntarily that others will see and follow. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point, concerning generosity. You mention selective victimisation but wouldn't all victimization be selective? I think your suggestion that StuRat use small font is ridiculous. He is not StuMouse. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My current practice is to use a small font for non-answers. There are many categories of these, such as requests for clarification/more info, noting a change made to the title or format of the Q to make it more readable, references to a talk page discussion about the Q, occasional jokes, and, unfortunately, responses to personal attacks. I note that many other editors don't even do this much, though. If I miss one of these cases, let me know, and I will change my non-answer response to small font. As for making all non-referenced answers small font, that seems over-the-top, to me, as it's already visually obvious if links are included or not, except perhaps for the color-blind. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

StuRat's response

• These are downright trivial complaints. For the most part, these Q's had already been answered and we were down to the friendly discussion that often happens at the end. Read the rest of each post, and you will see what I mean.

• Tevildo apparently wants a Ref Desk totally devoid of anything other than references, which would make it so boring that few would stick around to answer a Q.

• Even though Tevildo cherry-picked my responses to try to make me look as bad as possible, note that I had provided refs in a couple of those links, to tartigrades and fibrillation. Let me provide a few of my more helpful responses, for balance:[6].

• As for what government actions can ban a particular retailer from a city, this was a rather off-topic side discussion after the Q had been addressed.

• As for food-borne illnesses occasionally causing fatalities in dogs and cats, do we really need a source to prove that ? By what magic would this be true in humans but not in dogs and cats ?

• As for the discussion on the electrocution of fish, I discussed the mechanisms of death from electrocution, and certainly didn't advise anyone to bathe with a toaster. To say that my comments were dangerous is absurd.

• As for which microbes resemble the animated movie "Minions", I provided refs, including a pic. Not sure what else I could have done to try to answer in accordance to the guidelines.

• If Tevildo or anyone else is unhappy with another editor's Ref Desk answers, then the constructive action is to add to them, such as with sources, where Tevildo thinks they are lacking. Complaining here is a waste of everyone's time, and not at all constructive. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • (A). The electrocution question is admittedly what prompted me to make it official, but we have more than ten years of this sort of thing ("Those onboard a yacht are probably willing to spend more per person for meals than typical airline passengers"). Please can you stop doing it? (B) Those were just the most recent postings you made, "cherry-picked" only by the order they appear on your contributions list. If it were the occasional lapse into speculation among a reasonable number of good, referenced, answers, nobody would mind. But it isn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• (A) That yacht one is a good example of something so obvious it doesn't require a reference. You apparently think "1+1=2" needs a ref, at least when provided by anyone other than yourself. Your recent contributions to the Ref Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Interesting_Bacterial_or_Viral_Infection certainly contained many links, but none of them established that any of those infections were "interesting" (some type of survey would be needed for that). So, you just supplied your personal opinion for which were interesting. Are sanctions in order ? (B) It's still cherry-picking to select any 4 contiguous edits which you think best illustrates your point. I do have many good/referenced answers, and I provided a link to a few of them above. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The underlying refdesk problem, of which this is just a symptom

If you read the refdesk, you will occasionally run across answers that you believe are wrong.

The right way to deal with this is to give what you believer to be correct answers, with references to back up your claims.

The wrong way is to try to control the behavior of other editors.

The exception is when someone is so disruptive that a report to ANI results in a block. This is true for all Wikipedia pages, and is not at all the same thing as the constant attempts to control the behavior of other editors that plague the refdesks.

comment by User:Guy Macon

• Agreed. There are many editors whose behavior I disagree with, mainly due to a lack of civility/respect for others. But I don't often take those complaints to ANI (for one thing, many of the worst offender ARE Admins). StuRat (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• No – it's more like a symptom of the wider problem that this place doesn't have really any effective method to deal with "good faith" but still moderately disruptive editors. Whether it's the Ref Desks (which, for the record, I think should either be spun out as a separate entity from Wikipedia, or shut down entirely...) or ANRFC or In the News, a lot of these problems could be solved with either a simple Page Ban or with tailored editing restrictions. But experience shows us again and again that no action will be taken against editors like this as long as their edits are perceived to be made in "good faith". So the problems are never solved... But, like I said – the way to solve the Ref Desk problems is simply to get rid of them: I don't consider them to be part of Wikipedia's "core mission" anywho... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should get rid of the Reference desks. I find them to be a vital community composed of all stripes of people in a healthy, competitive environment. I learn a lot from the Reference desks in a rough-and-tumble environment that is in some ways more conducive to learning than the more staid encyclopedic component of our project. One thing I constantly learn is that a lot of people are a lot smarter than me. It is my privilege to add my two cents when I am able to. We've got a good thing going and we should pat ourselves on the back for it. No need to shut it down or spin it off. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then spin them off. But they're not part of this site's core mission, and issues like this one have flared up again and again (I seem to see Ref Desk problems cropping up here and ANI more than any other part of the project) making them a perennial distraction from what we should really be doing here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The most common problems brought to ANI are vandalism, edit warring, incivility and sockpuppetry. Ref desk issues don't turn up there very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

We used to have the exact venue for seeking resolution to editors that were somewhat disruptive but not to the levels required admin involvement, that being Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, but that was closed down due to several issues. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The "core mission" under the umbrella of Wikipedia is education. The encyclopedia is of primary importance. But the reference desks are inarguably important too. They are different from the encyclopedia. One can get feedback from conversational individuals who are willing to field questions. There is an element of role playing. Some people both ask and answer questions. One is a supplicant when asking a question. One is beneficent when answering a question. There is undeniably real human interaction at the Reference desks. The same cannot be said for article space. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line: our En Wiki administrators should not have to continually deal with the drama coming from the Ref Desks. That's not why most of us are here. If the Ref Desks were spun out, like Wikitionary, or Wikiquote, or Commons, then Ref Desks could then get their own set of Admins to deal with the very specific issues that come up at the Ref Desks (and hopefully draft new policies to deal with them). But it doesn't need to be "here"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There are 4 diffs, corresponding to 4 sections on 2 different Reference desks. For context, we need to look to those sections. At the Miscellaneous desk we find Fresh & Easy. Also at the Miscellaneous desk we find Three second rule. At the Science desk we find Electricity and fish. And finally, also at the Science desk, we find Minions. In my opinion, by looking at StuRat's participation in those threads, we find "offenses" ranging from insubstantial to nonexistent. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If not this, how to address the "bigger problem"?

• Saying StuRat is "just a symptom" seriously underplays his role. It's not just the off-the-cuff respond-to-everything approach, despite years of discussions and people complaining. It's that plus the fact that he is the dominant voice of the refdesk. With 64,000 edits there, I don't think anyone else comes close to him in prominence -- and thus what newbies would model their behavior after. When the most prolific contributor treats the refdesk as Yahoo Answers, others will, too. I'm not saying StuRat was the first one to do this, of course, nor that he is the only, but that he is, in my experience (and my experience at the refdesk is indeed less than some of the other participants here), the most consistent offender in addition to being the most prolific. I would probably !vote support if that weren't already snowballed, so we might as well turn to this section and the "bigger issue". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I moved this from under the previous subsection, which I misinterpreted as seeking to fix something rather than a "just ignore him and do the best you can" sort of approach. Those familiar with him can ignore him (and I know you didn't say "just ignore him", Guy, but it's in line with that sentiment and several of the comments above), but those who are not familiar with him are susceptible to his answers that are sometimes false, almost offensively unhelpful, or even harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Change refdesk rules so any editor can hat a comment that answers a question without containing a reference (either to a source or a wikipedia page that is sourced). StuRat's (and others) nonsense will soon disappear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Including hatting situations where an editor attacks an established editor rather than addressing the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  From browsing the ref desks occasionally, the situation you name tends to happen when said established editor replies with uncited bollocks. If an option was there to just hat said bollocks in the first place, I doubt any subsequent 'attack' would take place. But yes, I would favour hatting anything that wasnt a direct (supported) answer to a question or clarification thereof. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  And if the hatting were accompanied by a comment like you just made, the attackee would be justified in un-hatting it, or hatting the hat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  I am pretty sure most people can be more diplomatic and manage 'Hatting - unsupported'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Some will, some won't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Well I am sure you can think of many hypothetical problems to enable the ref desks to continue to be used as a chat forum where people give entirely made up and unsupported answers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Or curious tirades like these.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Given he was responding to StuRat's complaint about travel which contained such gems as 'hotels are unsanitary' and 'as a tourist you are more likely to get robbed', 'I dont like strangers' 'I dont like communicating with people who dont speak English'... Had someone hatted/removed his response (which by the way was to a non-question, entirely a conversation) it wouldnt have been around for someone to get annoyed with. And frankly, I am *glad* StuRat does not like to travel, with that attitude I would hate for him to visit my country, and if (god forbid) he is from my country, I would hate that sort of person to be an ambassador elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  The topic question was "Why are some people so closed minded about the rest of the world? Should I try to motivate them to travel or should I give up? Please share your experience if you have some related to this topic." It was actively soliciting opinions. Either we enact policy stopping these sorts of questions and blocking repeat offenders, or we let the ref-desk be the unregulated mess it has always been.--WaltCip (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Well quite, I have not supported any sort of ban or restriction on StuRat above precisely because the current RefDesk management enables his sort of nonsense. I would also be perfectly happy with the ability to nuke 'topic questions' like the above as a preventative measure. If you cant ask stupid questions, you cant get stupid answers. This is of course, entirely open to more subjective 'what is a stupid question' however I think 'share your experiences of why people dont like travelling' falls squarely in the 'needs to go to a chatroom/discussion forum' area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  But to quote the ref desk page directly "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." And keep in mind the Ref Desk guidelines already state what the purpose of the ref desks are, and what answers are permitted. I am merely suggesting we actually enforce them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  I can do no more but enthusiastically second this. There is no point in having guidelines that are completely ignored by many of the most frequent contributors. The general theme seems to be "The Reference Desks need improvement, but we're not prepared to do anything to improve them." Removal of unsourced speculation would be an improvement: persuading StuRat, and other similarly-situated contributors, to make posts that comply with the guidelines would be even better. But "covenants without the sword are but words" (Hobbes) - if we have no means of enforcing the few rules we have, then there seems to be no point in maintaining them at all. Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  In addition to Only in Death's comment (attacks only occur when the editor is making us all dumber with their answers), Baseball Bug's usual phrase "established editor" is pretty meaningless. Even if we assume that it does mean something, what difference does it make if you're an "established editor"? It makes absolutely no difference. If your answers are crap, your answers are crap, I don't care how long you've been here or what else you do. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  As opposed to IP-hopping trolls which turn up every day or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  What gets me are the ones who ask "So how many Jews really died in WW2?"--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  That's one of them, and that would be one of his least-offensive posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Well there are the IP-hopping trolls, which is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with this; and there are the anonymous IPs who tend to call you out giving useless answers, who you either delete or dismiss as trolls, and then there are people with actual usernames who call you out too, and then you claim you're an established editor who is being unfairly attacked. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  The IP-hopping gnats are of no importance. But established editors attacking other established editors in front of the OP is extremely uncivil. If you've got an issue with an editor, take it to the editor's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Taking it to the editor's talk page has never worked in the past and I don't see why it would now. No, public shaming is much more useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  And you can see how well it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  It started this conversation...that's something. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Which has led us to what exactly? "Ref-desk is broken! Harrumph! Harrumph! What should we do about it? Hmm, well, er..."--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Well you could start by not posting inane crap like this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Oh hang it in your ear, you. That's hardly the worst of the shit I've seen on that board.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Ah the 'other kids get to do it!' excuse. I didnt notice that was particularly convincing when I was at school. It is less so now. Adding to the already existing pile of rubbish is okay, because the rubbish already exists. Small wonder the pile keeps getting bigger... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  False equivalence. There was nothing wrong with that question, although it might have been better placed at the Science desk. If there was a trolling pattern it hasn't been shown here. None of us gets to unilaterally declare that "runny nose" questions are "inane crap" or "rubbish". Our options in such a case are to respond with an answer, or to ignore. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If StuRat doesn't like to travel, then the problem may be as simply as that. He needs to get out more, leave his computer and do something else besides posting on the Ref Desk. :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Only in death's suggestion of a rule to allow hatting unsourced comments isn't a bad one. I'm skeptical it could be effectively applied, though. Too much [need for] gray area. I don't know how many people would actually argue that there should be no unsourced comments. What about instead treating it like Wikipedia content under WP:BURDEN. If you see a comment that seems dubious, you're free to remove it and the burden is on whoever would like to restore it to make sure it's properly sourced. That's so logical that I can't imagine it hasn't been proposed before, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Going to an editor's talkpage to ask them to redact a comment or to change their editing habits has never worked in the ten years plus that I've been editing Wikipedia. If someone posts shite, and it does not fall in one of the categories for which users get blocked for repeat offenses such as vandalism, and you call him to task, he just digs in his heels harrumpfs, and refuses to change a whit. I would encourage a stated official policy of allowing but not requiring the hatting of answers which state something without linking to a reliable online source, a Wikipedia article, or an offline print reference. If I give an answer in some topic of my own professional competence, just based on experience and common knowledge of anyone in my profession, and it gets hatted, I can certainly grab a reference book off the shelf and provide a citation, or I can look at the relevant Wikipedia article which may or may not be comprehensive or accurate.As Rhododendrites stated, this is just WP:BURDEN. There are many examples of questions so simple that the answer might be posted without a ref, although that also suggests the questioner be directed to a relevant article. So it might not be necessary or appropriate to run around hatting every unreferenced answer, but there should be a low burden for hatting. For an uncontroversial answer, the followup could be to mention the article rather than to hat the obvious uncontroversial answer. If the Wikipedia article is deficient, I might go ahead and fix it. But even if someone links to an online source or a Wikipedia article, they still might make boneheaded and cringeworthy errors, but at least the OP would be directed to source material he can view and other editors can jump in with more accurate interpretation. If the answer is in a Wikipedia article, then the OP's has been helped in finding it. If coverage of some encyclopedic matter is not found in an article, then a well researched answer can be the basis for a new or improved Wikipedia article, which I've seen happen occasionally. Real world reference librarians at colleges or large public libraries frequently provide such answers which are not really contained in their own college courses.So hat answers lacking sources, but the sources certainly could be Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you doubt that a statement is true, then asking for a reference, politely, is the right thing to do. I do so myself. However, there are too many crazies out there who will challenge absolutely every statement, such as my absolutely obvious statement that "a portion of the deaths of cats and dogs are due to food-borne illnesses", apparently a reason for this complaint. So, if you give people the power to hat or delete any unreferenced answer, you will end up with wars with people hatting each other's unreferenced answers, where they clearly don't require a reference. Not constructive. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Either it's absolutely obvious enough as to be a waste of time rather than an answer, or it's not absolutely obvious enough. Either way, this is why we're here at AN. You think far too much is "absolutely obvious", but those statements are too often wrong, oversimplified, tangential, or otherwise a nonanswer, and when held up to scrutiny wind up revealing themselves as being made up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Stu, if an answer is obvious, it should be trivial for you to find the appropriate article to refer to. To adapt your earlier example:

Question: "Brane, wot is 2+2 eh?"

Answer: "Four. See addition."

Note the inclusion of the reference in the answer. Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that the article on addition specifically includes the case of 2+2. If you look at something more complex, like the sum of a pair of 10 digit numbers, you may never find a ref that is specifically for that case. And searching for such a ref is a royal waste of time. I could write out the addition in long form, showing the carrying of the digits, but of course you would then object to that being original research. The Math, Science, and Computer Desks are full of such cases, where you won't find a ref for the specific numeric example being asked about. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tevildo's example has not been taken to heart as it should have been. It happens that the article about addition does quote the case of 2+2. A responder at the Ref. Desk should see the value of giving the questioner access to reference(s) that are helpful and will extend their knowledge, in effect adopting a teacher rôle. The peculiar argument that a Ref. Desk should not provide references "when it's obvious to me" is adopting a less-than-helpful ivory tower rôle. Unfortunately such "noble purity" of intellectual pursuit disconnects StuRat from the practical concerns of everyday life. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "when it's obvious to me", it's "when it's obvious to all", as 2+2 should be. There must be some level of obviousness where refs are no longer required, and that would certainly qualify. And I'm usually willing to provide refs where there is a genuine question, and refs exist, as opposed to somebody being pedantic and asking for a ref for something like 2+2. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Going to an editor's talkpage to ask them to redact a comment or to change their editing habits has never worked in the ten years plus that I've been editing Wikipedia" has no citation other than personal opinion. No evidence that the user has ever even tried it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this a serious request for [more] evidence of whether people have tried to address StuRat's editing habits on his talk page, or a disingenuous attempt to make a point via false analogy? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The user made a broad, sweeping claim about all editors, with no evidence backing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have an RfC asking, simply, if WP:BURDEN applies to the reference desk? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with imposing such rules is that they then need to be applied under all circumstances, which means that all Ref Desk answers should be written in the same format as a (mini) article for a peer reviewed journal. This would make contributing to the Ref Desk way too cumbersome for most people. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Then kill the ref desks and refer them to this "stack exchange" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

need to be applied under all circumstances - Why would you interpret a Wikipedia policy as applied to the refdesk to be different from the same policy applied to articles? WP:BURDEN applies to articles already. The question would be whether it applies to the refdesk, too. Just as Wikipedia articles are not peer reviewed journal articles, so the refdesk would not be. However, if someone doubts an unsourced claim (on the refdesk, as in the encyclopedia), they can remove it pending addition of sources. Same deal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Does that rule apply rigorously to talk pages as well? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites is describing policies for Wikipedia articles, but if you prefer the talk page policies, we have a well-thought-out policy for talk pages which would work just fine on the reference desks: WP:TALK, which includes WP:TPOC, Alas, we don't follow that policy on the refdesks either. I think Rhododendrites has a good point; why not treat the refdesks like articles with all the normal rules about referencing and verifiability? Yes, this would be a lot different from what we do now, but what we do now sucks. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I read why not treat the refdesks like articles with all the normal rules about referencing and verifiability? This presupposes that questions posed on reference desks are comparable to topics for articles. More often, questions posed are faulty in and of themselves. We have WP:AfD for poorly formulated article topics. But we field all questions unless we feel the questioner is somehow spoofing us. We may try to help the questioner to clarify an area of inquiry. We are sometimes trying to help the questioner to formulate a reasonably meaningful question. The Reference desks are interactive in real time. They have to be somewhat informal. Contrary to what some are implying we are not always giving cut-and-dry answers. Sourcing and expertise are certainly the ideal. But I think we have to allow for what I will call conversational participation. Unless this is actually problematic I think we should allow for that. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you applied all the article rules to the Ref Desk everyone would feel free to remove any answer they didn't like, then the original authors would revert them, and an edit war would follow. We would then need a talk page for each Q, where we could discuss all the pros and cons of each answer and develop a consensus of which answers should stay or be removed. This would all take a great deal of time, so we would need to stop archiving Q's after a week or so. So, we would then end up with every Q being as involved as a Wikipedia article, with all the time it takes to write, review, edit, add formal refs, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

... Because that's how it works in article space? I'm assuming this is more hyperbole, but in general, if you apply article rules, it would do the opposite of what you're saying. People can't just remove whatever they like and edit war. Nobody is saying to turn each question into a separate page and require discussion for every response -- that's absurd. When someone answered with dubious original research, it could be removed until a citation is added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be absurd, but that's exactly what would happen if you gave people the right to delete any response they don't like. We've already had a problem with people removing any Q about topics they don't like, such as sex. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do evolve over time under this policy, they become similar to review articles. Someone starting to write up a new article will usually leave open some gaps in sourcing, over times these gaps will be fixed. If there is a persistent problem in some places the article or the offending statements will get tagged, some statements may get removed. But writing up an answer for the ref desk happens in a matter of minutes, it's not going to yield the same result as a well written Wikipedia article. Now, if each answer is given by someone who happens to be an expert in the subject, then you'll get good sourced answers, because the expert knows the literature. He or she doesn't need to spend a lot of time doing a lot of literature research to for that. What goes wrong on the Ref Desk is that there is a relatively small group of regulars, they obviously cannot be experts in each of the fields they contribute to. This leads to the habit of just giving answers that are then not well sourced, which can create tensions when one of the regulars is actually an expert and he or she would fault one of the given answers.

I think things can be improved by encouraging everyone to just slow down a bit, there is no need to jump into a question and give an answer asap. It's better to provide for fewer high quality answers than many low quality answers. If you then do a little research yourself to get to a proper sourcing, you may learn something yourself too. On StackExchange answers are rated, so this behavior in automatically encouraged there. Count Iblis (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here we have Rates of autism among wikipedians. It is a "question" on a Reference desk. We are spoofed occasionally. Two editors responded. I think they responded very well. Those who have been around for awhile and even many who have not been around for awhile accept the challenge of fielding questions and generally do a good job of it. My feeling is that very little has to be changed about the Reference desks. When an answer calls for a source, it is generally provided. This is not something unknown to people. In the rough and tumble, competitive environment of the Reference desks, there is often another editor who will point out if an answer given is problematically lacking a source. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Moderator not acting in good faith

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

---

Hello,

I'm an inexperienced user, so I don't know if this section is fine to report an incorrect behavior of a moderator (also, i'm not native speaker).

There was a long discussion which involved the behavior of myself and other users (link: here). The matter was closed by (EdJohnston) by semi-protecting the two articles related and blaming me as an "IP-hopping edit warrior".

He blatantly ignored the fact that two users, PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus, infringed the 3RR rule (see [7][8][9][10][11][12])).

I went to his personal page, asking for explanations (link: here) about why he called me a "IP-hopping edit warrior" while the aforementioned users were ignored. He claims that i've used 4 different IPs so i'm violating a sock policy and he doesn't want to assume good faith to my edits. Point is, i'm under a dynamic IP ISP so of course my ip changes, i can't do anything about it. Does using a dynamic IP ISP violate sock rules? And he, using this as an excuse, is saying me that he doesn't want to assume good faith nor doing a better analysis of the matter (which he's blatantly ignoring).

I think this encourages a really bad behavior for some moderators who think they can act like they want just because they think they do not suffer any consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk • contribs)

The above post seems to be an appeal of my closure of a 3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:151.30.108.20 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Two articles semied). The editor, who has been using a number of different IPs from the area of Milan, Italy, followed up after the AN3 with a complaint about the closure on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#Double Standard on punishment?. The effect of the semiprotection is that he can no longer edit those two articles, and he complained that others had also been edit warring. (His latest IP broke 3RR, but a block of his IP was not practical because of the size of the range). Anyone who wants to review my action is encouraged to read over those two threads. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (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.

Gawker shutdown is imminent

There's just been an announcement that Gawker is going to cease all operations Monday and shut down sometime next week. Since there are thousands of instances of websites in the Gawker network being used as sources (a sore spot for the community that is now becoming moot), we should replace the links with archive.is versions as a matter of some urgency. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1980 links to archive, apparently. It's counting the non-article links~, tho'. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's just Gawker. Also part of the Gawker Media is Jezebel, Jalopnik, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, io9 and Kotaku. We don't know for certain what is happening to them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The company was bought out by Univision, who say they are going to keep all the sites (except gawker.com itself) operating. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents but this seems like the perfect sort of job for a bot? I see that someone beat me to requesting a bot was run to do just this. maybe worth keeping the requests in one place.Amortias (T)(C) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• 791 for Jezebel, 797 for Jalopnik, 752 for Deadspin, 1120 for Lifehacker, 2229 for Gizmodo, 332 for io9 and 8055 for Kotaku - note the offset in the linklist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Someone explain to me how this gossip blog is a reliable source for anything other than WP:SELFSOURCE purposes? Is this website family the kind of source upon which Britannica relies? From the description in its article, I'm getting the impression that content sourced from this website needs to be excised entirely. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Should have happened ages ago. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Most of the coverage that Gawker-related media support on WP is contemporary topics, the type not covered by Brittanica. It is an example of new media. Now, I can't speak for all sites, but for Kotaku, which is primarily video games related, we at WP:VG have noted they meet the expectations of any other reliable source - there is editorial control (with an editor-in-chief), they are noted by other RSes as a common source, and for the most part their work aligns and collaborates with other RSes. My experience with io9 (a site aimed at popular science and science fiction) is similar. I believe all the other sites have a similar structure with lead editor-in-chiefs so their editorial control policies meet our RSes. So no, it's extreme to ask all Gawker sites to be excised, as they are in line with most web-only RSes out there today. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You make my argument for me. If a page is comparable to something publishing popular science, it is not reliable: unless there's some sort of dispute, in which we need to consider these perspectives to ensure a neutral point of view, we must depend on the academics and the other professional scientists writing in the best publications, not drivel written for Randy in Boise. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• On articles on an academic topic, absolutely we probably wouldn't use those sites as they'd fail the expected reliability for those topics. But I'm talking contemporary topics that aren't going to be in Brittanica in the first place but are part of WP. A rather sizable chunk of WP (I'd estimate at least 25%) is built up on sites like these. You're asking for a massive change (not just from Gawker Media sites but plenty of new media) here. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm asking for enforcement of our policies: if most of these articles on contemporary topics are built on unreliable sources, and reliable sources don't exist for these articles, it's time to be professional instead of catering to the kids who know nothing about evaluating sources of information. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• They are enforced, as per WP:RS - "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." At least for Kotaku and io9, there's been plenty of discussion and review of those sites' policies to prove both fact-checking and accuracy exists. And because there is editorial oversight, they don't fall into SELFPUB. They aren't peer reviewed, obviously, but RS policy doesn't always require peer-reviewed sources (though some topic areas like medical topics nearly always require them). --MASEM (t) 02:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, this only affects *.gawker.com, not any of the Gawker Media sites which will transition in the short term to Univision. eg "Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision." All the stories on the purchase imply that Univision wants the sites, not the leadership, so they are presently in no danger of being shutdown that I can tell. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support doing this asap. While they published a lot of aggregation and republishing, they also did a lot of good writing and essay stuff that I'm sure are cited in many places on here - including a very funny series on Wikipedia deletion policy which I occasionally commented on. They did some stupid things as well, but they employed and gave independence to some incredible writing talent and I'm sad to see them destroyed completely by Thiel. Blythwood (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I had chatted about this with Cyberpower678 a while back, and I think he said it would be possible to run InternetArchiveBot against all the affected pages. This is of course if archive.org and others have archived versions, but I think that's mostly a safe assumption. Even if we can't get the bot to run on all of those pages sequentially, Cyber's bot should by nature eventually fix all the links — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice please

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

---

I have been trying to discuss with administrator @JzG: edits that they have made about me. I have raised this on their talk page twice, but they are refusing to engage in meaningful discussion - see here [13] and here [14]. Which is the appropriate noticeboard to take this to, or because Jzg is an admin, should this go straight to ArbCom? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You made snide comments and then attempted to hound me when I decided to disengage. I seem to recall that you "banned" me and another user from your talk page, yet you want to engage both of us on ours. How about: no. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My advice is that everyone should drop this dispute and move on. (And ArbCom = boomerang.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I archived it more than once form my Talk page, but the OP seems to want to sea lion this. I'm not interested. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the point about ArbCom is that it requires evidence, so rogue administrators and editors must provide diffs rather than simply casting aspersions, which is now very unfortunately absolutely the norm now at AN/I. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My advice is that both of you should stop interacting with and referring to each other. Failing that small gesture of self-restraint, the community should impose a mutual interaction ban with escalating consequences for the inevitable breaches that will occur.- MrX 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The irony here is that DrChrissy's complaint is that I don't want to interact with him, and have tried not to. You can't win with some people! Guy (Help!) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Another irony is that I said "everyone" should drop this, not that DrChrissy should drop it, and I said that intentionally. ArbCom would not be a welcoming place for you either, Guy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Earlier this year, DrChrissy opened a spurious filing at WP:AE (involving Jytdog). At the time, JzG observed:

"This is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Wikipedia processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)"

That AE filing resulted in a week-long block for DrChrissy's timewasting misuse of a noticeboard.

Sadly, the problem has persisted. Once again we have DrChrissy unable to drop the stick when faced with another editor against whom he holds a grudge, despite JzG's efforts to quietly disengage. Once again we have DrChrissy making an overblown, attention-demanding, and vexatious complaint. ("Rogue administrators"? Seriously?)

The sooner this is closed, the better. If left open, DrChrissy will just work himself up into another block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. (Although from his talkpage Guy does self identify as a Rouge Admin) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (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 Removal of DYK Restrictions

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.

---

Earlier, restrictions were placed on me regarding DYK, to wit - (a) all of my DYK noms required two reviews to pass, and, (b) all of my noms required two QPQs by me. This was based on the fact that three of my 148 reviews (2 noms, and 1 review) had been pulled from the main page due to errors and, that in two cases, I did not promptly admit I had made errors when an admin revealed himself to me with a demand I demonstrate obeisances and contrition. Deryck Chan issued the original ruling.

By unanimous acclimation (though, over my modest objections) determined by Hobit, I am grateful that the second part of the restrictions has been rescinded against me. This means that all that remains is that all my DYK noms need two reviews. This is no big deal for me, but it does - due to the large volume of content I create - generate a heavy burden on the community, which I've calculated to be an 18% decrease in number of potential QPQs occurring since my nominations are now eating up a large volume of reviews.

In the month since these restrictions were imposed I have had one DYK review pulled from the main page due to errors (8% of my total) and no noms pulled from the main page; this is less than the 12% pull average for all DYK contributors with five or more reviews during the same time period indicating the protective functions of the restriction are no longer necessary.

For the benefit of the community I recommend the remaining part of my restriction be rescinded. Again, it doesn't matter too much to me as the restriction in its current form does not impact me at all as it doesn't place any burden on me to do anything, the burden is imposed on the community (this is why I objected to the second part of the restriction being rescinded in the first place). But I do think, as demonstrated, the restriction has outlived its usefulness. LavaBaron (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) edit: I forgot to GF ping everyone who registered a !vote in the linked discussion - @EdChem, Gatoclass, The C of E, Cwmhiraeth, and EdChem: - sorry LavaBaron (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Withdrawn by Nom Indifferent (as noted, the newly modified form of the restriction removes all burden from me and socializes the workload of the restriction to the community) LavaBaron (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) There seems to be a consensus against this so I'm happy to withdraw this proposal at this time. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

• Remove I completely disagree that the restriction has outlived its usefulness but I can't see any current benefit as the user continues to use it as some kind of branch to beat the process and individuals associated with it. I'd prefer to allow the user the latitude to continue and enable him to be hoisted by his own petard, which appears to be an inevitability given the background, history of interactions and history of grievances related to this user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

For clarification:

• The situation regarding this restriction is the only instance I have ever been mentioned at ANI, and I have a clean block log.
• My extensive history of contributing quality content like Organized horse fighting and Attempted theft of George Washington's head has been repeatedly recognized and is generally held beyond reproach (21% of all articles I've created have been promoted to GA status).
• My virtually single-handed work policing Frank Gaffney from sanitizing earned me an on-air rebuke on CSPAN from Gaffney himself and my efforts outing an attempt by the Trump transition team to edit their own Wikipedia page has resulted in a Reuters story that will run later this week.
• Meanwhile, I recently contributed the most-viewed non-lead DYK hook in Wikipedia's history.

(All that said, I do realize my tendency for not genuflecting sufficiently to the illustrious majesty of some of the Celestial Immortals (admins) has sometimes been met with irritation but it's something I'm genuinely working on improving and is unrelated to the question of DYK noms/reviews.) Thank you, in any case, for taking the time to comment here. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Honestly...I mean seriously really? This was just closed today with no consensus and you are already running here to repropose it? Drop it, seriously. It is starting to get annoying. The restrictions were put in place by the community and were only designed to last three months. Quite honestly, this is getting ridiculous. Let it go. Wait out the rest of the community based restrictions and move on. Bringing this up again when it was just closed 20 hours ago is just...incredible. --Majora (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Chill. First, it was closed with consensus to roll-back the second half of the restrictions which are now void. Second, like I said, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just noting that the modified restrictions removes all workload from me and transfers it to the community; a side-effect of legislation by committee. This proposal is simply a harmonization process to reconcile the consensus with an unintended consequence. As indicated above, my !vote is "indifferent" as I'm totally un-impacted whether the modified restrictions remain in place or go. (The only persons impacted are every reviewer except me.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of restrictions. As Majora notes, Hobit's closure yesterday specifically said The additional proposal to remove all restrictions did not have consensus, mostly on the basis of being too soon after the restrictions had been placed, but some concerns about current behavior were also brought up. That's still true today. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal to maintain the restrictions didn't have consensus which is what we were evaluating. There was only 50% support to maintain the restrictions, which is not a consensus. We had 4 luminary editors ask the restrictions be repealed in full, versus the Gang of 4 who wanted them maintained; IOW 4-4, which is not a consensus for maintenance of the restrictions. But I didn't make a big deal about it because, like I said, this doesn't really impact me one way or the other. The only part of the restrictions that actually impacted me has been unanimously quashed; all that remains is the part that impacts everyone else. It seems weird to increase everyone else's workload 18% to punish me. I mean, I feel bad watching everyone do more work, but I don't really feel punished by it. You know? LavaBaron (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Which "proposal to maintain the restrictions" would that be? Your "Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions" or some other proposal no one has ever heard of? When you are trying to get restrictions lifted against yourself, it is probably best not to make up things to support your case. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose And also dispute the ability of a discussion at DYK to remove community imposed restrictions at AN. Otherwise everyone who gets restricted would just get their friends at a local project to have a 'discussion' and lift/alter them. The relevant part of WP:Editing restrictions would be "The community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrators' noticeboard. Such restrictions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary." Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and support complete removal of LavaBaron from the DYK process in all its facets. This is an editor who, after these restrictions were imposed, thought it a good idea to create Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor and nominate it for main page appearance at Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. When an error in one of his reviews is pointed out, he replies with "It is with absolute terror I must admit that, after staring at the hook and article for the last 15 minutes, I am still unable to see anything wrong with it (vis a vis Elizabeth Lachlan). I know my admitting this is probably my final strike, but I owe it to the project to be honest and steel myself for the fate that awaits me. Thanks to everyone who has made my time here at DYK an enjoyable one. Best" This is also an editor who has "I am in the process of finishing up some outstanding projects and wrapping-up this account and may be only periodically active over the next few months pending retirement." on his talk page[15]. He still doesn't seem to understand why these restrictions were imposed, blaming it (not only here, but many times over the past month) on others instead. So we had consensus that restrictions were needed, and we see now that the restrictions are not successful: then the answer is not lifting the restrictions early, but imposing more serious ones, like a full topic-ban from DYK. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note the "Actually, the proposal to maintain the restrictions didn't have consensus" comment he made above. This refers to a "Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions" he made himself, which he now frames as the exact opposite. Please just remove him from DYK and also retsrict all appeals to once every six months or so. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of restrictions. There is no indication that this editor is reflective on why the restrictions were put in place. Quite the contrary, as by this proposal first being added to original closer Deryck C's discussion on altering one aspect of the restrictions. [16]. — Maile (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose full DYK ban for LavaBaron

Considering the two failed proposals he started (the second a day after the first one was closed) to lift his restrictions early, and the fact that during his restriction period he had at least one incorrect review, one highly inappropriate DYK nomination with Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, and now a seriously problematic one with Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory, where both the article and the DYK discussion highlight the problems, I propose a full, indefinite DYK topic ban for LavaBaron (no nominating pages, no reviews, no discussions at any DYK template pages or WT:DYK, and so on), with appeals only possible after six months (at the earliest) and with intervals of at least six months. Fram (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Within the last two weeks the following editors and promoters have all had the same number of noms [edit: or reviews and strike EdChem] pulled by Fram from the main page as he's cited for me: @Worm That Turned, Surtsicna, Casliber, The C of E, Kosack, Cwmhiraeth, EditorE, Earthh, Andrew Davidson, and Hawkeye7: Are we going to indef them all as well? I hope not.
  

  I have only had one DYK nomination in the last two weeks: Jeffrey Grey. It wasn't pulled. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  @LavaBaron: Evidence of my having any nom pulled from the main page, ever? That or strike your inaccurate claim. EdChem (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: my apologies, that should have read "noms or reviews" (I was referring to this). I corrected. I hope you understand, this was not meant as a criticism of you or anyone mentioned. EdChem - I misread your comment in the same thread and have struck your name. Sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems if Fram had his way everyone would be blocked from DYK; he's repeatedly made clear he disapproves of the entire section. As for the "highly inappropriate" nomination, in the AfD for said article, there was absolute consensus it was a GF article, expressed even by Delete !voters User:Notecardforfree and User:Neutrality. Fram has already misrepresented my past actions once, resulting in a bad block [17] that was immediately rescinded almost as soon as it was imposed after User:Sphilbrick, User:Oiyarbepsy, User:Gerda Arendt, and User:WilliamJE intervened on my behalf (it was subsequently ruled, by consensus, a bad block). This seems to have become a personal vendetta from Fram due to a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter. He was previously warned by Ritchie to WP:DROPTHESTICK with regard to it [18] and an IBAN has even been suggested to arrest this out-of-control approach.

And BTW, I have had a total of 148 DYK articles go to main page [either nom'ed or reviewed]. If only three had mistakes, I'm frankly pleased, not ashamed. LavaBaron (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I hate to leave it on a harsh note, so I should just add that I do appreciate the work Fram has devoted to DYK and the time he spends reviewing other editors contributions. I really do regret our interpersonal relationship is so rocky. LavaBaron (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Please indicate how I "misrepresented" your past actions. The blocking admin misinterpreted some events, yes, but that's hardly the same as what you claim here. Are there other problems (and in some cases problematic editors) at DYK? Yes, sure. None of these editors have DYK restrictions and continue to create problems during these though. You defend yourself with strawman arguments. I never claimed that your article contributions were not in good faith, I said that these two DYK nominations were "highly inappropriate" (first case) and "seriously problematic" (second case). Coupled with the poor review and the two appeals in rapid succession (and the continuing lack of understanding of what the problems really were and are), something more drastic is needed. Enough people have been restricted, topic banned, even blocked, despite making good faith contributions. Please provide a diff for "This seems to have become a personal vendetta from Fram due to a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." I can't find it[19]. Fram (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Right, the "rapid succession" issue - this is the most unbelievable of all. It was actually Fram who said a decision at DYK would be invalid and the subject should be discussed at AN [20]. And now he wants to TBAN me for doing exactly that? IMHO, this seems to belie any possibility this can be a genuine proposal. (Again, however, I do appreciate Fram's hard work and am sorry for our unfortunate disagreements.) LavaBaron (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• After which it was transcluded here and I said "Ok, thanks. The other way round would have been better, but so be it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)". Fram (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fram, you're such a prolific commenter it can sometimes be difficult to follow and track as your opinion changes from moment to moment, expressed through a large quantity of very dialog-rich and passionately expressed posts. Thank you for clarifying that you subsequently changed your mind and decided a direct appeal to AN was not required. I have no problem with my proposal being closed in light of this explanation you've offered. I would also suggest we re-consider Ritchie's suggestion of a two-way IBAN to avoid these situations in the future. Thanks for all the energy you bring to DYK - LavaBaron (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• A DYK topic ban would also "avoid these situations in the future". An answer about all the incorrect or unverifiable information you provided today on this very page would also be useful. E.g. your false claims that there was a "proposal to maintain the restrictions", that I "misrepresented" your past actions, or that this is due to "a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." when no such tiff seems to exist. Please stop giving "compliments" and adding complaints about my editing style (anyone can see the number of edits made by you vs. the one made by me: in this discussion alone, this will be my fourth post, vs. 13 by you, causing many edit conflicts) and focus on the relevant elements instead. Either provide evidence for your statements or retract them. Fram (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec x quite a bit) Fram is usually right on content. Where the problem arises is when things move away from criticising content to making things personal, which draws a reaction from the other party and leads to massive threads here instead of actually getting the problem fixed. I don't see an interaction ban preventing Fram talking about an article being unsourced, badly sourced, factually incorrect, lopsided POV or cherry picking sources. All that said, if there's one editor here who really needs to drop the stick, based on what I've read at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory and on my talk page today, it's not Fram. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• The problem here seems to be articles related to the US presidential election which risk being too controversial, partisan or otherwise inappropriate. For example, we recently had Trump Vodka at DYK and before that there was Trump National Golf Club Westchester. LavaBaron had nothing to do with those, so far as I know. My impression is that WP:ITN has an embargo on the torrent of news coverage about the presidential primaries and main campaign and so I suggest that DYK has something similar. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  And so it does: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided (WP:DYK) Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support full DYK ban The quickest and simplest method of stopping disruption is to remove the person causing the disruption from the area. TRM notes above that he is in favour of removing restrictions, not because he thinks LavaBaron has no need of them and further issues are not going to appear, but that because removing them will hasten further disciplinary action due to the continuation of problems. Fram has clearly laid out the ongoing issues, and since LavaBaron has not shown any interest in actually modifying their behaviour, a full restriction from DYK would prevent others having to deal with the issues they cause. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose While LavaBaron appears to have a touching faith in Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, and is perhaps not yet fully enculturated, he is nonetheless clearly an enthusiastic contributor who appears to have made some pretty useful contributions among the 120-odd articles he has thus far added (a couple of quick examples, here and here). Though he has an unfortunate habit of overreacting to criticism, in my experience he seems to respond well to respectful treatment. With regard to his DYK contributions in particular, I've seen no evidence that they are any worse on average than those of many others, in fact I would say they are considerably better than some whose questionable contributions have sometimes managed to go under the radar for years. So while LB's unfortunate habit of resorting too readily to dispute resolution processes might be trying the patience of some, that isn't actually a problem specifically for DYK, and a DYK ban won't address it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the two cases stated by the nom are reasonable articles about fringe theories and certainly not a reason to ban someone from anything. It's fine for DYK to reject them, but I don't see nominating or writing them as problematic. I would consider a mutual interaction ban however--it might be best for everyone. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A mutual interaction ban would mean that I couldn't remove any DYKs he was involved with from preps, queue or main page if they turn out to be incorrect. How would this be a good idea? I'm one of the very few people involved with this aspect of DYK (checking things after all the regular checks have been done, and removing the all-too-frequent remaining problems), and I'm not going to let an incorrect hook stand only because LavaBaron has been involved with it. I don't make a habit of checking who has had anything to do with the hooks before removing them. I have no interaction with LavaBaron outside of DYK and DYK-related matters. A mutual interaction would be best for LavaBaron, but not for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessarily punitive. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Notecardforfree. A mountain has been made out of a molehill. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought that making unfounded accusations about other editors were considered personal attacks. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." In this discussion alone, LavaBaron has made false claims that there was a "proposal to maintain the restrictions", that I "misrepresented" his past actions leading to a block, or that this is due to "a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." when no such tiff seems to exist. I asked him above to provide evidence or retract these statements, but while he has made other edits here, he has done neither, and no one seems to care about such things any longer. Perhaps some unnvolved admin can deal with this? Or can I also make some wild allegations to get the sympathy vote? Perhaps throw in some canvassing as well? Note that LavaBaron started this section with "GF ping everyone who registered a !vote in the linked discussion ", and then only pinged three people who supported the lifting of part of the restrictions and one who commented (seemingly in favour of lifting them all), but none of the more negative commenters; and followed this up with, in a proposal from me, pinging everyone he believed had recently had a DYK pulled by me. While, as is so often the case, this canvassing only had limited effect, it still is clearly prohibited (it would be similar to me pinging all editors who voted "delete" on his DYK articles). Fram (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Fram: WP:DROPTHESTICK Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as overbroad. The two cited DYKs are both about the 2016 U.S. presidential campaignathon, and so there seems good reason to confine any remedies to that subject only, assuming remedies are required. On another note, I am not a fan of euphemisms for "lying", and urge people to either say "lying" or stop accusing others of dishonesty. In other words, ban the word "misrepresentation" at Wikipedia. Anyway, my !vote on this proposed ban is as stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (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.

Testers wanted for new feature that searches for deleted pages

A volunteer developer (thanks Smalyshev!) has created a beta version of a new feature that allows administrators to search for the titles of deleted pages in a very similar way one searches for live pages. This feature is now ready for testing at [21]. The instructions for testing are described here.

Please leave comments either here (I'll copy them over) or at the Phabricator ticket. Your feedback is very much appreciated -- this is something that's clearly missing from the admin toolset. MER-C 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd save you a step and comment at the Phabricator ticket, except that site frightens and confuses me. I can see how this could occasionally be pretty useful. I just tried it out for a couple of minutes, just one article in article space. Seemed to handle a reasonable number of typos; 1 (occasionally 2) typos per word, even when each word had a typo in a four word title. Seemed to handle only being given a very small portion of the article title well. I note that it handles typos like "herw" instead of "here" easily, but can't handle homonyms like "hear" instead of "here". Not complaining, as I have no idea how you'd go about doing that, but you wanted feedback so here's some feedback. But overall, yay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of RfC on the classification of Jews on Template talk:Ethnic slurs

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. Last week I closed this RfC on Template talk:Ethnic slurs. The debate concerned how ethnic slurs relating to Jews should be classified on {{Ethnic slurs}} - whether they should be a subset of Asians, Europeans, or a standalone category.

I have closed with the decision to classify them "standalone", in other words not as a subgroup of any continent-based ethnic groups on the template. I was an WP:ANRFC admin and was not involved in the debate before RfC closure. I closed the discussion based on my best-effort assessment of the arguments presented in the discussion.

Shortly after the RfC was closed, a long discussion Template talk:Ethnic slurs and emerged on my user talk page concerning the RfC outcome. I suggested that WP:DRN look at the issue but it was declined (my bad) as wrong forum. So I'm bringing the issue to AN for wider scrutiny. Deryck C. 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Participant summaries from WP:DRN#Template talk:Ethnic slurs

Extended content

Summary of dispute by ChronoFrog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I guess I'll begin by explaining why I am concerned about the outcome of the RfC. It is mostly a copy/paste of what I wrote on Deryck's page, but I am on my way out the door so I don't have enough time to craft anything original. To recap, the dispute was about whether or not Jews should remain in the West Asian/Middle Eastern category, where they had been for the past 3-4 years at least. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are an ethnic/national group with collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews should remain under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (since this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, including Jews. During the RfC, none of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it was (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote. I went to Deryck's page to see what his reasoning was, but another heated argument with Electoralist ensued soon afterwards. I pulled up a list of RS that Human Trumpet Solo posted (with a few additions of my own) which had seemingly gone ignored in the initial RfC (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deryck_Chan#Challenging_RfC_closure_on_Template:_Ethnic_slurs). He asked me to verify the sources, so I linked him to the article they originally came from. None of the sources provided by Electoralist in justifying his proposal for change were sufficient enough for WP:DUE. One was a genetic study which examined the mtDNA line of Ashkenazi Jews, which I responded to by pointing out that mtDNA is only half of the equation. Y-DNA, in contrast, is overwhelmingly Semitic. Further, I provided a few links to autosomal and Y-DNA studies, as well as Harry Ostrer's book on Jewish genetics. His other source was a JVL article which only had one citation: JewFAQ (an independent, non-RS). I answered him by pointing this out. Overall, I believe the decision made to be a case of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:UNDUE, ignoring the abundance of WP:RS provided in the course of the RfC arguing against removing Jews from West Asian. ChronoFrog (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jeffgr9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Electoralist Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This matter has been discussed at length and I believe at this point we are just seeing WP:FORUMSHOPPING and I don't see how, given that there has been an RFC that has been closed with a finding of consensus, it is necessary to bring it up again here nor is this the appropriate forum. As far as I can see, the criteria for reconsidering the closure set out at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures have not been met. User:Cunard has questioned the decision to reopen the DRN here. I'll also add that the small subgroup of editors who have been listed for this discussion lends itself to confirmation bias as it is simply the list User:ChronoFrog chose to notify of the original DRN discussion with Deryck Chan added on. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews (who constitute over 75% of the world Jewish population) are matrilineally descended from four European ancestors as "only half the picture" yet his solution completely ignores that half of the picture. A layperson's explanation of Ashkenazi genetics can be found in this LiveScience article Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European and scholarly sources can be found in this article from the European Journal of Human Genetics "MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population", a peer reviewed article which Google Scholar states has been cited by 78 other scholarly articles, as well as "Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora" a peer reviewed article cited by 87 other scholarly articles. As has been exhaustively both in the orpginal Talk page discussion as well as the Deryck Chan's talk page, there are several Jewish ethnic groups - Ashkenazi (European) Jews, Shephardic (Spanish/North African) Jews, Mizrachi (Arab or Middle Eastern) Jews (often conflated with Shephardic Jews), as well as Ethiopian Jews (and other sub-Saharan Jews) Desi Jews, Chinese Jews and others whose skin colour are white, brown, black, "yellow", etc. To say Jews are simply "West Asian" looks, to revisit User:ChronoFrog's quote at "only half the picture" as much as saying Ashkenazi Jews are European looks at only half the picture, let alone South Asian, Chinese, and Black Jews. Therefore, listing Jews as a standalone category in the template makes more sense rather than trying to shoehorn them into a particular ethnic subcategory (West Asian, European, or African) particularly when one considers that as a religion, Jews have accepted converts for millenia and will continue to do so meaning that admixturing will continue. While there is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnicity and all ethnic groups experience admixture, the composition of the Jewish people as a religion as well as a culture and ethnicity amplified by the Jewish history of disperal (diaspora) throughout the world means that admixturing has occured to a much greater degree and makes it impossible to simplistically place Jews under a single ethnic category. Electoralist (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Responding to User:Musashiaharon who states that many of the slurs involved support his claim that Jews can singularly be declared Middle Eastern - most of the slurs are actually aimed specifically at Ashkenazi Jews, one is aimed at Ethiopian Jews, one is aimed at Shephardic Jews who have converted to Christianity etc. Musashiaharon also argues that genetics is only one aspect of ethnicity. Culture, language and customs, indeed, are very important elements however there is no single Jewish culture or even language. Ashkenazi culture is distinct from Shephardic culture and the former is traditionally built around the Yiddish language (hence the term Yiddishkeit) which is a Germanic language with Hebrew influences and Slavic elements (depending on what part of Europe its speakers were in) has never been spoken by Shephardic, Mizrachi, South Asian or other Jewish populations. Similarly, Shephardic Jews have their own language traditionally, Ladino, which is derived from Spanish, and their own customs, cultural and even liturgical traditions and the other Jewish populations I mention all have their own distinct cultures and customs and speak different languages. There are overlaps and shared elements, of course, but the distinctions are enough to make it impossible to classify all the different varients of Jews as a singular, West Asian, ethnic group. Electoralist (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Musashiaharon This dispute has been continuing for over a month and is still quite active. The core question is how to categorize Jews among the other ethnic groups in the template. Before the dispute began on June 25, Jews were placed next to Arabs under [West] Asians, and had been categorized as such for several years. Currently the choices are to put Jews in a standalone category, or to group them as a Middle Eastern or West Asian ethnicity. (It was previously attempted to categorize them as White/European. This was quickly dismissed, because A) a large proportion of Jews are not Ashkenazic, and B) the beginnings of Jewish ethnicity, regardless the subgroup, are traceable to the Middle East, which still bears obvious influence on their internal and external associations and current way of life.) Before I state my opinion, I'll describe my criteria. An ethnicity is "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." It makes sense therefore, to categorize ethnicities by the origins of these defining elements. Because of this, I am in favor of categorizing Jews in general as a Middle Eastern or [West] Asian ethnicity, being that each of these defining elements is traceable to the Middle East. This is verified in linguistics (eg. Gersenius' Hebrew Grammar), historical writings (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews), Jewish philosophical writings (Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, and The Kuzari), and in Rabbinical writings on ritual law (Berachot 30a, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Agriculture: Terumot), as well as the Torah itself (Genesis 12, et al.). Genetics is a topic of secondary importance to ethnographers, who are mostly concerned with culture. Yet there too, clear genetic markers link Jews from all over the world to the Middle East (NCBI: Abraham's Children in the Genome Era). Some admixture with the local populations is present, as with any other ethnic group. However, given the overwhelming influence of cultural factors, this can hardly be said to negate or weaken the existence of the Jewish ethnicity in any clear or specific way. Such converts were considered fully Jewish by other Jews around the world, and were more often than not persecuted and ostracized from their previous social circles (eg. Lord George Gordon). Germane to this particular template of Ethnic slurs, the slurs themselves give further support to categorizing Jews as Middle Eastern. In particular, "Christ-killer" shows that Europeans positively identified their local Jews to be one and the same as the people who killed their god in the Land of Israel. Similarly, the term "Yid" developed from the High German "jüdisch," etc., which came from the Hebrew "Yehudi," or Judean, after Judah, the pre-eminent, royal tribe among the Jews in their own land (Online Etymology Dictionary: Yid). Parenthetically, Jews at large already had come to be called by that same term ("Yehudi", Judean) thousands of years earlier, regardless their tribal affiliation (eg. Mordecai the Benjaminite in Esther 2:5). Ultimately, "Judean" came to be shortened to "Jew," (Online Etymology Dictionary: Jew) and so even in the slurs themselves, Jews are acknowledged to be a Middle Eastern people. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Rebuttal to Electoralist The term "Christ killer" was not limited to the Jews in Europe, but also extended at the very least to the Jews in the Holy Land, Ashkenazic or not. During the Crusades, the crusaders massacred and enslaved Jews alongside Muslims in Jerusalem. They saw no difference between the Jews in the Holy Land and those Jews in Europe, and both communities suffered terrible bloodbaths throughout (E. Judaica: Christian-Jewish Relations: The Crusades). The distinctions between Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Polish, Yemenite, Moroccan, Chinese and other Jews are actually quite minor. They all observe the Sabbath starting Friday at sunset until Saturday nightfall. They all avoid mixing dairy with meat. They all observe Passover, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. They all wear Tefillin. They all wear the Tallit. They all put Mezuzot on their doorposts. They all pray the Amidah and say the Shema in the morning and the evening. The differences are only in details, like the direction they wrap the straps of the Tefillin, the pattern of stripes on the Tallit, small stylistic differences in the writing of the Mezuzot, and so on. In this template, splitting hairs like this is not useful and is WP: UNDUE. More importantly, all these Jewish communities consider each other part of their own people. For example, the Italian Jews gave refuge to and redeemed Jewish captives the crusaders brought back from the Holy Land, see above from E. Judaica. The Rambam gave instruction to Yemenite Jews via correspondence from Egypt. Ashkenazic Jews today study the Italian Bartenura's commentary on the Mishna and Yalkut Meam Loez, a Midrashic work originally written in Ladino. The Sephardi Halachic authority Rabbi Joseph Caro wrote the Shulchan Aruch, on which the Ashkenazic sage Rabbi Moses Isserles of Poland wrote his notes and commentary, HaMapah. Similarly, in Avkat Rachel, Caro expresses his esteem for the Rambam the customs of the Yemenite community and urges his student to not interfere with their customs. The unity of the Jewish community despite their geographical distance is exceptional. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Endorse Closure of RFC Jews are a unique subset of people and in terms of slurs, should not be placed under a specific category, be it Asian or Black or African. They are Jews. When a slur is hurled at a Jew, it is not because of them being Asian or African, it is because of them being Jewish. That is quite different than when a slur is hurled at an Asian, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just to add, that there is a distinction between the slurs. I am an American, I can be called a Fat American and I can be called a Jewish slur, same as with a African-American. If the slur is based on the color or religion, then it's not an American slur, but if it's based on where they live then of course it is. In the case of Jews, it is because of their religion, not the history of where they might have come from 1,000 years ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - Outcome was reasonable given the arguments (and relative strength of) presented. Personally I think anyone who seriously thinks Jewish ethnic slurs should be categorized as 'Asian' despite a significant amount of both Jews AND the people who started/currently using the ethnic slurs not being in fact, anywhere near Asia, needs a break. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death With all due respect, this makes no sense. Since when does residing in diaspora (Jews outside of Israel are called diaspora Jews for a reason) negate an ethnic group's identity?ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse numbers and strength of arguments make this a reasonable close. Both Arabs and Jews are standalone and for similar reasons. Other than grouping them together (middle easterners?) nothing other than standalone really makes sense and the discussion more-or-less reached that conclusion. A "no consensus" close would also have been possible, but not useful. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

They were, in fact, both grouped as Middle Easterners before Electoralist went on his crusade.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC) And I'd be fine with that too (personally) but it's reasonable to read the discussion to have consensus on the side of "stand alone". Though "no consensus to change" would also have been a reasonable close. Sometimes it comes down to admin discreteness. I don't think "Asian" was a possible reading of that discussion though. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC) User: Hobit I agree with classifying them both as Middle Eastern. I would recommend changing your vote to reflect that if this is something you would truly back.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC) It's something I'd be happy with personally, but the question at hand is if the close reflected the consensus of the discussion. I think there were two possible closes that would be within discretion, "no consensus" and "standalone". The closer went with "standalone" which is, IMO, a reasonable reading of the discussion, so I must endorse. Hobit (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC) There was no overwhelming consensus either way. There isn't one here either.ChronoFrog (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse It seems the most reasonable outcome. Slurs against Jews are based on their religion. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Doug WellerA great number of those slurs were ethnic in nature, so this is not true. Also, as the sheer volume of RS raised in previous discussions demonstrates, Jews are an ethnic/nation group, not a faith. One can be an atheist, an agnostic, or even a Buddhist and still be recognized as a Jew.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. I participated in the RfC after seeing the RfC notice, but I was not previously involved in the template page. I participated in the RfC over some time, responding to questions from other editors and also making some template edits that I hoped had been helpful and leaving a few unrelated suggestions on the talk page. I then took it off my watchlist, and was pinged to be aware of this discussion at AN. So that's my prior involvement. I observed that there was a real problem with the editing environment at the template page, and I ended up deciding that I should walk away because the editing environment was simply not worth my trouble (and I'm hardly an editor who shrinks from difficult editing topics!). The problem is that there is a very aggressive group of good-faith but inflexible editors who have extremely strong personal feelings about how the Jewish people should be classified, derived from their personal understandings of their own Jewish faith, and they are convinced that they are correct and that there must be no compromise over what is, in effect, divinely determined. When I came freshly to the RfC, my opinion was that the correct determination was what the close ended up being. And most of the other editors who came to the template page from the RfC notice as I did, also came to that conclusion. So that really was the consensus of editors who came to the RfC (as opposed to the editors who were already in the discussion before the RfC). But we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like. The close was a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

One aspect you are ignoring is that one side (the side arguing in favor of Asian categorization) provided reliable sources. A ton of them, in fact. The other side posted a blog and not much else. I am hardly what you'd call inflexible, even on issues that directly impact me (like this one). My problem is that the arguments presented were weak and, in terms of the sources he did bring forth, WP:UNDUE. I also think you are ignoring the content of the arguments being made, which is part of the reason I brought this up with Deryck in the first place. So your characterization of those arguing in favor of Asian as intractable is highly unfair (especially in light of Electoralist's recalcitrance and immaturity throughout the whole ordeal). ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC) See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Electoralist (talk) 5:55 pm, Today (UTC−7) You really should take your own advice before hurling that accusation in my direction.ChronoFrog (talk) 6:12 pm, Today (UTC−7) Ultimately, this is why I took it off my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) User:Tryptofish Well, you did seemingly disparage our arguments ("but we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like.") without offering any substantive reasons as to why they are wrong, or unencyclopedic, or not consistent with Wikipedia policy (it also seems as though you thought only one side was overzealous, which I find curious). My view is that if one does not wish to actually participate in the discussion and help us arrive at an agreement, they should stay out of it and not post drive-by "votes".ChronoFrog (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - While there are 1 or 2 very loud voices among the minority who have pursued this on Deryck's talk page and at DRN in what I view as an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING the criteria at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures for challenging the closure have not been met. The closure and consensus determination were sound and all we've seen since the closure is a rehash of the same arguments over and over again. Electoralist (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

I see that User:ChronoFrog (below) is again trying to reargue the RFC and is claiming the consesnsus has a lack of WP:RS in support. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews (who constitute over 75% of the world Jewish population) are matrilineally descended from four European ancestors as "only half the picture" yet his solution completely ignores that half of the picture. A layperson's explanation of Ashkenazi genetics can be found in this LiveScience article Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European and scholarly sources can be found in this article from the European Journal of Human Genetics "MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population", a peer reviewed article which Google Scholar states has been cited by 78 other scholarly articles, as well as "Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora" a peer reviewed article cited by 87 other scholarly articles. As has been exhaustively both in the orpginal Talk page discussion as well as the Deryck Chan's talk page, there are several Jewish ethnic groups - Ashkenazi (European) Jews, Sephardic (Spanish/North African) Jews, Mizrachi (Arab or Middle Eastern) Jews (often conflated with Sephardic Jews), as well as Ethiopian Jews (and other sub-Saharan Jews) Desi Jews, Chinese Jews and others whose skin colour are white, brown, black, "yellow", etc. To say Jews are simply "West Asian" looks, to revisit User:ChronoFrog's quote at "only half the picture" as much as saying Ashkenazi Jews are European looks at only half the picture, let alone South Asian, Chinese, and Black Jews. Therefore, listing Jews as a standalone category in the template makes more sense rather than trying to shoehorn them into a particular ethnic subcategory (West Asian, European, or African) particularly when one considers that as a religion, Jews have accepted converts for millenia and will continue to do so meaning that admixturing will continue. While there is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnicity and all ethnic groups experience admixture, the composition of the Jewish people as a religion as well as a culture and ethnicity amplified by the Jewish history of disperal (diaspora) throughout the world means that admixturing has occured to a much greater degree and makes it impossible to simplistically place Jews under a single ethnic category. Culture, language and customs, indeed, are very important elements however there is no single Jewish culture or even language. Ashkenazi culture is distinct from Shephardic culture and the former is traditionally built around the Yiddish language (hence the term Yiddishkeit) which is a Germanic language with Hebrew influences and Slavic elements (depending on what part of Europe its speakers were in) has never been spoken by Shephardic, Mizrachi, South Asian or other Jewish populations. Similarly, Shephardic Jews have their own language traditionally, Ladino, which is derived from Spanish, and their own customs, cultural and even liturgical traditions and the other Jewish populations I mention all have their own distinct cultures and customs and speak different languages. There are overlaps and shared elements, of course, but the distinctions are enough to make it impossible to classify all the different varients of Jews as a singular, West Asian, ethnic group. Electoralist (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Wonderful that you (conveniently) ignored my responses to those same exact points. Here's a refresher: "The title of that article ("Surprise, Jews are Genetically European") is highly misleading since the study it cites deals only with mtDNA, which is about half of the equation (and allegedly harder to pin down than Y-DNA). Y-DNA of Ashkenazim is almost entirely Semitic/Levantine. Autosomal studies show them to be about half-half, with the European side being largely Greek/Roman. "The contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population, as characterised by several recent genetic studies, is approximately 600 to 800 years old and is probably the result of the fusion of ancestral European and Middle-Eastern populations, according to research published this week in Nature Communications. These previous studies have described Ashkenazi Jewish individuals as a genetically distinct population, close to other Jewish populations, as well as to present-day Middle-Eastern and European people. As is common in distinct populations, they demonstrate distinctive genetic characteristics including a high prevalence of genetic diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, and breast and ovarian cancer. The authors also produced a model that indicates that the formation of the contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population occurred 600 to 800 years ago (close to the time of the population bottleneck) with the fusion of two ancestral populations: ancestral European and ancestral Middle-Eastern. They also find that the ancestral European population went through a founding bottleneck when diverging from ancestral Middle Easterners 20.4 to 22.1 thousand years ago, around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum. The ancestors of both of these populations underwent another bottleneck, probably corresponding to an Out-of-Africa event." http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/9440 Additionally, this study shows that Ashkenazim and other diaspora groups are closer to Samaritans on the Y-DNA line than Palestinian Arabs. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/humu.20077/abstract;jsessionid=10F76852AD872606B6B2DA06BF5C221E.f03t02 This one is even more direct. According to Behar, the most parsimonious explanation for this shared Middle Eastern ancestry is that it is "consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World". http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html Lastly, nobody is claiming that Ashkenazim have no European mixture, or cultural influences. The point is that it's irrelevant. For one thing, this discussion is about Jews as a whole, not just Ashkenazim. Second, admixture or cultural influences obtained in diaspora (there's that word again) does not change or negate the ethnic identity of a people. Native Americans have European ancestry too; I don't see anyone arguing that they should no longer be classified as aboriginal North Americans (to use one example). Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Bene Israel, and so on are diaspora subgroups, not ethnicities in and of themselves. But while we're on that subject, according to DNA studies Ethiopian, Chinese, and Indian Jews have Israelite descent as well (albeit to an obviously lesser degree).ChronoFrog (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Likewise, your skin color argument is equally silly, since there are many Ashkenazic Jews who have brown skin and Sephardim/Mizrahim who have white skin. The overlap is significant, as has been mentioned countless times. Indian, Ethiopian, and East Asian Jews more closely resemble their host populations because they assimilated to a much greater degree, but they have Israelite descent as well.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Admixturing is not irrelevent (nor is the fact that Jews accept converts and there have been a steady stream of converts from other ethnicities for centuries) it is the reason why there are numerous ethnocultural groups within the Jewish people and the reason it is difficult to classify Jews ethnically. Jews are a complex ethno-cultural-religious population. Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly matrilineally descended from Europeans and patrilineally from Middle Easterners, moreover they are or were located in Europe for close to 2,000 years and were influneced linguistically (hence the Yiddish language and culturually. As ethnography is also a matter of language, culture, and customs this is hardly irrelevent. Nor are the language, culture, and customs of Sephardic Jews that are distinct from those of Askhenazi, those of Ethiopian Jews (who are Black), South Asian Desi Jews (who appear South Asian) etc. To shoehorn all Jews under the category of "West Asian" is simplistic and negates half the picture. In any case, you are attempting to reargue the RFC once again and are veering into WP:FORUMSHOPPING and have identified no valid reasons for reopening the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Again, this has been addressed. Every population has absorbed foreign admixture to varying degrees, so to make genetic purity into a prerequisite for inclusion under a particular category is ludicrous. There is no such thing as a genetically pure population, especially when it comes to ethnoreligious/national groups (as defined by the RS that you keep ignoring) such as Jews. So yes, it is irrelevant. As to your other argument, I already addressed that. Ashkenazim, Ethiopian Jews, Desi Jews, etc are diaspora subpopulations of Jews, not separate ethnicities (again, I refer you back to the RS).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) I'll add that in Template_talk:Ethnic slurs you made it quite clear after the RFC closed that you intend "to keep it going until the template [is] to your liking" and that you are "going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made" which supports my belief that you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING and intend to just keep rehashing the same arguments over and over again. I think you need to stop now. Electoralist (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) No, THIS is what I said. "I rejected it because I was exhausted and had no interest in perpetuating a discussion that had clearly run out of steam, and it was obvious (at least to me) that you intended to keep it going until the template was to your liking." Not that I'm surprised that you would take my quote out of context.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Yes, my apologies in my haste just now I misread my comment (quoting you) on the talk page which was actually a response to what you've just reposted above and I forgot the context of the first quote (though not the second). My reply to the original comment you've just reposted was: "The irony of your statement is that it is you who are attempting "to keep it going until the template [is] to your liking". You even said earlier today "I'm going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made" Electoralist (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) and, indeed, this comment has proven to be correct. Electoralist (talk) And I responded with this. I'm not interested in keeping the discussion going. As far as I'm concerned, it died down weeks ago as it should have. I'm petitioning for a change that more closely adheres to Wiki policy and takes our concerns into account.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC) ChronoFrog (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - After the RfC closed, I noticed a number of policy related errors (notably WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, etc) with the final decision. I went through the proper channels to see what could be done about it, and this led me to contacting Deryck who set up a DRN yesterday, although it was locked after only an hour due to it being in the wrong forum. We were instructed to bring this to AN, so here we are. The reason I am writing this is because I want to preempt any accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING so that we may focus our attention on the underlying dispute.

To recap, the dispute itself was about whether or not Jews should be categorized as West Asian/Middle Eastern, as they had been for several years. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries (primarily the result of displacement via foreign colonialism) and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are a West Asian national group with ethnic ties/collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews belong under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (as this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, and Jews are no exception.

None of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it is (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). It also seemed as though many of the responses came from editors without much in the way of prior exposure to this topic, since there were a few editors who appeared to have backtracked on their initial support for the proposal as discussion wore on. I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

This has nothing to do with the ancient origin of the Jews, which then may be classified as Asian, this has to do with categorization of slurs as it stands with Jews. Jews today are not Asian, they are Jews. Some are Asian, some are African, many are American. I am Jewish but I am not Asian. It does not make sense to categorize Jewish with regards to slurs as Asian. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) So you're saying that being Asian requires actually living there? If that were the case, no Asian diaspora would fit in that category.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) No, that's not what I'm saying. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Your argument is that Jews are no longer a West Asian ethnic group because they left (or rather, were forcibly displaced) the Middle East. So at least from my vantage point, that seems to be precisely what you are saying.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) If that's not what you're saying, then what *are* you saying?ChronoFrog (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Even if your argument was not ridiculous on the face of it, per commong naming, it would result in 'Arab' and 'Jew' being grouped under 'Middle East' rather than 'West Asian' (which is generally used only historically). I can see that going down well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC) User:Only in death You call my argument ridiculous (despite the heaps of RS provided to back it up, on the template and Deryck's page, but I can post them here too) without articulating how or why. It would be helpful if you could at least elaborate. Also, I am not opposed at all to placing Jews and Arabs under Middle Eastern (or Asian). They had been grouped together on that template for the past 4 years, with no issue.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the main concepts that those who "Endorse" do not seem to realize remains that Judaism does not solely describe the Jewish "religion," but a Semitic Peoplehood, Tribe, Ethnoreligious group, and in some aspects a "Race;" but even being a "Race" would not mean that Jews did not originate as one people within the Southwest Levant; in fact, it would support Judaism's ethnogenesis within that region. Look at the culture, philosophies, phenotypical and genetic features that Jews have carried throughout the ages since their formation in the Land of Canaan. Look at Jews' relations to other Semitic peoples: Example 1, Example 2. Look at our languages and the various derivations as well as amalgamations to other languages (Yiddish, Ladino, etc.), we are a united people with core, root, Semitic/Afro-Asiatic, Ethnocultural beliefs (like Tzedakah, Tikkun Olam, and Torah) and yet different/intersecting branches that have branched out due to Diaspora, enslavement, intermarriage, etc. (One prominent example being in 70 CE when Titus besieged Jerusalem. Such variations occur within all Peoples, but every People has their own Peoplehood, even if they have mixed with other Peoples. Therefore, all ethnic groups within the ethnic slur chart should either be separated without umbrella ethnographic groups involved (e.g. not categorized by Asian (East, Central, South, etc.), African, European, etc.), OR Jews, Arabs, and other Afro-Asiatic Peoples should share an ethnographic umbrella of West Asians/North Africans, especially given the fact that Israel is a central part of what it means to be a Jew, whether by genetics, or sociopolitical affiliation (e.g. joining the Tribe, converting, etc.); on a related note, Israel is also located on the African Plate, so please also take that into consideration. Todah Rabah, and talk with you soon! Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, by not including West Asians/North Africans, the editors here exclude all Semitic/Afro-Asiatic peoples from having an ethnographic base for their ethnic slurs on the chart. Seriously, it would be omitting West Asian/North African/Middle Eastern as a possible region toward which people directed slurs (i.e. the term "Philistine," to connote Jews' longtime rival neighbor and for which their land was renamed by Romans after besieging Jerusalem; and the basis for the term "Anti-Semitism," coined by Wilhelm Marr, which should not mean to suggest Jews are not Semites, but rather, that Jews should not be negatively spurned for being Semitic. The Nazis'/Europeans' negative use for "Semite" and their negative attribution to Jews' Semitic origins, probably contributed a great deal to the miscommunication/miseducation that many of our people suffer today in terms of figuring out how to ethnically/racially describe our people). Again, Todah Rabah. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And another point, in case anyone is confused, "ethnicity" and "race" are not solely defined by skin tone. Again, Diaspora. Please make a West Asian/North African (Afro-Asiatic/Middle Eastern) umbrella category within the template for peoples like Jews, Arabs, Samaritans, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, Bahá'í, etc. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jeffgr9 and ChronoFrog.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse without bringing any new arguments in, as many opposers here are doing, the closure was reasonable for what was typed there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett These are the same arguments that appeared in the RfC (same sources, too).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, you are simply rehashing the same arguments over and over again in the hopes that if you repeat yourself enough you will wear everyone else down. That's precisely why you have no valid reason to reopen the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone had responded to (let alone debunked) the RS and arguments the first time, I would have no need to bring them up again. But nobody did, and I'm increasingly beginning to understand why (obviously, because they *can't* respond to them).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Virtually no one has responded to most of my points. It is insulting, and does not make sense how people can move forward without addressing everyone's points. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You and ChronoFrog are completely missing the point of this discussion. This is not a rerun of the RFC. No one will respond to your points because what is being assessed here is not the content of the RFC but whether the close of the RFC was appropriate. The closing admin is expected to read through the arguments made in the RFC and the sentiment of the contributing editors. Any admin that discusses the content becomes involved and cannot make a close. As long as you approach this discussion as a rerun of the RFC, all that will happen is you will become increasingly frustrated because your expectations are not, and cannot be, met. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. There appears to be a generally even balance between giving the Jews a separate line and not giving them a separate line, but the latter is split between Europeans and Asians, with occasional other stuff, and giving the Jews a separate line appears to be the closest to getting consensus. As a Christian from a Levitical family, I'm familiar with a lot of these ideas, and as I read through the discussion, I found myself first agreeing with one side, then the other, then the first, then the other, etc.; everyone's arguments tend to make sense, so we have to find a way to accommodate all of them as well as we can. "No consensus" generally defaults to status quo ante bellum, but if there's reason not to close this in favor of a separate line, there's even better reason not to close it in favor of the pre-discussion form. WP:NOTAVOTE, but as I noted above, it's not as if any position is making significantly stronger arguments than the others; all of them make good points, but since we have to adopt exactly one of the positions (putting them in both places would be an absurd misapplication of WP:NPOV), the best way to do this is going first past the post and allowing the weight of numbers to count. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyttend While I don't agree with your position (the consensus prior to moving Jews and Arabs to standalone was that they should stay under a Middle Eastern category; also, the side with RS should, as a general rule, trump the side without it), I appreciate that you *at least* read and considered our arguments. That seems to be something nobody else in here is willing to do.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It appears that most of the "Endorse" comments in here are drive-by votes. That is, they dismissed the ideas/RS brought forward by the "Oppose" side without giving any reasons, or participating in discussion here. This is the same problem that caused me to challenge Deryck's decision in the first place. The strength of arguments is determined through debate and dialogue, not simply repeating one's pre-deliberative opinions and intuitions. I have addressed, and refuted, every single argument against categorizing Jews and Arabs as West Asian/Middle Eastern, but there are no responses to be found (with few exceptions, and I refuted those too). That is deeply frustrating to me, and not conducive at all to genuine consensus building.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason for this is that this section on AN is supposed to be assessing the close, not to repeat the debate. A new debate should probably happen at the same talk page, but listing it here has brought in a new audience. Those opposing are not saying why the close is wrong, just repeating or boosting the argument that should have gone into the RFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Graeme Bartlett Would it be possible to start a new RfC on this issue in the future, per WP: CCC?ChronoFrog (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. For many of the reasons already stated by others, primarily the error in viewing Jews as strictly, or even primarily, a religious group. Jews are a nation, and an ethno-religious group. Jews who are Jewish by birth and perhaps by culture, but not by the practice of religion, are still subjected to the same slurs as religious Jews, which clearly blows apart the notion that the slurs are religious. I have also noticed that those who are endorsing this decision have not provided any legitimate responses to the numerous points raised by the "Oppose" side - they simply keep repeating the same arguments that have been amply refuted by ChronoFrog and Jeffgr9. I agree with those who have suggested going back to a separate grouping for the Middle East, as opposed to the rest of Asia, but in the absence of a Middle Eastern category, it makes logical sense to group both Arabs and Jews as (west) Asian. PA Math Prof (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's because the purpose here is not to repeat the debate but to assess the closure. That the oppose side insists on doing the former is indicative of there being no actual criteria met for reopening the RFC under Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Electoralist (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Part of that assessment entails examining the policy-related errors made in said closure, including the dismissal of WP:RS and violation of WP:UNDUE. Aside from that, most editors who have posted here gave their opinions on the subject, and thus I responded.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. With all due respect to the dedicated volunteers who maintain Wikipedia, I must say, the bureaucracy here is terrible. How is it possible to expect even the experienced editors here to make real decision? An huge debate has been dumped on their laps that's been active for more than six weeks on five different forums! This is not fair to the newcomers and isn't fair for the topic itself. I preferred the earlier discussion at the DRN, which was much more promising. There, the original participants were invited to present their summaries before discussion began, and real discussion was taking place before it got shut down. Though much damage is already done, I'm copying that discussion here above, since that content should have been here from the inception. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

"An huge (sic) debate has been dumped on their laps that's been active for more than six weeks on five different forums!" - Indeed, that's because the minority has been engaging in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. However, the purpose here is not to rehash the argument. Electoralist (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Untrue. And I think that rather than more bureaucratic noise, we'd like to see some RS for your perspective. I'm sure it was by mistake, but the blog post and Usenet article you have provided do not fit the bill. Musashiaharon (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC) I already posted the link to the peer reviewed European Journal of Human Genetics article as well as a second peer reviewed article which, between them, are cited a total of 169 times by scholarly sources as well as the LiveScience article putting the DNA findings in lay terms. I'm sure you ignored them by mistake. However, again, the purpose of WP:ANI is not to rehash the argument ad nauseum which is something you and ChronoFrong seem determined to do. As for your "untrue" remark, the fact that by your admission the argument is spread out over "five different forums!" is evidence of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Electoralist (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Yeah, you did post that study, and I pointed out that A ) it deals only with the mtDNA half, not the entire genome, B ) nobody disputed that Ashkenazim have European mixing, but that it is not sufficient to declassify them as a MENA group (as they are a diaspora subgroup of a Middle Eastern ethnicity), and C ) it's only one source, whereas the Asian side has provided close to a dozen (and I could easily gather more, but those sources alone should have been more than enough). As for your accusations of forum shopping, I refer you back to my original post in here. "After the RfC closed, I noticed a number of policy related errors (notably WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, etc) with the final decision. I went through the proper channels to see what could be done about it, and this led me to contacting Deryck who set up a DRN yesterday, although it was locked after only an hour due to it being in the wrong forum. We were instructed to bring this to AN, so here we are. The reason I am writing this is because I want to preempt any accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING so that we may focus our attention on the underlying dispute." Given the above, this does not qualify as forum shopping. I suggest taking the time to read what "forum shopping" actually means.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC) I'm going to bring musashi's replies from the DRN down here, because there are even more WP:RS provided within. ==== Summary of dispute by Musashiaharon ==== This dispute has been continuing for over a month and is still quite active. The core question is how to categorize Jews among the other ethnic groups in the template. Before the dispute began on June 25, Jews were placed next to Arabs under [West] Asians, and had been categorized as such for several years. Currently the choices are to put Jews in a standalone category, or to group them as a Middle Eastern or West Asian ethnicity. (It was previously attempted to categorize them as White/European. This was quickly dismissed, because A) a large proportion of Jews are not Ashkenazic, and B) the beginnings of Jewish ethnicity, regardless the subgroup, are traceable to the Middle East, which still bears obvious influence on their internal and external associations and current way of life.) Before I state my opinion, I'll describe my criteria. An ethnicity is "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." It makes sense therefore, to categorize ethnicities by the origins of these defining elements. Because of this, I am in favor of categorizing Jews in general as a Middle Eastern or [West] Asian ethnicity, being that each of these defining elements is traceable to the Middle East. This is verified in linguistics (eg. Gersenius' Hebrew Grammar), historical writings (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews), Jewish philosophical writings (Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, and The Kuzari), and in Rabbinical writings on ritual law (Berachot 30a, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Agriculture: Terumot), as well as the Torah itself (Genesis 12, et al.). Genetics is a topic of secondary importance to ethnographers, who are mostly concerned with culture. Yet there too, clear genetic markers link Jews from all over the world to the Middle East (NCBI: Abraham's Children in the Genome Era). Some admixture with the local populations is present, as with any other ethnic group. However, given the overwhelming influence of cultural factors, this can hardly be said to negate or weaken the existence of the Jewish ethnicity in any clear or specific way. Such converts were considered fully Jewish by other Jews around the world, and were more often than not persecuted and ostracized from their previous social circles (eg. Lord George Gordon). Germane to this particular template of Ethnic slurs, the slurs themselves give further support to categorizing Jews as Middle Eastern. In particular, "Christ-killer" shows that Europeans positively identified their local Jews to be one and the same as the people who killed their god in the Land of Israel. Similarly, the term "Yid" developed from the High German "jüdisch," etc., which came from the Hebrew "Yehudi," or Judean, after Judah, the pre-eminent, royal tribe among the Jews in their own land (Online Etymology Dictionary: Yid). Parenthetically, Jews at large already had come to be called by that same term ("Yehudi", Judean) thousands of years earlier, regardless their tribal affiliation (eg. Mordecai the Benjaminite in Esther 2:5). Ultimately, "Judean" came to be shortened to "Jew," (Online Etymology Dictionary: Jew) and so even in the slurs themselves, Jews are acknowledged to be a Middle Eastern people. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) ===== Rebuttal to Electoralist ===== The term "Christ killer" was not limited to the Jews in Europe, but also extended at the very least to the Jews in the Holy Land, Ashkenazic or not. During the Crusades, the crusaders massacred and enslaved Jews alongside Muslims in Jerusalem. They saw no difference between the Jews in the Holy Land and those Jews in Europe, and both communities suffered terrible bloodbaths throughout (E. Judaica: Christian-Jewish Relations: The Crusades). The distinctions between Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Polish, Yemenite, Moroccan, Chinese and other Jews are actually quite minor. They all observe the Sabbath starting Friday at sunset until Saturday nightfall. They all avoid mixing dairy with meat. They all observe Passover, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. They all wear Tefillin. They all wear the Tallit. They all put Mezuzot on their doorposts. They all pray the Amidah and say the Shema in the morning and the evening. The differences are only in details, like the direction they wrap the straps of the Tefillin, the pattern of stripes on the Tallit, small stylistic differences in the writing of the Mezuzot, and so on. In this template, splitting hairs like this is not useful and is WP: UNDUE. More importantly, all these Jewish communities consider each other part of their own people. For example, the Italian Jews gave refuge to and redeemed Jewish captives the crusaders brought back from the Holy Land, see above from E. Judaica. The Rambam gave instruction to Yemenite Jews via correspondence from Egypt. Ashkenazic Jews today study the Italian Bartenura's commentary on the Mishna and Yalkut Meam Loez, a Midrashic work originally written in Ladino. The Sephardi Halachic authority Rabbi Joseph Caro wrote the Shulchan Aruch, on which the Ashkenazic sage Rabbi Moses Isserles of Poland wrote his notes and commentary, HaMapah. Similarly, in Avkat Rachel, Caro expresses his esteem for the Rambam the customs of the Yemenite community and urges his student to not interfere with their customs. The unity of the Jewish community despite their geographical distance is exceptional. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ChronoFrog (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "They all observe the Sabbath starting Friday at sunset until Saturday nightfall." Actually Mushashiaron, I think ChronoFrog differs from you on that point. Electoralist (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC) And you were complaining about personal attacks before? What do you call this?ChronoFrog (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close I read through pretty much all of the RFC (except for the last third that degenerated into little more than a shouting match) and on the whole find Deryck's close reasonable. Also, please do not try to engage me on the specifics of the debate as that is not the point of this closure review. Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Deryck Chan's reasoning makes sense to me.

Regarding the original RFC: Like Tryptofish, I had no previous involvement with the template and joined the discussion after seeing the RFC notice. As I said there, I agree with the reasons Electoralist stated for having a standalone category. Having read through this conversation (and much of Deryck Chan's talk page) hasn't changed my mind. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:BlackcurrantTea You won't explain why you disagree with the sources or policy based arguments which the "Asian" side has provided an abundance of, and you are unwilling to discuss it. How exactly does this help us reach an agreement?ChronoFrog (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2016 (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) 05:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like it might be time to ban anyone who participated in the RFC (on either side) and who has already commented here from further comment in this close review; they're sucking all the oxygen out of the room. If you haven't been able to make your point (repeatedly) by now, you're probably doing more harm than good by continuing to try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Use your mop and hat all the discussion that isnt a direct support/oppose? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I was tempted to hat the wall of text directly above my Endorse but as I had !voted it wouldn't have been appropriate. ChronoFrog's fervour and zeal has long gone over the edge into badgering. Blackmane (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I have no idea why you are singling me out. Either way, if Wikipedia guidelines had been taken into account during the course of the RfC and in its closure (instead of relying on a majority of mostly hit-and-run "votes"), nobody would be raising a fuss about this. At this point, I honestly do think there is an issue of WP:Systemic bias on here.ChronoFrog (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I haven't !voted, so I've hatted the rehashing of the debate. I think I got it all, but if someone with a mop wants to edit/add/remove it, knock yourself out. If you aren't an admin, or if you participated in the original RFC, do not modify it. I think I can safely speak for fellow admins when I say that would be considered disruptive at least and tendentious at worst. We need to review the RFC close here, not restart the RFC. Katie^talk 12:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @ChronoFrog:The point of this thread was raised by Deryck Chan to review the closure of the RFC. It is not to rehash the RFC here. WP:AN is not and never will be the location to decide content issues. You have responded to virtually all of the commenters here as if another RFC was being run. If it's a few comments here and there, then that's no problem but badgering every single !voter is disruptive.

Let me repeat we are not here to go over the RFC material again. Deryck closed the RFC, you among a number of other editors raised concerns about his closure on his talk page and after an extended discussion he brought his closure here for review. Many of the commenters, myself included, will have read the RFC and we came to our own conclusions. If consensus here is that Deryck's close was appropriate then that is that. However, you are more than welcome to attempt a new RFC at some point in the future because consensus certainly can change but be warned that repeatedly opening RFC's within a short space of time to try and get your POV across is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Close. Standalone seems to be the closest thing to consensus (with a non-insignificant minority suggesting that slurs be disassociated from geographical region altogether for everyone, not just Jews). Alternatively no consensus could be supported, but to me despite the massive walls of text from a couple of vocal advocates, Standalone is the best close option. As with others, I'm not interested in entering the debate on the issue, because this isn't the place to reopen it - my opinion is regarding the close only. PGWG (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

*Comment I just wanted to clarify for those who are against the close. This template is not about the origins of Jews, or Africans or whatever, it is how to classify ethnic slurs against people. When I hurl a slur at an African American, I am doing so based on his African heritage, unless the slur is about him being a Yankee, then it's a slur based on his being American. Same as with an Asian or Arab, but for a Jew, you are insulting him based on his religion or ethnicity. Most Jews don't have Asian heritage or ancestry. You are not insulting them based on that, you are insulting them merely for being Jewish so it does seem clear that the category should be stand-alone. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Most Jews don't have Asian heritage or ancestry". This statement is incorrect. http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html, http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/9440, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/ I'll stop there. It's no wonder the consensus is so out of step with policy when most of the editors involved won't even read the WP:RS provided. I'm beginning to think that WP:BIAS is what's causing it.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) This is not the place to rehash your arguments. I'll just end by saying that even if Jews came from Asia a thousand years ago, that is not their heritage, or culture, in 2016. An American Jew is American who is Jewish, so the slurs are either geography based or Jewish based, it has nothing to do with Asia. If you want to talk about ancient history then there are articles for that. But a template on classification of slurs is not the place. This is just to discuss the close of the RFC not to rehash the same arguments over again. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Jewish heritage *is* Asian heritage (or Middle Eastern heritage, if you will). Our identity now is the same as it was before we left Israel: Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew. Picking up cultural influences/genes in diaspora doesn't cancel out our national heritage. No other displaced indigenous people would ever accept such an argument, so why should we? And the reason I am "rehashing my arguments" is because nobody answered them, in the RfC, on Deryck's page, or on here.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Sir Joseph, your statements regarding what defines a Jew are false, ignorant, and offensive. Please refrain from making narrow-minded arguments to define Jewish identity. But I will ask you, What defines an "American?" What defines a "Jew?" Again, when others and I have said "West Asian," we mean, Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, North African, etc.—the essential origins of Jewish identity and the ethnic slurs related to Jews from time immemorial. Please refer to my arguments above in this discussion, and not just this comment. Todah Rabah, Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC) To all, No one here who "endorses" the closure of the RfC has addressed my arguments, nor truly investigated the arguments of others who "oppose" the closure of the RfC, and that is a form of systematic ignorance and rejectionism. I understand the sociopolitical narratives and undercurrents that we have learned since childhood, and I know, and have cited, how breaking down Jewish identity as "nothing more than a religion" is false and due to trauma that has infiltrated our Jewish communities, our views of history, and dealing with current events. Please thoughtfully address all editors' concerns, or else you risk creating false histories for readers who come across these articles/templates (e.g. the omission of West Asians/North Africans/"Middle Easterners" causes the template to fail on an ethnographic scale for ethnic slurs, and literally rejects the existence of the roots of Anti-Semitism). Todah Rabah, Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Because this isn't the place to re-fight the RFC, it is to assess the consensus that the closer determined. The continued walls of text are starting to smell more like forum shopping than anything else. PGWG (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Also, the slur "Christ killer" directly alludes to our Mid-East heritage, since it is an accusation that the Jews killed Christ (how could we have done any such thing if we were never there in the first place?).ChronoFrog (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse the closure - We should not be discussing the issue of how to categorize ethnic slurs against Jews. The only issue is whether the closure of the RFC was reasonable, whether the closure could reasonably be justified from the statements by the participants. To the extent that anyone is trying to re-argue the issue, that is forum shopping. I closed the attempt to discuss either the closure or the original issue at WP:DRN because DRN is not a forum to review an RFC closure; in dispute resolution, an RFC "trumps" any other content forum. DRN sometimes resolves a dispute by opening an RFC. An RFC is not followed by DRN. The issue should not be discussed further. It was already discussed adequately in the RFC (and DRN would have a smaller audience than RFC anyway). The only issue is whether the closer used reasonable judgment. The closer did use reasonable judgment in finding that there was rough consensus (a small majority) that ethnic slurs against Jews should be categorized in a stand-alone category. The only question is whether the closer used reasonable judgment, and the closer used reasonable judgment. Any other effort to discuss is just a waste of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, as being a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. Obviously the whole Judaism topic area is more likely to generate strong emotions one way or another than most topic areas, and I think Deryck did a good job of digging through that stridency to work out what was going on. A lot of the arguments being made here that look for the discussion to be overturned are just rehashes of the same arguments that failed to gain consensus in the RFC itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:35, 10 August 2016 (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.

Draft:Tichki speedy deletion under G12?

While working on clearing the G12 deletions yesterday, I came across this draft. With the exception of the title, it's a copy/paste of Koobface, but I wasn't entirely sure that G12 covers drafts of our own articles. I declined it and intended to come back to this later as a possible A10, but then got busy IRL and entirely forgot about it.

Dodger67 asked me on my talk page why I had declined it, pointing to WP:ATTREQ, and I explained my thinking. Upon reflection, I'm not sure A10 can apply either since it's not in the mainspace, and I'm still not sure we can use G12. I'm asking here because this is bound to come up in the future for drafts or it has in the past and I've missed it. The draft needs to go bye-bye, but how should I handle it? Katie^talk 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically, an unattributed copy of a Wikipedia article is indeed a copyright infringement. Myself, I'd probably either redirect the draft or delete it under A10 anyway. And then ask the creating editor if they had something specific in mind when they copied the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

G12 itself does apply - there's no need to "stretch" A10 - the G# speedy criteria apply in all namespaces, unlike A# which apply only to mainspace. I've tagged a significant number of such "internal" copyvio drafts in the course of working at AFC, I believe this is the first time an admin has declined to delete such a copyvio draft that I've tagged. In any case this draft also qualifies for deletion under G3 as a blatant hoax. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking G3 as I read it again, and I think that's better. Roger, if you can't understand why I would ask for help from others on something about which I was unclear, sorry. We're not omnipotent and not one of us has all the answers. At any rate, it's gone now. Thanks, Jo-Jo. :-) Katie^talk 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not unusual for an editor to make a copy of an existing article as a model with the intention of making changes to reflect a related subject. I'm not supporting it is as good practice; it is often a bad idea, but if done it should be done off-line not in any of our existing spaces. I don't know whether that was what happened in this case but I've seen many such examples. I agree that G 12 applies to all spaces but I applaud Katie for recognizing that the question was worth asking. There are a number of rules whose application is different depending on whether it is mainspace or draft space. This isn't one of those examples but it was a reasonable question to ask.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks KrakatoaKatie, I have absolutely no problem with this discussion, we all learn off each other, the process works, we improve the 'pedia, it's all good. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone here could help me with a (non-urgent) query on a similar issue, I did ask an admin a few months ago but their activity is erratic so I havnt got an answer yet. An editor who was having a content dispute at an article did not come out on the side of consensus, and then 'preserved' a copy of their preferred version in their sandbox (by cut and paste I believe). As there is no history I believe it falls foul of the attribution required, I cant link it to the diff it was copied from (to provide attrib) because I dont know where/when/what revision they copied it from, and the editor concerned would not take any enquiry on my part kindly. This isnt a case of a draft as Sphilbrick notes above - as a model for others, this is just an editor wanting a preferred version of an article under their control (edit summary is explicit in this) after they didnt get their way in a content dispute. Whats the next step? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• If it's been deleted, I'm not sure how that would be handled under G12. However, I'd certainly send that to the graveyard under G4. He can keep it somewhere, but that somewhere isn't his sandbox. You could nominate it, or you could ask a friendly admin. Katie^talk 20:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not deleted, the article is still there, they just want a copy of their preferred version (unvandalised as they put it) in their userspace. A less trusting person might think so they can put it back that way in the future. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you need to specify the exact revision the text was copied from in your attribution, as long as you do specify which article it came from - see WP:RIA. Hut 8.5 11:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to appeal unblock conditions (voluntary topic ban)

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

---

I am aware that I've brought this to AN/ANI on two previous ocassions. Neither which led to a consensus, hardly any discussion at all

For those of you unfamilar with the events that led to this "voluntary topic ban":

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (to which various requests for amendment/clarifiction was filed, including the ban discussion here)
• ban appeal
• unban/unblock discussion

To sum things up a little, I was banned in 2009. Prior to the events that led to my ban, when problems was constantly occurring, I treated Wikipedia as a bureaucracy. This included and was not limited to—overly strict interpretations of policies (especially sourcing and rollback policies), wikilawyering, abusive talk page warnings, unnecessary questions to user talk pages, nitpicking at the language parsed in either a policy or editing restriction, tendentious editing, editing such a manner so to impose my stance on articles or otherwise impose my strict interpretations of policies on articles, refusing to work with other uses, combative editing practices, policing other editors, slapping tags on articles, making gratituous remarks, etc. If you take a look at these 60+ conversations, my talk page archives (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9), and my edits dating from 2010 and earlier, I think those give some insight to sum that all up. All this, whilst "avoiding actually contributing to the project" (as one user said best). I attempted to do all the things that was administrative or technical, whilst without also helping to build an encyclopedia, and instead did things that garnered drama and ill will

It was the Power Rangers/Tokusatsu topic area that got the worst end of it. I targetted the topic area and went to impose my stance on the articles (as I said earlier about treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy). I butted heads with a user named Ryulong and although this user certainly wasn't right in many of his judgments/actions, it didn't help matters when I sat there and was a constant drain/timesink on the topic areas resources, scrutinized every single action this user did, or otherwise harassed and/or nettled them. All this would eventually lead to this interaction ban from Ryulong and a topic ban from editing Tokusatsu articles (to be clear however, the topic ban I'm appealing is one that was voluntarily imposed in 2012 due to unblock conditions I'll mention below). Long story short, my edits from 2007-09, was mostly either A) nitpicking at every single thing that I thought was wrong with the topic area and B) trying to find faults in every single thing Ryulong said/did. Needless to say however, this whole imposing my stance on articles went beyond this topic area, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_7#Common_Era this being a prime example. I could have contributed to the Power Rangers topic area (since its something I'm knowledgeable in), but I did not, given my mindset at the time I was so focused on treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy

When I was unblocked in 2012, I stated "If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure". Its a condition of the unblock and voluntary editing restriction, because the statement was a part of my unblock appeal, to which the community ultimately reached a consensus to unblock. I felt having just been unblocked, I'd be better off not diving head first back into the topic area I was most disruptive in, and to prove myself in other areas, practing my new editing practices elsewhere, for if I ever changed my mind later on, I would have this in force to prove myself productive in other areas and only then come back. Largely another reason for me imposing that ban on myself, was me trying to avoid the one user I'd once nettled or harassed. I wanted to make completely a fresh new start, by taking the advice some others gave me, by stopping interacting with a certain user and to find other topics to edit. I took this advice for the purpose to practice my new editing practices expressed in my unblock appeal elsewhere

Since my unblock, and while I still do janitorial work for the project (from time to time, mostly vandal fighting), I also do now contribute to the project by adding content and referenced content in articles. Just take a look at my edits since 2012. What you don't see is me treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy or imposing my stances on articles or otherwise going back to any of the other behaviors as before (as I mentioned above). I know 500+ edits doesn't seem to be much to go off of, but that's a reflection of me not going back to my old habits. I've done more for the project in just over 500+ edits since being unblocked, than I ever did in 7,000+ edits during the course of 2007-10 when problems were constantly occurring (and which there was only one content contribution I recall, and more than half of all edits was not article space, and even article space edits was me treating Wikipedias as a bureaucracy, not contributing to the project, which did nothing but inflate my edit count not improving the encyclopedia). Since my 2012 unblock, I've focused almost exclusively on the article space. These days I edit Wikipedia more as an occasion than a hobby, as I've steered clear of almost all things administrative, and mostly only edit Wikipedia if there's something to add to an article or a minor fix that could be done (as such, my vastly lower activity and edit count)

I'm requesting that the unblock conditions (the voluntary topic ban) be lifted. Power Rangers is a subject area I'm knowledgeable in, and if on the occasion I find something to contribute, it would be another topic area I could be useful to. If the conditions are lifted, I will promise not to repeat the same behaviors that pertained to treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy and will not go after the topic area to impose strict interpretations of policies as I once had. For once, I will actually be productive to the topic area (by actually contributing)

P.S. sorry for the long post. I just couldn't help but be this insightful, given as how many may be unfamilar with my case, and I wouldn't possibly be able to convey this in fewer words. (I wanted to give everyone an understanding of what led to the events whilst also informing everyone of how things have went since being unblocked) —Mythdon 08:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Rather than make any sort of commentary, I'll support with a simple thumbs up. Blackmane (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Request seems reasonable given the passage of time and your 500+ edits in other areas that demonstrate you can edit without causing problems. Monty₈₄₅ 13:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Past problems seem to be firmly in the past. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Please be aware that your contributions in the area are likely to be reviewed carefully, so make sure to let some issues go. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (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.

Looking or an uninvovled admin to take over a protection

Hello, could an uninvolved admin please review my protection of History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and take it over under their own name if they feel it's appropriate. There has been a long-running content dispute there that has broken out into a more intense edit war in the last few days. I have no dog in that fight, but I was involved in the Gibraltarpedia project and I've written several articles about Gibraltar and offered advice on this article earlier while another editor was developing it to FA quality, so I try to make it a point no to use my admin tools on anything Gibraltar-related. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Purely on the merits it seems like that article needed a break from editing, indeed - little but back-n'-forth reverting the last few days despite a talk page discussion. No opinion about which version is the WP:WRONGVERSION, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, with no opinion about The Wrong Version. If there's a problem after the protection expires, ping me and I'll take a look. Katie^talk 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked and unblocked Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) for reasons that can be found on their user talk. Do I need to back off? @HJ Mitchell:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. Thanks in advance Tiderolls 20:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Tide rolls: Huh? Copypaste error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Had to be. Apologies. Tiderolls 20:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was humerus. Katie^talk 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors with Editcountitis working in new page patrol

Group A- Problematic group of editors patrol new pages to increase their edit count. They have no interest to check, whether a page or an article has any notability. Their job is to fill bare URLs with refills, they will tag articles with auto wiki browser and twinkle, adding categories using hotcat. They will use all those primary sources to expand the article. They will never nominate a page for CSD, AFD, PROD. They work hard 24/7 to make a zero notable article, look like a notable article.

Group B- 98% of the new page patrollers have an interest in finding the notability of a page. These users try to identify non-notable page, by checking the sources and finding references. Now "Group A" editors make their job difficult. As SPAs don't know how to improve an article. They come to Wikipedia to promote themselves, their friends and their companies, bands, shops, business. They get unexpected help from "Group A" editors, whose editcountitis allows 5-6 % of these non- notable articles to escape being noticed by "Group B" patrollers.

I am giving one example, but this is just a drop in ocean. This page's references are nothing but links to their website. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The top of this page states and I quote "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.

If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.

Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email [email protected] directly with your concern."

So what does editors using AWB/Twinkle etc etc have anything to do with this board ? ..... –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have issues with a specific user, where blocking may be necessary, feel free to post here after trying to deal with this user via his/her talk page. Otherwise, there's probably nothing we can do to help you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@John Jaffar Janardan: You may get more of a response by posting your concerns at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

From past experience, when I see a "new" user doing page-patrols with article bomb-tagging, they nearly always turn out to be a sock of a blocked user. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So what is the issue for administrators here? A general discussion could go at WP:VPM. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New user account called User:DocJames

I am wondering if we should move this account to decrease confusion.[22]

They seem to be editing well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Softblocked. Katie^talk 22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also a User:Docjames Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have control of that account? It shouldn't redirect to your user space unless you do. Katie^talk 22:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@DocJames:, @Docjames:, would you consider a change of username to help reduce confusion? Failing that, would you be willing to change your signature to a different color/style from Doc James's which is close to the default?

@Doc James:, could you consider creating doppelganger accounts on any other permutation of your name that would be likely to cause confusion? Tazerdadog (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a redirect [23] but than someone created it. As the account is now blocked. Once that user makes a new account I can than replace it again with a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I believe the question is now about User:Docjames, which is another redirect to your userspace, and another user (although long inactive user). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes not sure what people wish to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

While I don't believe they do renames anymore (unless they're wearing additional hats), I think they're the ones most likely to help point you in the right direction, so you may wish to drop a note at WP:BN. - jc37 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hidden page

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_27#C:WPCATSUP

Ok, so I was going through some old edit histories (as I am sometimes wont to do : ) - and I came across this.

Seems innocuous at first glance.

However, read the discussion and then try to click on the link of the redirect in question.

Surprised?

It seems that C: is now the interwiki link for the Commons. (See this discussion.)

So just for housekeeping, I thought I'd speedy the redirect, as it clearly doesn't now get anyone anywhere (and so isn't aiding navigation in any way).

But here's the thing... I can't actually get to that redirect : )

I think we have a page that is trapped in the system which can't be accessed through typical means.

Now it shouldn't be a big deal, as I doubt the commons will ever need that page, but it's interesting enough that I wanted to share with all of you : )

Oh, and going through allpages, I found the following as well (though they do not appear to have this issue):

• C：
• C：/Program Files
• C：KND
• C：N ratio
• C：Real
• C：\
• C：\Program Files
• C：\WINDOWS
• C： The Contra Adventure
• C： The Money of Soul and Possibility Control

(And now I'll wait as someone will come along to tell me how it's actually simple to get to, "like this" : ) - jc37 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jc37, it's actually simple to get to if you know how to use the API to get these pages; there was an incident some time back in which the software momentarily permitted the creation of an article beginning with "de:", which of course quickly became inaccessible, undeleteable, and unmoveable, so we had to wait until someone familiar with API-based work was able to handle it. I'm not one of those someones. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

<applause> Congratulations on having tea and no tea at the same time! : ) - jc37 13:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with the applause] PS, I thought perhaps I'd get it by going through John Vandenberg's contributions for January 2014 (he sent it to RFD, so presumably he added the RFD template to the page), but it's not there. Deleted contributions? There's a relevant line:

(change visibility) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (diff | deletion log | view) . . C:WPCATSUP (Listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 11#C:WPCATSUP. (TW))

So the revision has been deleted. But click the (diff) link, and you get a message I've never seen before, MediaWiki:Undeleterevision-missing. Or go to Special:Undelete/C:WPCATSUP, and you discover that there are no deleted revisions in the database. I'm guessing that the process of turning C: into a crosswiki prefix caused all revisions of all C: pages to be deleted and then "really" deleted those revisions entirely. You know how computer experts can often recover files that you've deleted from your hard drive, but it's much harder (or impossible?) to recover old revisions of files if you've saved a newer revision on top of it. I think this is the same situation: causing "C:" to be an entirely different kind of topic caused the wholesale destruction of everything previously at that location, but since the deletion logs and the stuff that appears at Special:Undelete is probably stored separately, there's no technical reason that it can't appear there: the software can tell that a page previously existed at this title, and it knows that John Vandenberg made an edit to it, but there's no live revision of such a page, so it should be listed in Special:Deletedcontributions. So overall, it's the bizarre effect of a rare developer intervention in the revision database. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

PPS, </applause>. jc37, you ruined the HTML validation by not closing your tag :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please consider it ongoing applause : )

And yes, my guess was and is that this may very well require someone with that magical un-knowable thing called shell access to resolve : ) - jc37 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If nobody can get to it, why does it need to be deleted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it actually exists. For example, c:ThisIsOnlyATest. You can create any link to commons you want, and it doesn't appear to check to see if it exists before making it a blue link. Kbdank71 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The redirect was revisited in a following month of 2014 and it was deleted, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_5#C:WPCATSUP. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of AE block of Jensbest

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.

---

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

For Jensbest: "No detailed explanation is given for this blocking. Also on the redacted part of the talk page to the article about Donald Trump there were no wording used by me which are in anyway untrue and a violation of WP:BLP" [24] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is my second block of Jensbest. They've wiped out all the notices and warnings on their talk page. There has been extensive discussion on Talk:Donald Trump on complying with BLP on the talk page (most of it collapsed). Example: Use WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NOTFORUM as guidelines. Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like "x is a psychopath" or "x is racist", and you should be fine." This was Jensbest's post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block and recommend a topic ban. Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't be battlegrounds for personal attacks on people, particularly on the talk pages of their own biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• I forgot I told him earlier he would be facing a topic ban [25] if he made this kind of edit (provided the revert as it's easier to see BLP violation) again. If sanctions are upheld but it is felt a topic ban is more appropriate I'm fine with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block and recommend a topic ban from Donald Trump-related articles. If you look at this user's talk page history, you can see that he was warned multiple times about his editing on the Donald Trump article, and he deleted the warnings. He was:

• given two Twinkle warnings by Winkelvi, on August 13 and again on August 14;
• given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by NeilN on August 14 at 1:21;
• blocked for 48 hours by NeilN per Arbcom sanctions on August 14 at 20:59;
• given a formal warning of possible topic ban by NeilN on August 19, based on an edit on the Trump talk page that had to be redacted;
• given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by The Wordsmith on August 19;
• given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by me on August 21;
• blocked for a week by NeilN per ArbCOM discretionary sanctions on August 22.

The user then asked to have his appeal copied to here, which NeilN has done. In my opinion this user appears to be a scofflaw who has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For more insight into this editor and his understanding of Wikipedia, see his recent comments on his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, there seems literally no comprehension of what's the problem- merely reiterating the BLPvio that led to the block in the first place. This rather suggests the editor is still not getting it... _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block, and recommend topic ban. I have revoked talk page access as it is being used to continue the BLP violations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (And a bonus point to MelanieN for use of the word "scofflaw". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC))

  I suggest an indefinite topic ban, which can be appealed after six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block and recommend topic ban: Based on his responses on the appeal, it seems to me that Jensbest doesn't realize or doesn't care that his commentary on Trump is in violation of policy and the attempts by multiple editors to explain it aren't working - either WP:BLPTALK, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, the WP:AC/DS procedures or some combination of them. I think there is a high risk that this behaviour will recommence as soon as the block expires, so I think a topic ban will be necessary until they give assurances that they understand the policies & intend to abide by them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban from Trump and related articles. They're here to push their POV. Sadly, this kind of thing may get worse as the election approaches, on both sides. Katie^talk 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  After reading further, I'd support an indefinite topic ban from American politics, broadly construed, that can be appealed after six months. If the consensus is to keep it to Trump, I'd support that too.Katie^talk 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus forming around implementing a topic ban. Any thoughts as to the length of this topic ban? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block and 6 month topic ban - After I saw the posts from this editor on talk:Donald Trump I headed over to Jensbest's talk page to give them a warning only to discover that they had already received several. Jenbest has demonstrated that they don't understand or accept our standards of editing and talk page participation, and that they are not able to edit Trump-related articles objectively. A six month topic ban will allow to Jenbest to make other contributions, and reflect on how they can make productive contributions to Trump articles after the heat of the election has subsided.- MrX 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur as above, with one additional comment: Topic bans depend on voluntary compliance by the individual. Given Jensbest's habit of deleting and ignoring warnings, and his inability to understand what he is doing wrong, it will be necessary to explain very clearly to him what a topic ban is and what the consequences will be if he violates it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block and a topic ban from BLPs and American Politics (broadly construed). The editor doesn't seem to be able to keep their cool dealing with politics and refuses to understand why the edits to Donald Trump are a serious issue, which shows they either don't understand or are unwilling to follow the BLP policy. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block If you can't check your political POV at the door when you enter a political article space you have no business editing there. Indefinite topic ban is the only option, with no appeal earlier than a year from enactment of the ban. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend indef block as NOTHERE, per observations above, by MelanieN that "In my opinion this user appears to be a scofflaw who has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia guidelines" and by FIM that "Looking at the talk page, there seems literally no comprehension of what's the problem- merely reiterating the BLPvio that led to the block in the first place. This rather suggests the editor is still not getting it". -- Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm seriously concerned with this user's prior work too, adding BLP-vios: [26], [27] and other unsourced aspersions [28], [29] (edit war), [30]; senseless removal of facts: [31]; removing cited information using bizarre edit summaries which make little or no sense: [32], [33] (is apparently on a campaign against Thierry Antinori). -- Softlavender (talk)

• Endorse block with recommended topic ban (under both BLPSE and AP) until after November. He either doesn't understand why blatantly calling a BLP subject a racist is against policy, or doesn't care. Either way he should not be editing in this topic area, and I would have banned for less. We all need to stow our personal crap when editing here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE - after some consideration I am led to believe this user is only here to push their point of view, and not to build an encyclopaedia. A topic ban simply would not work - I am led to believe it would be violated, considering the user has been blocked twice before. Zero^talk 14:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support three month block followed by topic indef ban for all articles related to Donald Trump. My guess is their racism tare will be done once the election is over. I don't see why they should receive an indef before being given a chance to either show they are here to edit seriously or want us to hand them the rope. I do believe, however, that given their negative obsession with Trump, an indef topic ban on him and all related articles needs to be enacted once the block expires. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - and recommend indefinite topic ban regarding Donald Trump. There is no indication this editor is capable of writing from a neutral perspective in this area. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block and topic ban - With the recommendation that Jensbest not discuss the matter of the block or topic ban except to reasonably request its removal. It should be made clear that Jensbest repeating what has already been said (whether in a request to remove the topic ban or made in a comment about the situation of the block (in other words complaining)), will result in a longer block. Six months to request the removal of the topic ban sounds good. A final warning that violations of the BLP policy anywhere mean an indef block or a topic ban from all BLP articles, should it be worth the time to TB. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:50, 23 August 2016 (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.

Inadvertent casting of (what some interpret as) a supervote: how to fix?

At Talk:Murder of Seth Rich there is a lively discussion about how to apply BLP to a bare mention that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward with no additional speculation allowed. There are multiple veteran Wikipedia editors who have offered good-faith opinion on both sides of this issue.

At Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Administrative reminder re: BLP policy, administrator MastCell has made a declairation[34] in his official capacity as an administrator that many have interpreted as stating that one side of this policy-based content dispute is is right and the other side is wrong, and multiple editors on the side MastCell favored have pointed to this as if it settles the matter.[35][36][37][38][39]

I don't think Mastcell did anything wrong at all (please read the preceding nine words three times before dragging out the flamethrowers -- this is a good-faith discussion of a problem and how to fix it) and in no way intended to use the the admin bit is being a supervote in this way, but it is clear that some participants saw it as official admin support of their side of the content dispute.

So how do we fix this? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Best practice in general for any admin actions which seem to decide an editorial issue on any topic whatsoever is

Don't.

No matter how pure the motives, Wikipedia commends us to seek consensus from the editors, not an administrative ukase on any issues at all. Collect (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: My interpretation is that all that the references cited above imply is that the editors that wrote them (including myself) agree with the interpretation of our policy done by MastCell. I don´t see any reference in any of them to the fact that he is an administrator or any claim that just because the policy in question was cited by and administrator it meant that the issue was settled. We cited his comment because we feel it is a strong and valid argument. If the same comment would have been made by a regular editor I would have still have referred to it in the exact same way, and probably the rest of the editors cited above would have as well.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• (1) You are the only person who has used the term "supervote", and only in or in regards to this AN filing, so I fail to see the problem. (2) MastCell's comment was not a !vote, it was a reminder of BLP policy, so again, I fail to see the problem, or why you are bringing this to AN. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weasel me this... Why are "some" going to such great lengths to derail normal editing processes on this and other election-related articles? There's no basis to this concern. MastCell has been very clear and has been trying to keep the talk page focused on policy. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fix? If there is a fix needed. Then start a proper content RfC with a specific content proposal (within the care required by BLP) and then people can make their policy based and reasoned arguments and it can be closed by an uninvolved as proposal enacted or not (and no consensus would likely also result in not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, you have raised the more important concern. We can't have an RfC that proposes to ratify a BLP violation. The proposed content is clearly such a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding the phrase "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction" does not violate BLP. Not even close. "BLP" isn't a magic word that allows you to always get your way in any content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

An example that shows the problem can be found in the second !vote of the RfC at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich: " We have an official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator acting in his administrative capacity". That's one example of someone (wrongly) thinking that Mastcell made a ruling on the content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no stricture against citing policy in an RfC !vote, whether ad hoc or in reference to an admin's reminder; there is also no indication that that or any other voter took it as a "ruling". If you think there is something to "fix", would that for instance be MastCell removing all mention of his status as an administrator from his reminder? Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I would chime in and say that there are two clearly opposing sides to this dispute, both citing policy (correctly and incorrectly), and wielding said policy as it were helpful to the content dispute, instead of working on the content. My .2 would be that it is NOT a BLP violation to simply say that wikileaks has offered a reward for information regarding the murder, but some editors are saying that this itself implies a deeper link that is inappropriate to write about. I don't know how to proceed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but look. As a thought experiment, Ernie: Why do you think Wikileaks offered a reward and then when questioned by a reporter why did Assange make a statement about "our sources take risks" in the context of this reward? I'm just asking for your personal take on that. It was televised, citation on the talk page so you can view it if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly have my opinion as to why they offered the reward, but it would be WP:OR to add my speculation to the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you're capable of understanding my question, so your (non-)response sounds like a coy evasion. I didn't ask you to put it in the article. I asked for your evaluation of the sourced material. We constantly evaluate material from all kinds of sources as part of our responsibility to present sourced material in context, with due weight, on-topic, etc. So batter-up. What say you? SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my personal opinion would be that Wikileaks offered a reward to either grab some headlines or somehow imply that Rich was their source for the DNC leak. But please note that this opinion, if included in our wikipedia article (which no one is trying to do), would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and I'll just throw out WP:BLP since everyone else is. My personal opinion has no place in the article; only reliably sourced and notable facts do. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr Ernie. The problem is that your opinion, though it's just a suspicion and not proven and perhaps even an idle thought, is reasonable reaction. If we put the reward story in the article other readers can be expected to have the same reaction. That would be WP:SYNTH and the conclusion that many readers would draw -- their reasonable inference -- would be a BLP violation, and a serious one suggesting unethical and/or criminal behavior. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'll post the same thing here that I did at the RfC, where Guy Macon also posted his original comment: What MastCell did, was provide a clueful and therefore authoritative perspective on how BLP reads on the decision. !votes that fail to take BLP into account at all as many of them do, are likely to be given less weight by a clueful closer and if the closer doesn't take BLP into account, the close will be liable to be overturned (not necessarily overturned, but open to be overturned). Other clueful admins have also weighed in on how BLP applies to this issue, see here, and came to different conclusions about how BLP applies (but directly addressed BLP) so anyone who takes MastCell's view as The Only Possible View is out to lunch. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) ((add clarification since there is apparent confusion about what I meant Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

• This being AN, I would at this time like to formally request a closer or closers who is an uninvolved admin with a lot of experience closing contentious RfCs. If possible, more than one: a little extra time spent now coming up with two or three admins who agree on what to exclude and who carefully word the closing statement will avoid a boatload of time later as the losing side tries to relitigate the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean for a month from now. The RfC was just opened yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think an experienced admin should close it sooner than later to prevent disruption, as I doubt we'll get any new insight. Maybe not today, but probably not after a month. Per WP:RFC the process doesn't have to run the full 30 days. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I note the conspicuous absence of admins commenting here; there is nothing actionable in the OP. And there is no reason to close the RfC early. The question is difficult and the more clueful input that is given, the better. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, having looked at that RfC, it's rather likely to be useless probably because the proposal is not in the form to propose the precise words and source(s): "example"[cite]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes the trigger was pulled without proposing it to make sure everybody was OK with how it was posed. hell is other people; par for the wikipedia course, limping along as best we can. .Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re "there is nothing actionable in the OP", sure there is. You could tell the admin to be more careful in his wording (if you thought his wording was not careful enough, which I definitely do not). You could correct those editors who incorrectly interpreted the admin's comments as a supervote. You could put together a panel of three rock-solid uninvolved admins to close and RfC that will be challenged (see the attempts to relitigate the recent AfD). You could re-affirm the basic principle that when several experience editors conclude that saying that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward is not, in itself, a BLP violation while several other experienced editors conclude that saying that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward is, in itself, a BLP violation, that no admin should, in his official capacity, state or even imply that one side is right and the other wrong but should instead speak as an ordinary editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are misreading what MastCell wrote at the Talk page, and if you had questions you should have asked MastCell directly, as Mr. Ernie did; MastCell's response to Mr Ernie here is quite clear. This is drama that no admins are taking up. It was just unwise, Guy. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assess my bold action

Greetings. Pardon me, if this request is out of scope with this page's intent; I am open to admonishment on several fronts, and in need of accurate feedback in case I have been overly bold. I happened across a thread on Jimbo Wales talk page which after reading it, did feel compelled to close, which I did. To my chagrin, I aggrieved at least one editor for having done this bold thing. I'd like to ask the keepers of this page to review my actions and give feedback if it is supportable or not. Relevant threads are here and here (permalinks). Thank you for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Converted links to permalinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• No comment on whether the close itself was apt: but stylistically, you were perhaps just a trifle poetical- unnecessarily so, since a close should really sum up the main points upon which there is a consensus, or otherwise. Just an opinion though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Not something like, "Go back to doing something useful FFS"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It certainly makes a change ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

After a brief skim, the close seemed fundamentally fine. I could have missed something, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Aggrieved" is too strong a word. The discussion was a mix of (1) the usual unproductive, combative bickering, which will always be present in any discussion that is open to anyone, and (2) constructive discussion of what I feel is one of the most pressing core issues facing us today. (Strongly disagree with NeilN's "something useful" assessment, as there is nothing more useful than constructive debate of foundational issues.) It was closed apparently on the basis of the former, and I felt it should have been left open on the basis of the latter. That's it. I was and am prepared to move on rather than make a big issue of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd also note that, for future reference, discussions on someone's user talk page should generally be left to that user to close if they want to, unless for some reason they request an outside editor close it. I'd probably be a little irritated if someone started closing discussions on my talk page. That being said, unless Jimbo objects or reopens it, we may as well leave it lie. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this feedback; it is helpful and I will abide by its good counsel. It is not my normal manner to non-admin close a discussion and I don't know why I felt in this case that I should. I followed an impulse and soon began feeling like I had overstepped propriety. I am glad that I've not earned a sanction and give my assurance that I won't repeat this again. Sometimes I feel like a fool and it happens that this became one of those times; I apologize. I sincerely thank everyone who gave of their time to help me with such thoughtful advice. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo has, in the past, been absent for extended periods, and has welcomed rational moderation at his talk page. There is no doubt that the discussion had gone well beyond a reasonable length, and closing such discussions on Jimbo's talk page has been the rule rather than the exception. In the case at hand, I would have suggested that it too far too long for someone to close that discussion" which had reached quite unreasonable length. 6000 words is far too long, and this went far beyond that lenient value. Collect (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I've moved on from that particular discussion, but the preceding comment is worth a response.
An arbitrary word limit is all well and good for the average everyday discussion. For discussions that have some potential for improvement on core issues, not so much. Solutions to these problems are very difficult, but they are impossible if constructive discussion of them is shut down on grounds of length. These are highly complex issues that can't be resolved in 5,000 words. The question we should ask is whether or not the discussion has completely devolved into pointless argument, and that one had not. As long as there is something constructive going on, and the talk page's owner doesn't object, no number of words is too many.
It would have been helpful to take action to end the unproductive part of the thread, but there is apparently no way to do that (there is a very wide gap between pointless bickering and actionable disruption). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Want to shut down a good discussion? Start a fight. Someone will be along shortly to nac it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

John Cline, your first link is dead. Would you mind going into the archives and finding the thread and linking it from there? (BTW, this is why it's best to provide a perma-link from an iteration of a page rather than from the live page.) Softlavender (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Permalink to archived thread: [40] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, Mandruss. I was asking John Cline (or you if you like) to fix his link in his OP. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Or you if you like! I am converting both opening links to permalinks—to their respective original locations, for consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mandruss for improving the links, and Softlavender for drawing my attention to this situation; I'll keep it with things I intend to remember when making future edits. Best.--John Cline (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambig Misspelled

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 delete Martin May (disambiguartion). It was created in error while creating Martin May (disambiguation). Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 16:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks:You could have simply tagged it with a {{db-author}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 24 August 2016 (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.

Question about a recreated article

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.

---

While discussing a possible move at Talk:The Rebel Legion#Proposed move to Rebel Legion, it was discovered that the existing The Rebel Legion probably is the same as Rebel Legion deleted back in 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Legion. It appears that "The Rebel Legion" was (re)created (in good faith) in December 2015 and the "The" was added to the title because an article could not be created under the old name. Anyway, this latest version was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebel Legion and the result was "keep". The article has been cleaned up quite a bit by TenTonParasol, who is proposing the move, but the name has been salted. Can an admin look at this and advise on what needs to be done. I'm not sure if the edit histories of the two need to be merged and if information about the first AfD needs to be added to the new version's talk page. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've lifted the salting as it's evidently moot now and so that regular editors can do the move if it is agreed upon. The topic of the previous article is indeed the same as of The Rebel Legion, but I am not seeing similarity in the text so I'd say the old history is useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2016 (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 people wondering about non-admins having deletion logs...

According to phab:T106119, now when someone moves a page over a redirect, it by default shows up as a deletion in the deletion log, even when the editor in question is not an administrator. Also being discussed at the technical Village Pump, please follow up with questions and comments there; this post is solely for publicization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention is required

again for Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions, which has a ~500 item backlog dating back to May. Most of these are very easy closures; any help is appreciated! -FASTILY 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Evad37/FFDcloser is a good userscript for the people who find all the manual template adding and removing tedious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Involved action by admin Ritchie333 on Main Page

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

---

Please see WT:DYK#Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!. Basically, user:Ritchie333 has reverted the DYK section on the Main Page back to a hook he had suggested in the first place, about an article he brought to GA status. The hook was corrected by user:Gatoclass, but Ritchie333 objected to the correction and reverted it without prior discussion, violating WP:INVOLVED badly. First discussion with him doesn't seem to indicate that he understands the problem. Fram (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't bold editing how the main page's content pages (noticeably ITN) are typically handled? My impression was that most people don't care about involvement there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please, you guys (/gals), is this really ANIAN-worthy? Can you just take 24 hours and talk about it again over at Talk:DYK? EEng 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Wow. An ontological debate over the exact meaning of "removed their boobs" vs "carried fake breasts"? I'm not sure we've even established that in Devon, or even Cornwall, breasts, whether fake or not, are seen as "a distraction to drivers." And, who knows, even EngVar might have motivated Ritchie here. The Main Page can be such a dangerous place, these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem for here is not with the meaning of the hook (and let's be clear, removed vs carried is quite different), but with the involvement (it wasa hook he had nominated in the first place, not some random hook). 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If they mean the same thing, any involvement is irrelevant. So is the meaning relevant, or not?. I trust you've asked Ritchie to fully explain his motivation before inviting him here. And that his explanation was somehow lacking. Editors who take articles to GA status are sometimes regarded as subject matter experts, allegedly. Perhaps we ought to look at "wearing" vs "carrying"? Or maybe even "timebomb"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I didn't know that the standards at AN had dropped as far as they have at DYK. Since when did "they removed X" mean the same as "they carried X"? And GA is a joke (someone please explain to me how this whole breast cancer episode is an important aspect of the history (or, for crying out loud, the "legacy") of this bridge in the first place?) and writing a GA doesn't make anyone an expert on the subject or a master of accuracy. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Having removed your false breasts, I think you'll find you can carry them in your hand, over your shoulders or even on top of your head. But great to see Ritchie making joke GAs as well as forcing the public to read his lies at DYK. Perhaps he could throw his tools into the Tamar for us. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Please join him, as all you seem to be wanting to do is defend him no matter what. If you don't know the difference between "you can" and "they have", then you shouldn't bother writing or defending DYKs and GAs. We should never present something as "this happened" on the main page (or in articles) when all we know is "this may have happened". That this happens occasionally can't be prevented, but if someone then checks your edit and corrects it, then why would you revert back to the OR version (or defend such action)? Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks for those kind words of encouragement. But I see you're now changing tack, away from the "removed" vs "carried" distinction, to whether or not anything like that actually happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
              • We know that they removed them, we don't know whether they carried them and have nothing to indicate that they did, but the hook stated it as if it was a clear and sourced fact. No changing of tack here, just not being used to someone who likes to misunderstand everything only to defend a wikifriend. Fram (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the personal attack."Good luck" at ArbCom. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that this is something of a storm in a teacup: neither of the hooks was very good. Ritchie333 is probably in line for a WP:TROUT for re-adding a mistake to the main page, and Gatoclass might also warrant one for what I think is dubious grammar in their corrected version of the hook. But I share Jo-Jo's understanding that in general it's OK for admins to jump in and adjust stuff they have a connection to on the main page in the interest of quickly fixing errors here. When I've done so I, from memory, have always posted a note at WP:ERRORS for transparency. But the short version is that everyone seems to have been acting in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, they re-added a mistake using their administrator status - normal editors could not have made an obvious error visible on the main page for 12 hours. While its fine for admins to jump in and fix the main page, its *not* fine for another admin to then revert it keeping the error visible. That is trout-worthy. What pushes this over into 'bring out the tuna' is that the admin was deeply involved in the mistake to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the error was "obvious." I think that's the main reason we've ended up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It is once it had already been pointed out. This didnt happen out of the blue. But this is a common issue with DYK hook wordings. I dont think any serious outcome needs to come from this, but it was two issues that caused this. First using administrator status in what is effectively a content dispute, secondly, using their administrator status in a content dispute in which they were involved. Both of which are explicitly forbidden. You could go with the first being a good faith - its the nature of the main page its only editable by admins, but the second is in no way an unforseeable or good faith thing. The only excuse in the us of admin status where involved is 'would any other admin have taken the same actions?' and this in no way comes close to that, being a trivial dispute over wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not a totally unfair appraisal. But I'm glad that you've used the word trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if he had been right content-wise, he should have left the reversal to someone else (or he could have pulled the hook and discussed things). That the error may have been trivial (well, a hook saying the exact opposite of what happened as far as we know isn't really trivial) is hardly an excuse for allowing a clearly involved admin action. If it's your hook, your article, then you don't edit the main page to get your preferred version there, as that is something other editores can't do. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to disagree here about your interpretation of the term "exact opposite". An involved admin action is indeed a mistake. I think you'd be fully justified in leaving a stern note on Ritchie's Talk Page, whether you're a "prolific contributor" over there or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't care about the involved part, as is clear from his one response at WT:DYK and his absence here. Fram (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that imputation is unnecessary and unjustified. But then you've already given me my marching orders, so I'll have to leave it to others. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your thinking in the whole of this discussion has been rather clouded, so no surprise here. Fram (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice that User:Ritchie333 has been quite active since this section started, but hasn't responded to the WP:INVOLVED allegations here or elsewhere. This of course violates WP:ADMINACCT. (I also note that Martinevans123, the most active defender of Ritchie333 here, is also the most prolific editor at his talk page; in general, it is better if neutral editors look at these problems, in my opinion). Fram (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By number of edits or number of bites? Yes, I'm always over there telling him he's useless. A neutral appraisal is fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering the sort of argy-bargy that goes on on the mainpage sections (and is currently under investigation at ArbCom), I don't see this as a serious breach, if one at all. The worst of it is that that ridiculous piece of trivia is even in the Tamar Bridge article at all. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How can this not be a breach of WP:INVOLVED? Can I now add any hook I want from any article I wrote to the Main Page at all times, even when it already has been corrected by another admin? I get the impression that most admins here have simply given up on the main page (and/or GA), even though it is the most visible part of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fram, what exactly do you want here? A punitive block? A de-sysop? An ArbCom trial? A stern warning? Here is the sequence of events: Ritchie changed the hook back to the way it had been approved and to what to him was the more correct version, with the edit summary "rvt back to what was in prep and reviewed, if you want to change the hook, pull it and add a note on WT:DYK": [41] (apparently figuring that making the fix was quicker than listing it on Errors and waiting for someone else to fix it). He then notified Gatoclass on DYK talk, saying "I have reverted your undiscussed change to the Tamar Bridge back to what was reviewed and put in prep. Using 'boobs' trivialises breast cancer, and carrying fake breasts across the bridge does not imply they wore them. (I also preferred the non-breast related hook, but that's consensus for you...) If you were uncertain about the factual accuracy of the hook, you could have pulled it from queue." [42]. When BlueMoonset posted on his talk page that Gatoclass had changed the hook, Ritchie explained that he disagreed with the change but that if it was a serious problem the hook should be pulled: [43]. Speaking for myself, as a woman I find it offensive that the word "boobs" was even on the main page, much less in reference to breast cancer. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If he doesn't show any understanding of how his actions violated INVOLVED (and by now ADMINACCT), then yes, a desysop would be best, or a topic ban from DYK. I am not defending the replacement hook, which may have had its own problems. Ritchie333 should have listed the hook at ERRORS or at WT:DYK, or pulled it and opened a discussion at WT:DYK (pulling it would technically also breach INVOLVED, but temporarily removing a contentious hook from the Main Page is much less of a problem than readding your own contentious hook). His reply at my section at WT:DYK indicates that he understands neither the problem with the hook nor with his actions, and since he hasn't discussed these things since, I have no reason to assume this has changed. Not understanding how this hook was wrong dissqualifies him from work at DYK: not understanding how his actions were a breach of INVOLVED warrants a desysop. At the moment, all we have is evidence of making these errors and no indication at all of understanding how they were errors, hence no reasonable assurance that they won't happen again. Fram (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not understanding how this hook was wrong dissqualifies him from work at DYK" -- well, to Ritchie it wasn't wrong, and it wasn't directly refuted by the sources, and it was a definite improvement over the offensive replacement. Admins inadvertently put incorrect stuff on the main page all the time, and there is no actual proof that Ritchie's version was wrong. Likewise, if you're going to ban Ritchie from DYK for re-wording an offensive hook to something that wasn't verifiably incorrect, I'd say you should moreso ban Gatoclass for changing the hook to add an offensive misogynistic term, and in relation to breast cancer no less. I agree with Nick-D above -- Ritchie did exactly what Nick-D says he himself has done many times -- change a main-page hook he was involved with. And as Nick notes, everyone was acting in good faith. Are we going to put Gatoclass on trial here for not understanding the misogyny of using the word "boobs" on the main page, especially in relation to breast cancer? If not, then there's no reason to put Ritchie on trial for doing the same thing that Nick-D says he himself has done several times. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at this, it can't have been "many times" for Nick-D, most are replies to WP:ERRORS, and one is an action he self-reverts. He is free to indicate which ones were comparable to Ritchie333s action. His only edit to the page this year doesn't change the meaning of the hook[44]. The one before that, Template:Did you know nominations/Gloria Lim was not by him, so not an involved action. Which means that his most recent comparable action, if any, was from January 2014 or earlier... As for this instance: a hook which isn't supported by the sources is wrong, that is the basic rule of DYK. What he did was WP:OR. That to him it wasn't wrong is one of the problems, and one of the reasons he should stop doing DYK work (certainly of this kind, nominating articles is probably still acceptable). That you consider a wrong hook an improvement over a mildly offensive one is your view, having neither (i.e. pulling it) was in any case a lot better. But feel free to start a section about Gatoclass if you feel so strongly about it. This is about Ritchie's actions, and his lack of response to it. Fram (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, the misogyny of using "boobs": have you even looked at the source for all this? Walkers remove their boobs to cross the Tamar[45] is the actual title of the source for the hook (and with such a title, I don't understand how the hook was ever proposed or accepted anyway). Blaming Gatoclass for using the same word as the source seems inappropriate. Fram (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• So Fram, now you have taken this to ArbCom, I see: [46]. Unless Ritchie has repeatedly created problems at DYK, I find this action baffling. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seems relevant for the case, no? Fram (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, not at all, unless Ritchie has repeatedly caused problems at DYK. You mentioned his name three times in that report. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 122#New Day hook removed from Queue 5, where Ritchie333 suggested a nonsensical hook and used the same "it's only your opinion that it's wrong" defense (but didn't make involved admin edits luckily). Fram (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Proof? Seems evident that Ritchie's hook was wrong in the DYK sense, as the source did not say they carried them, and a further source since put on the DYKTALK page appears to have an image of them on the bridge not carrying anything (which makes sense, as the point was to not have the costumes on the bridge, so, the hook was not only unsupported but it may have actively misrepresented the march). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing "removed their boobs" on the mainpage, in the context of breast cancer awareness, was offensive and created a risk of bringing the project into disrepute, so its removal is defensible as an emergency action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@NYB, "Removed their boobs" is the wording of the actual source so that, at least, is defensible. The (ridiculously minor) issue is whether the fact should have been mentioned in the article at all (definitely not) and whether "removed" can be assumed to mean "carried" (probably yes). ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And whether an admin should restore his own nomination to the main page (which is comparable to an admin reclosing an AFD discussion he started as delete after another admin already closed it as keep). (And of course assuming = OR). Fram (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The phrasing "removing their boobs" came right from the source (provided by Ritchie333), like I indicated above; he didn't remove the phrase because of supposed offensiveness but because it wasn't the hook he had proposed, and putting incorrect information on the main page is not likely to bring the project into disrepute or what? Your priorities seem to be completely wrong here. Fram (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That phrasing did not belong on our mainpage regardless of who else might have used it. I agree that it might have been better to have dispensed with this factoid altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Brad, the organisation in question explicitly uses the term "boob" exclusively in their own publicity materials (indeed, the event in question was actually called "Boob Walk"). Avoiding potential offensiveness is laudable, but when you're endorsing actively avoiding the terminology the campaigners themselves prefer because you personally disapprove of it, it's well over the "inappropriate" line. I may not be a fan of Fram's shoot-em-all approach to curating DYK, but in this instance he's completely correct. ‑ Iridescent 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • As much as I agree with you Brad, that really is beside the point, here. (That is a MAINPAGE talk discussion and knowing the history there, that would be a long discussion with a most uncertain outcome to actually keep it off the mainpage -- the group wants notice obviously, but it seems they don't mean to be offensive - we don't have to use their words, but there would be many editors who would defiantly 'notcensored' that.) The issue here, though, is not that --it is a matter concerning discussion of a factually wrong, unsupported, misrepresentation and INVOLVED edits to the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the phrasing did not belong on the front page. First, while the organization uses the phrase "Boob Walk", Wikipedia should not write from the perspective of a given organization. Second, in the secondary source that used the phrase "removing their boobs", the phrase was used to sensationalize the story several lines down was the factual description of what happened: "Before crossing into Plymouth, the group removed their giant breast costumes." So, Ritchie333 was correct in removing an inappropriate hook but wrong in restoring a factually incorrect hook. It was a mistake that no one correctly analyzed until Newyorkbrad. Mistakes will happen and the interesting ones are not a simple as they appear.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The hook was "carried fake breasts pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge"? Why do you think that was "factually incorrect"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (That photo in the Herald Express was taken on the south side of the A38, on that patch of grass just behind the Tamar Bridge Ferry building, looking west over into Saltash, wasn't it).

• Let's just get the record right. Martinevans, that was not the hook, [47] "pending" and other things were edited out and edited in by Ritchie through protection and that was unsupported by the source. Moreover, the costumes were not suppose to be even seen on the bridge, and another image (linked by Iridecent and at DYKTalk) appears to show the group on the bridge carrying nothing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, :Alanscottwalker, I thought this discussion had been closed as "moot"? So Ritchie333 actually made multiple edits to try and achieve factual accuracy? Maybe we should look at all the diffs? As regards that other image, how do we know when it was taken? Did the party walk in just one direction, or did they walk westwards into Saltash and then back eastwards, into Plymouth, after removing the costumes? Difficult to say, isn't it without, say, emailing one of the organisers for clarification? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy, actually. And no, we are not to be doing OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So could you please explain to us how it's possible to tell, from the two sources available, that any of the hooks were factually inaccurate? We might not be doing OR to edit any article, but curiosity might still get the better of us, just to establish the facts, eh? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Again? All right. The hook misrepresents the source it used -- the source does not say they carried anything "over" the bridge, so it is factually inaccurate -- misrepresentation of a source is factual inaccuracy. The additional evidence also shows the costumes not carried "over the Tamar Bridge", which coincides with the sourced reason for removing them before the bridge: the costumes were not to cause a distraction for drivers on the bridge. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How do we know they walked just one way? Sorry, but I can't find those diffs for ""pending" and other things were edited out and edited in by Ritchie through protection." This wasn't mentioned by User:Fram. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What difference would walking one way make, are you suggesting they crossed the bridge carrying (totally unsourced) and then dropped the costumes and walked back over the bridge away from the costumes? That makes no sense and is contrary to the source that they removed them before the bridge. Or are you suggesting they walked across without the costumes, someone drove the costumes across the bridge (again unsourced) and they picked them up to carry them back across the bridge. Again, that makes no sense. The edit diffs have been provided, and Fram says the edit was to the main page, which is an edit through protection that only an admin can make. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, closed means closed. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:36, 28 August 2016 (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.

Right to defence

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

---

With regard to the following accusation [48], I have been hindered in seeking comments which refute the accusations here [49], [50] and on my talk page here [51]. I'm the innocent party, but the important one is the natural right to a defense. If any discussion is needed, it is here Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Right_to_defend_yourself Travelmite (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your actions were clear canvassing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The editors you notified (here, here, here and here), from what I have seen, have taken your side in your long-term dispute with Skyring, and what's more, instead of simply notifying them of the discussion, you said the user is "making ridiculous accusations", so there is obvious bias. And now you're dragging me over to the admins' noticeboard after I did the right thing by reverting and striking your canvassing? Speedy No action (WP:BOOMERANG) close, please. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 06:22, 29 August 2016 (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.

Overdue RFC closure review

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

---

Guy recently closed an RFC at Talk:Noël Coward about whether to include an infobox, finding a rough consensus in favor of inclusion [52]. Five hours later, We hope opened a new RfC on the same question [53]. !Voters in the new RfC (SchroCat, Cassianto, Tim riley, Ssilvers,Dr. Blofeld, Jaguar), all of whom had !voted against inclusion in the first RfC, unanimously opposed inclusion, and Tim Riley removed the infobox [54]. I !voted in the first RfC in favor of inclusion, and objected that this new RfC violated WP:FORUMSHOP and Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures [55]. (My comment was removed by Cassianto [56].)

Cassianto, Tim Riley, and Smeat75 defended the new outcome on the basis that the previous RfC was closed incorrectly. SchroCat challenged the closure on Guy's talk page [57], and Guy stood by his decision [58]. Per the instructions of WP:Closing discussions, the next step in challenging the close should have been to request a review here; I am hereby doing so. FourViolas (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Guy stood by his decision": not entirely correct, as he said he was out and about. He did not make any substantive comment about whether he stood by his decision or not, but I am working on the assumption that he will look at it more closely when he returns. – SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add an infobox. When at least half a dozen people oppose one being added you can't call that "consensus". Wikipedia isn't a vote. If it had been an AFD it would have been closed as a "no consensus" to add. Guy is a pro-infobox editor, I remember his name from past discussions. Why are we arguing over a silly infobox on featured articles when there's 5 million other articles badly needing development? And why do we keep picking on Tim and Brian, two of our very best editors?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:GAMING, pure-and-simple. The new RFC ran for four hours before a consensus was declared by an involved editor (RFC start, RFC end; note Tim riley's earlier !vote). FWIW, I think the original RFC should have been closed as "no consensus", but I absolutely disagree with the idea of a counter-RFC consisting of only the infobox opposers. Cassianto's removal of what could be construed as an oppose !vote is also a clear violation of WP:TPO. How can that be explained? clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the people who have breached TPO when I took the matter to the closing admin (and for which I was ridiculously knee-jerk blocked by an admin who didn't bother to look into the background before he blocked–and did so while leaving misleading Twinkle edit summaries), I really wouldn't push the TPO button today. - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The jungle drums have certainly been beating... Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo, yes it should have been closed as a no consensus. It makes no difference, there's no consensus to add an infobox so it remains as it is. So point in wasting any more time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How it should have been closed is not how it was closed, though. This should be resolved by the closing administrator and not by gaming the system. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Clpo13. Essentially, there was an RfC on whether an infobox should be added, Guy closed it as consensus to add an infobox. The group of regular editors were not happy, and had a discussion amongst themselves that lasted less than 6 hours before they decided it by themselves that the close was incorrect and reverted it. Regardless of whether the close was correct or not, this is still an attempt to game the system. It should be reverted, and discussion about the close can occur in the proper place, which ironically enough, appears to be here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• This whole close fucking stinks and the closer should be brought to account. Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As far as I'm aware there wasn't a proper consensus in the discussion, even after it was canvassed by pro-infobox editors. JAGUAR  18:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cassianto, Dr. B et al - I'd seriously countenance waiting for the closing admin, Guy to return from his travels and reengage; I don't think a counter-RFC is the right process or likely to produce a decent solution. I believe I understand why feelings are high - for what it's worth, JzG's closing statement appeared to me to overly brief, confused in its communication, and not of the quality that I'd have expected from an experienced admin - but I don't believe this is helping. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:FourViolas-you are interested in rules regarding the RFC at the Noël Coward talk page, but you never notified any of the editors you mentioned here with {{subst:AN-notice}} as the large yellow banner with large, bold type indicates: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." We hope (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this to be a review of the close, not an incident report. But I'll go notify those who haven't commented. FourViolas (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the version that is the result of JzG's close. He's an uninvolved admin who closed a 2 week RFC. It's possible he closed it wrong, he is as capable of making mistakes as anyone else. But it would be anarchy if the result of disagreeing with an RFC close was to hold a "flash" RFC, and have someone involved implement it as a new consensus after 4 hours. You could literally never have a stable article, just a series of new flash RFC's. The flash RFC clouds the issue. The issue that should be discussed here is the appeal of JzG's RFC close, not a side-discussion on the flash RFC. The article has to stay in some state while the appeal of the close is going on, and the only reasonable, stable state is the close of the RFC closed by JzG. Patience. If it helps maintain the stabilty of the situation, I'll full protect the article while the discussion here is going on, but that would prevent any editing of the article by anyone, which seems suboptimal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you also need to understand that an editor DID attempt to discuss the subject with the closing admin, but was wrongly blocked by another admin, who mistook the use of the surname "Coward" for a personal attack against the closer. We hope (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that (reminds me of the "Kafkaesque" block), and I wish the admin had used a more clear unblock rationale, but this has literally nothing to do with whether the close should be overturned or not. Please, let's focus on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Admins: Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (and the related Talk page), where editors have set up a WikiProject whose purpose is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. Why would the closing admin give content contributors' opinions less credence than a band of editors who go around trying to force infoboxes into articles? It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for three days because of the reverting (Floquenbeam, we had an edit conflict), and I've asked Guy to re-open the RfC. RfCs are normally open for 30 days unless consensus is clear earlier. Circa 21 yes and 13 no isn't a clear consensus, and perhaps isn't a consensus at all to change a long-standing FA. Leaving it open for the full 30 days might settle it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, this RfC should be re-opened. There clearly isn't a consensus, discussion was still taking place and it still had 16 days to run.Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it should have been reclosed as a no consensus. Another RFC is going to do nothing but worsen the situation and create more drama. There just will not be any real consensus to add one given the opposition. This is so embarrassing that this sort of thing can't be dealt with adequately. I'm not going to sit around bickering over it.. Time is precious, and sadly a lot of people here go out of their way to waste it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a new RfC, simply letting the first one run for its allotted time. Certainly if I had to close it, I would have closed it as no consensus. But the fact is that it was still open and should have been left to run for its full 30 days (or until discussion had ceased). Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK, I guess 14 days is better than another 30 but it's still pretty pointless!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Black Kite, for making a reasoned and appropriate assessment here. This reinforces the notion that the closing administrator had ulterior motives. Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Sarah and BK that re-opening this for another 2 weeks (for the typical 30 days total) is the easiest way out of the pickle. No need to question JzG's motivation, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  The question now is how long to wait for JzG to respond. He closed the RfC nearly 16 hours ago, at 06:29, 29 August, and went offline half an hour later. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 29 August 2016 (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.

Module edit request (Coordinates)

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 please accept the edit request on Module talk:Coordinates (per RfC)? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• A link directly to the RfC mentioned above: Special:Permalink/736659693#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:24, 31 August 2016 (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 creating whitespaces

It appears we've an IP (200.148.2.86) who's continuing to create un-needed whitespaces in articles. GoodDay (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see some scattered cases of disruptive blanking, such as 1, 2, and 3, but Materialscientist already blocked the IP editor for those edits. It's possible these whitespace edits are a passive-aggressive reaction to that block. They're not especially disruptive, but they're not constructive, either. The most annoying aspect of edits like these is that they clog watchlists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mass creation of Indian astrologer pages with phone number

For past few days, many Indian astrologer/Indian Godmen(who can cure homosexuality, erection problem, premature ejaculation)/Indian hypnotist/Indian soothsayer articles, are being created. Are they part of a paid group? I don't remember all the page names. These article names are large and the name includes a phone number. I don't have all the pages in my watchlist. Check user can help here.

Check my contributions and User:Justinzilla/CSD log.

User talk:GAJANAN V. KHARE Another one. This is not the full list. There are many which were tagged for speedy deletion by other page patrollers. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I just used SPECIAL:NUKE to delete about a half dozen articles like this started by User:Balusharma. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is another User talk:Lovekus45. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• If artrologer isn't a word, it should be. EEng 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My recent deletion log also contains a variety. This has been going on, on and off, for more than a year. Special:AbuseFilter/425 is the relevant filter, which obviously needs some adjustment. They're described as spambots, but there might be a human or two around somewhere. When someone creates so many accounts so quickly after being blocked, checkusers and range blocks are usually not going to be much use, but it probably won't do any harm to do a quick SPI. Multiplying the spam in CSD logs and on talk pages (please consider what User talk:Lovekus45 really looks like) is also probably not going to help much. Please instead just get the blocking admin to nuke it, and keep an eye out for the next account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is a recurring problem that we have: hookers and astrologers, all with phone numbers (+91 XXXXX XXXX). With the former there's a lot of the "revenge phone number listing", so sending to oversight becomes necessary sometimes, though most of the cases are just spam. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the past few days I've tagged a number of articles with " Molvi Ji..." in the title, with a phone number and "LoVe pRoBlEm sOlUtIOn" in the title as well. Might an edit filter be used to catch these? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've stuck the phone numbers on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. MER-C 08:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure how the title blacklist works, MER-C, or how best to add things? I've never done it. It worries me that the phone number 7073778243 is and was on the list if you do a search, but 7073778243 love problems solutions baba ji in delhi was nevertheless created at 02:25 27 August UTC. (I'm pleased to say Bishzilla ate the baba's page a mere 2 minutes later.) Bishonen | talk 09:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

• That particular entry expected a +91 as part of the phone number. I've just removed that restriction, it should be blocked now. MER-C 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Team for AfD closure?

How does one ask for a team to close an AfD? I've looked over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose and I have a mini-essay closure ready but I wonder whether having an admin-team closing is better, and how one does set up such a close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe team (multi-administrator) closures of XfDs are rare. At a time when there are admin backlogs all over the place, it would seem best for most XfDs to continue to be closed by one administrator, except in really extraordinary circumstances. This is especially true because DRV is a readily available forum if there is disagreement with the closure. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad, I think a single admin closure of this discussion is appropriate. Thanks for preparing a thorough close, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I shall thus close this on my own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism at Howie Schwab

Hi. Howie Schwab, a BLP, is currently indefinitely semi-protected because of long-term vandalism from socks. Yesterday, an autoconfirmed account, LambertJudd (talk · contribs), vandalized the article. If you look at the article's history, I'm the only editor since April 2016 who has made a constructive improvement to the article, and the vandalism goes back to at least November 2015. Clearly, this isn't going to stop, and semi-protection alone isn't going to cut it if autoconfirmed accounts are now being used. Given the lack of reverts by Oshwah or Cluebot, I'm going to assume that automated tools aren't catching this vandalism. So, I see three solutions: 1) we make NinjaRobotPirate waste his time until he decides to retire in protest, 2) we set up an edit filter, or 3) we use extended confirmed protection. I am against the first option. The second option sounds good to me, but I would prefer the third one, as it's more foolproof. I figure there's little chance anyone will support ECP just to make my life easier, however. By the way, I gave LambertJudd a level 3 vandalism warning for perpetuating the vandalism, but if we've got a hanging judge around here who wants to block LJ as a vandalism only account, I wouldn't complain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a clear vandalism only account. No opinion yet on the question of ECP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Clear target of a proven sockmaster who apparently has multiple sleepers set up. I'm in for ECP for one year, as this is a long-term abuser and I doubt a shorter duration will be effective. Objections before I set it up? Katie^talk 03:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Would support the use of ECP here. Cases like these, where vandals know to use auto confirmed accounts, are precisely what ECP was brought in to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, this is User:Jaredgk2008, and they've made 501 edits before just to do some vandalism on ECP pages. Actually, more than once, and more than twice. They attack a lot of pages, but yeah, ECP might be useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I figured that someone who would vandalize an article for nearly a year might not be stopped by a 30 day waiting period, but it's still disappointing to see this level of fixation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this the correct forum? I would think WP:RFPP would be the place to ask now in light of the recent RFC on Extended confirmation protection. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

NRP wanted a discussion, and RFPP isn't set up for discussions. Anyone is free to bring any protection issue to the community's notice.

I've Extended confirmed protected the page for one year, and I consider this AN section notice to the community for review as required per policy. Katie^talk 19:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The protection looks good. Thanks for the clarification Katie, I didn't realize RFPP wasn't set up for discussions. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're doing your best to vandalise an ECP page, one of three things will happen: you'll make some productive edits before vandalising (i.e. the community will benefit while you're working your way up to EC), or you'll do nothing but minor userspace edits (you waste a pile of your own time doing trivial things in your sandbox, perhaps getting really bored along the way), or you'll start doing unproductive stuff sooner and potentially get blocked (maybe even as a VOA) before you get up to 500. All of those options are better than enabling vandal socks to attack the page in question after just ten edits to other pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright-related query

Hey fellow admins, curious how you might handle this: IP adds plot summary at Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. I spot-check, find potential copyvio at hxxp://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4636757&TPN=6 (site blacklisted, you'll need to tinker with the URL) I remove and suppress. DellzCreationz resubmits the content. I remove and suppress. DellzCreationz contacts me and asserts that he wrote the content and is not plagiarizing it, explaining that he is a member of India-forums and that Dellz is his username. I notice that the plot summary was posted by lazychick.maria, not by Dellz.

The terms of use (hxxp://www.india-forums.com/terms_of_use.asp) seem to suggest that india-forums claims no hold on user submissions. "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions."

Thoughts? Should the plot summary be allowed to return? Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you get Dellz to get the original poster (lazychick.maria) on the forum to follow-up in that thread, indicating they release the content either to the public domain, or via one of the appropriate CC licenses (or similar). If that happens, great. Otherwise, lazychick.maria owns the copyright and we can't use it. Copyright aside, that plot summary is almost certainly too long, though you'll want to take my opinion with a grain of salt here. --Yamla (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, many forums assert that whatever you post there is under the site's copyright, so even if they wrote it, by posting it there first they gave up the right to call the material in the PD. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that's what I thought originally, except the site doesn't have a copyright notice on the discussion pages, and their terms of use seem to expressly disclaim ownership of the material as noted above. Assuming I'm interpreting "User Submissions" correctly, which I may not be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if the site doesn't explicitly claim it, then yes, the copyright falls to the poster, but as originally noted, that still doesn't line up, and there's no indication the original text was CC-BY or equivalent. Still best to play fair. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have posted the summary not lazy chick.maria you can check the thread please allow me to paste my own written summary.Its not by lazychick.maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by DellzCreationz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary, the link provided above shows the summary was posted by lazychick.maria, not Dellz. Now, it's quite possible it was posted by lazychick.maria based on a writeup sent to her by Dellz, but we need lazychick.maria to post on that thread, releasing the summary to the public domain (or under an appropriate license), or to explicitly state Dellz owns the copyright and then have Dellz post on that forum thread. In any case, I'll reiterate that the plot summary is far too long for Wikipedia to use as-is. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

New CSD template notice

Just a heads up to all admins that patrol speedy deletions. Per this discussion the WP:F11 criterion has been updated. The seven day waiting period is now waived for images that have been tagged {{OTRS received}} for longer then 30 days. The criterion requires that an OTRS agent with permissions access check to ensure that there is no further ongoing conversation on the ticket before tagging the image. Since the normal F11 CSD tag has a seven day waiting period I have created a new one. It can be seen here: template:Db-no permission-OTRS. To work around the normal categorization of F11 images the template will automatically place the image into the category that is seven eight days old. Any suggestions are welcome. I will draw up a new user talk page notice as well when I have time tomorrow. After which I will begin to use it. --Majora (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just realized that seven days old is still not "deleteable". So I have bumped back the categorization by a day. --Majora (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

David Arshakyan

Can someone create this article please? Thank you! P.S. Apparently only admins can do that.Cheetah (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably better if you create the article somewhere else, and then one of us moves it from the other title to this location. Do you have anything yet that's a writeup for being moved to this title? Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here you go. Thanks!Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Od Mishehu Perhaps I'm missing something obvious concerning this instance, but is it really a good idea to move a stub article to mainspace when it presently consists of just one sentence, and is completely unverified by even a single WP:Reliable source. There's exactly one source on that (12 word long) article, and it's a tiny press release on the team's website. If this is the best that Cheetah can come up with at this time, then it seems likely this subject is presently inherently non-notable; at the very least I feel a lot more work should be done before this is preserved in mainspace--at present, it certainly could not survive an AfD. I'm also concerned that Cheetah could apparently not create this article himself as an auto-confirmed user; is this because the article was previously WP:SALTED? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Players who have played... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As soon as it would no longer be speedy deletable (including under G4), it should be moved into the mainspace. The article, as it stood when I de-userfied it, explicitly stated that the player had been in a fully professional team, and included a link to a page which asserted that he actually played in that team. This clearly is an assertion which makes him meet WP:NFOOTY - and the reason the article was deleted was that it made no such assertion (in fact, it wasn't true at the time). If you still think the article, in its current form, shouldn't exist, feel free to bring it to a new AFD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no need; I was unfamiliar with WP:NFOOTY. Honestly, I'm mystified to discover what has become of our WP:NSPORTS policies since last I looked; why we would make a presumption that each and every athlete is inherently notable so long as they played for a professional team, even when we don't have even so much as a single reliable source which attests to their notability, nor a single thing to say about them, other than that they played for a team, is quite beyond me. It feels like this opens the way for turning large sections of the encyclopedia into a giant catalog with articles for every single professional athlete in existence, whether there is any coverage of their significance (to their sport or broadly)--which surely is blatantly in defiance of the principle behind WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems to me that the editors who have been contributing to WP:NSPORTS have seriously lost the plot.

That being said, the policy does say what it says, and I apologize for not being up-to-date enough on ittyo recognize that your move to mainspace was consistent with it. Honestly, though I think the community needs to review this and create a principle that, while specific notability policies can be used in place of GNG, no such policy should introduce a presumption of notability without the need for a single reliable source; WP:V is a pillar policy afterall, and other than lists and similar function pages, all articles should have some degree of sourcing. This is a pretty glaring issue and I'm a little gobsmacked that the community allowed that particular notability page adopt such a standard. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to make the same arguments in regards to WP:POLITICIAN #1 in the past, to no avail. I find it disturbing that the Poli, Sports, and Porn (and I think Schools, too) project groups have all apparently carved out pretty massive "exceptions" to WP:GNG... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, topic-specific notability guidelines were always meant to be parallel tracks to GNG, which is fine in and of itself. But these carve-outs are pretty clearly not consistent with the broader community consensus on the manner in which notability works on this project. To say nothing of how many different subsections of WP:WWIN it violates to create basically empty (and completely unsourced) articles just so we can have a complete rosters for every professional sports team in existence... This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac, nor any kind of directory... I'm not sure how or when these guidelines got out of whack, but it's an issue clearly overdue to visit the village pump for some community input. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you feel the alternate notability policies are too weak, discuss them and try to get them changed. Until you do that, they are part of our policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you'll find, if you bother to read my comments above, that I already said exactly that. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, this isn't actually a good example of the failings of NFOOTY. The player played 57 times for a fully professional team in Lithuania and played six games in the UEFA Europa League, the second-most high profile tournament in European club football. He didn't suddenly become notable when he played one game in America, strangely enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is, notability on this project is supposed to be established by coverage in WP:reliable sources, not the idiosyncratic notions of what particular editors feel makes a person (or any subject) "important". If he is truly notable, then someone, somewhere in the global collection of sports journalism and other reliable sourcing should be talking about him. And it may very well be that for him there are such sources that can be turned-up; my broader concern is that WP:NSPORTS now embraces an approach where such sourcing is not required, which runs directly against the longstanding, broad and explicit community consensus as to what WP:Notability is for the purposes of this project.

This disregard for the Wikipedia 101 principle that articles need to be sourced allows for the mass-cataloguing of sports franchise rosters, stats, and other sorts of minutiae, all in conflict with both the reading and spirit of WP:What Wikipedia is not. These are not issues that are specific to this particular athlete--again, he may very well be notable; I just want to see sourcing to establish it, as is supposed to be done with most any subject on this project. Nor is this the forum where such issues ultimately have to be fixed, obviously. I just happen to be expressing my shock that this has become the status quo for athlete articles without the broader community becoming aware and putting the breaks on a potentially massive amount of unsourced articles, the subject having arisen in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That said, that's the extent to which I feel discussion should proceed here, so the bot can archive this thread in short order; I'll take the broader issues to WP:VPP when I have time, whenever that might be. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, though in this particular player's case WP:CSB applies; there are very large amounts of reliable sources about him out there but most are in Lithunanian or Latvian. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Need a Panel of Admins to close a contentious discussion

Dear Admin Corps!

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_Change_to_PORNBIO. I see a clear consensus but those opposing the change are vociferously arguing that there is no consensus. The simplest way to resolve tghis is to ask for 3 independent admins to sign up to assess the consensus of the discussion. Please could we have volunteers and then we can leave the close entirely up to those kind people. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I did close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose, which is pertinent (a little follow up here). Does that count as involvement? Because if no I'd be willing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Undertaking administrative action is precluded from making you involved so no objection here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking, but wasn't sure it was accurate. So, I don't have a problem with this selection.Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone else for this? We have 1 and need 2 more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Mztourist caused misleading about Wiki's rules

User:Mztourist caused misleading about Wiki's rules on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Th%C6%B0%E1%BB%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

User:Mztourist does not provide the truthTonnytaffoc (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tonnytaffoc has made a number of material changes to Battle of Thượng Đức based on what I regard as non WP:RS and which run contrary to previous consensus of the Talk:Battle of Thượng Đức. As he seems unfamiliar with WP policies I have tried to educate him in my edit summaries and on his and my Talk Pages that instead of edit warring on these issues he should raise them for discussion on Talk:Battle of Thượng Đức which he finally did. He has now raised this complaint without bothering to notify me. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD voting templates

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A dubious new record

Got across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milk Studios this morning. Seems like a hoax article that lasted 11+ years. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia to check whether Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Milk Studios is properly set up? I half-expect that Milk Studios hoax will become an article in the future, if outside sources pick up on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Created by an IP editor. And that's all you need to know. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of undue sentence by IP editors at Silicon Wadi

As you can see here, in the last few days IP editors have been repeatedly adding a sentence apparently intended to promote Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park. The editors change IP all the time, so pinging them on the article or their own talk page won't work. If anyone thinks their edit is justified, please let me know. Otherwise I think the page needs to be semi-protected for a short while. “WarKosign” 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Next time, please report this at WP:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

An SPI Case

Guys, I am in a big fix. I don't even know whether it is the right place to report it or not. But I do need help from very experienced editors probably admins. I have been previously dragged in this SPI Case and I don't wish to be dragged in again. Sockpuppets of User:Sarojupreti have been increasingly coming and interacting with me. If you see the history most who were blocked interacted with me. Whenever a new editor comes to me, I try to be as helpful as possible and do everything I can for them, then suddenly he is found to be a sock! What do I do? With time I shall to be taken into the case saying that I have been increasingly involved in the case and I can be a possible sock too. I live far from Nepal where this thing is emerging from, I am a citizen of India and live in New Delhi. I need help. How do I distinguish new users who come to me, as socks and those who are innocent. I don't want to interact with these socks anymore. I want to live a plain life on Wikipedia as others do. Can someone mentor me here please. Thanks and Regards VarunFEB2003 ^{Offline when signed} 11:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: Hi Varun, I see what you mean - being able to tell the difference between a new editor and a fresh sock is pretty difficult, though some do have tell-tell signs. I think it may be best, given your relative inexperience here (and some of the issues raised on your talk page) that you do not offer to help any new editors for the time being, except for perhaps answering simple questions that they may leave on your talk page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ya I have already thought that when some new user comes i'll refer them to you or DatGuy as I do not have the required experience yet! Anything else I need to take care of? VarunFEB2003 ^{Offline when signed} 12:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Samtar here VarunFEB2003- and it would also have the advantage of preventing other things, of course. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's all I can think of, but I'm sure some other editors may chip in - the key thing here is the fact that you're not a sockpuppet of another account, and technical evidence gained by checkusers will likely exonerate you if it got to that. Just stick to contributing to the project in whatever way you can, take advice which is given to you, and try not to get caught up on the little things -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys that gives me much more confidence! VarunFEB2003 ^{Offline when signed} 14:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Expired PRODs

Two sticky proposed deletions have expired. For convenience, I have marked them with g6 speedy deletion tags. If that was not what I was supposed to do, oops. Anyway, they are very short, have no references, and one of them might not even be notable. The pages are Anthony Ventura and Aiden Bushley. RafChem (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to do that—we visit CAT:EX every so often and delete or decline all the requests en masse. By definition, it's not time-sensitive when an article proposed for deletion is actually deleted, since it's only to be used in uncontroversial cases—it's not particularly unusual for them to sit for two or three days after the prod expires. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (You meant Aiden Bushey.) I've deleted them, but the g6 tags weren't necessary. Expired prods and prod-blps get automatically categorized by date, and that gets patrolled separately from CSDs. —Cryptic 14:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on rule changes for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election

The annual Request For Comment to set rules for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. As in recent years, the rules from 2015 will remain in place unless changed by consensus during this RFC. The RFC is scheduled to last approximately 30 days, and should end after September 30. For anyone interested in participating, the RFC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. Thanks in advance for your participation. Monty₈₄₅ 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Log

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 following administrators have recently applied ECP following the close of the new community standards, but may not yet have completed the policy requirement related to notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review. Please post your information below. Please also note, there is already a discussion about this requirement and its mechanisms below (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ECP_postings_to_AN). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 10:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:Deb
  • I've amended the protection level on the 3 articles involved. I don't really understand the new policy and, frankly, I can't remember why I set that particular level in each case, but I believe it was because they were being repeatedly recreated by the same user who was already autoconfirmed. Deb (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• User:David Gerard
  • I SALTed perennially-recreated spam magnets at that level to avoid full protection. Should I just fully protect those articles instead? Seems worse - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• User:CorbieVreccan
  • OK, I'm a bit confused by this. I think the ECP option, along with template editor, was rolled in when I wasn't paying close enough attention. I can put the articles back to semi, but it seemed a better option for tendentious edit-warring where a new account that had racked up a great number of edits in a short period of time was involved. As that user is now blocked, normal semi would probably be fine. I need to go read the new policies and will amend if needed. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.

• The March 2014 requirement that Ferahgo is restricted to "editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles" is rescinded. The other restrictions that accompanied the unban remain in force.
• The 2010 topic ban from the race and intelligence topic, originally issued under discretionary sanctions, remains in force and is adopted by the arbitration committee. This topic ban may be appealed via WP:ARCA.
• The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Recent WP:30/500 protections

I was told I have to make this section despite the above transclusion of all recently extended-confirmed protected pages, so I'm acknowledging my recent applications of 30/500 as per the requirements in the protection policy.

• The Who – extended-confirmed protected until November 1, 2016
• Fall Out Boy – extended-confirmed protected until December 1, 2016

Both protected due to the activity of a long-term sockmaster who introduces sneaky vandalism into articles in this content area. I'm omitting the sockmaster's username as per WP:DENY, and I strongly encourage others to do the same. You can dig through recent edits on these two pages to find the CU confirmed socks which edited through semi-protection if you truly care to know the username. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer unblock request discussion

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.

---

Bad Dryer has initiated a block appeal on his talk page and requested input here. See: User talk:Bad Dryer#Block review discussion at WP:AN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, here is the previous block review that took place in February. Katie^talk 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• unblock with the conditions stated I'll admit I've not looked closely, but A) it's been a while and B) it sounds like there is a good understanding of the issues and C) the interaction ban and topic ban should cover most of the problems. And of course, WP:ROPE... Hobit (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (also posted this to his talk page, not sure where the discussion would be held, I'd think his talk page would be ideal as he can post there, but eh...)
  • I'm perfectly fine with a broader topic ban of all I/P issues. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment is an AN request the way to go? Why can't a standard unblock request be good enough? Merely having the block endorsed at AN doesn't mean it's a community block, just that the admin block was affirmed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  As the admin who recommended a second discussion here, I was working off the second point of WP:CBAN. That, and given the extensive background (the ARBCOM case mentioned below) I figured that the case merited wider discussion - I know from offwiki experience that "time passed" does not by default equal "issue gone". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Because the AN discussion endorsing the block was so emphatic that it cannot be overriden by one administrator, though if you're happy I'm quite willing to reject the unblock request for the reasons given below. I think it's better if it comes here though. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Bad Dryer is an expert in goading editors who he considers not pro-Israeli enough. (Have you forgotten the User:Malik Shabazz brahooha?) If he is allowed back, then please at least topic ban him from the Israel/Palestine area, (only an interaction ban with User:Nishidani is simply not enough, IMO), Huldra (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. BD's unblock request says "I do want to return to editing in a constructive manner", but when has he edited in a constructive manner? In his block review six months ago [59], more than a dozen highly experienced editors, many of them admins, made it clear that BD is anything but a constructive editor or asset to the encyclopedia. It was a nearly unanimous ruling. Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock but... would also accept a topic ban from the whole I/P area. This is the area where his previous issues have occurred (let's not forget this includes two indefs), and I have no confidence whatsoever that they would not recur. I am also not convinced that he is not a sock of User:NoCal100; behaviour has a number of similarities both in interests and attitude, and previous Checkusers returned "Possible". Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock (Non-administrator comment) - as I said in the previous unblock request, this user's unique awfulness manages to stand out in a topic area plagued by general awfulness. Multiple blocks for racially-charged personal attacks; one should be enough for a siteban but here we are. There are a rare few users who should never be allowed back; Bad Dryer is one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I can only agree with Softlavender and others. In my 8+ years here, I have never seen anything approaching the rancor of 6 months ago. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock, at the very least WP:ROPE, or WP:SO applies here. I would be ok with an IBAN for BD and Nishidani. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO the only thing "rope" does is allow the ghastly behavior to happen again. Other editors should not have to go through the things that this editor will put them through. MarnetteD|Talk 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment and proposal: In the earlier WP:AN request, which I had initiated, I had opposed the indef block. My viewpoint is the same, but that argument probably isn't going to fly; so the proposed solution of unblocking them and simultaneously issuing a topic-ban from Israel-Palestine seems fine to me. I don't really see any downside to this solution. Two points about the above comments, especially by Black Kite and Ivanvector. Firstly, there was no conclusive SPI (I had initiated one myself, which went nowhere), so sockpuppet allegations are at best, unproven. The SPI here was never cleared up one way or another, and fell through the cracks. It has been a long time since then, so any CU evidence would probably be stale now. Secondly, there were no "multiple blocks for racially-charged personal attacks". There was one incident which could be deemed racially charged. The other had nothing to do with race - other than the general fact that anything dealing with Israel-Palestine does have something to do with religion or race. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, one should be enough, and I disagree that others were not more of the same. I have made no comment on the SPI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reposted as the bot archived without this topic being closed. SQL^{Query me!} 04:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as requested but I could be persuaded to support an unblock with a topic ban from any topic related to Israel/Palestine or perhaps Zionism more broadly. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Some people are expert in exploiting weaknesses in opponents and systems and we have no way of assessing what would be the result of an unblock. The only guidance is the unconvincing unblock request and past experience. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2016 (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.

Deceitful PRODs

I was patrolling the expired PRODs and found a user that is using a deceitful practice to ensure the article's they PROD are deleted. Sixth of March has been adding PRODs to articles. Then they comment out the PROD so it does not show up when someone views the article. They then come back 7 days later and remove the comment so it does up and gets deleted. I have gone back to 7 July and found instances of this practice. I have restored many that were deleted this way. I figured it out after deleting two articles. On the third article there were intervening edits and reverts by Sixth of March. I started to look to see if the ip had removed the PROD and if it had been restored. I looked at intervening edits, where it hasn't been removed but it wasn't showing up either. Initially I assumed the best and thought it was a mistake. I decided the best course was to reset the click on the PROD. Then I looked at the fourth and found the same thing. I also went back and looked at the two I had deleted and found the same thing. I restored those two, declined all 4 PRODs and warned Sixth of March if I saw this ever happen again that I would block them. I then started looking through contributions and deleted edits and found more of the same. This isn't an isolated event. My main reason to bring this here it's to notify other admins to be on the look out for this tactic. -- GB fan 23:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has also commented out project banners on the talkpages of the affected artices (see Talk:Damdaming Bayan - restored now). GermanJoe (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

After looking some more I think the earliest article that was deleted this way was DYGB. It was initially PRODd 22 May with the PROD commented out 1 minute after the PROD. The comment tags were removed 28 May. -- GB fan 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We kind of duplicated work, I looked thru his deleted contribs and agree it started around 22 May. I'm going thru his delete contribs and restoring any page where this was done. It looks like you might be doing the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I restored three nine commented out banners.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sixth of March also added a prod here which was legitimate, but when it was removed a day later, they restored it an hour later here, in violation of policy. It was removed again, so it did not get deleted, but that second addition was clearly contrary to policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I restored or declined 27 PRODd articles. -- GB fan 00:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Devious. Is there any possible way to AGF with this? Seems like an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING or otherwise intentional manipulation of a process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to AGF the restoration of a removed Prod, not all new editors know the rule that you cannot restore it, but I'm awaiting an explanation of how commenting out project banner and Prods are justifiable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I believe I've restored all the PRODs where this trick was used. Agree with GB fan that it seemed to have started around 22 May, so I went thru every PROD he made between then and now. A few were done legitimately, but I restored 18 pages and their talk pages. Anyway, half an hour of my life I'll never get back. I didn't look at their speedy deletion nominations and AFD nominations, I'm not about to start second guessing admins who looked at the articles and agreed with his speedy nominations and an AFD has sufficient eyes. But the hidden PROD trick made all of the PROD deletions invalid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. I've never seen anyone do that. It will be interesting to hear an explanation, as I can't think of any valid reason for that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can hazard a guess; I think around that time he dealt with one or two people who were mass-declining PRODs, as kind of a political act against PRODs in general, rather than a true disagreement with each particular PROD. This may have been his attempt to prevent that. of course, also it completely prevented legitimate readers of the articles from disputing the PROD too, unless they happened to look at the article history. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's a semi-valid reason, though not valid enough to actually do because of the secondary fallout you mentioned. If it can be shown that one or two people where trying to make a political statement against PRODs by closing them improperly, then he should have brought his concerns to ANI or some other appropriate venue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That might be a reason but not very good one IMO. We should fix the problem, not game the system to try to right what is perceived as a wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Thanks for the help in cleaning up, I got pulled away in the middle. -- GB fan 01:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Concur. I find it hard to see an expalantion of this that doesn't involve bad faith on the part of Sixth of March. I'd be open to hearing an explanation for them, but I agree that a block if they do it again is also an appropriate reaction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
• There are some more where the prod tag wasn't hidden, but project templates on the talk page were disabled. I'm restoring them as well for abuse of the prod process. Monty₈₄₅ 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

They appear to go back to February 2016. I've now restored all the affected prods. There are also AFD discussions that closed as delete while the project banners were commented out, resulting in the projects not getting notifications about the AfD discussion. This isn't something an admin can unilaterally undo, and its less clear it tainted the result than in the case of the PRODs, but it should at least be raised as a potential topic of discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. That's...I'm impressed. Of all the out-of-process deletions I've seen, I've never had one that creative. It would almost be a shame to block for a tactic as underhanded and brilliant as this one. Almost. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm honestly not seeing any good faith explanation so a block or a topic ban from the deletion process might be necessary.

On another note, now that this idea has been made public, is there any sort of template-magic we can do to subvert this if someone in the future tries it? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think that any AfD discussion where this user had commented out the WikiProject banners should be mentioned at the involved WikiProject talk pages, along with an explicit mention of the option of WP:DELREV. I would trust any speedy deletions he tagged, unless there is any evidence of this user changing pages to match the CSDs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK, why isn't this user blocked? Why in the world would anyone assume good faith here, in the face of such deliberate destruction? Also, how does a brand-new user even know about commenting out? They are obviously a returning user; their first edit ever was this: [60]. They are an SPA for Filipino radio. Does this ring any bells? At the very least their rollback rights should be revoked. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They haven't edited since the issue was raised here eleven hours back, so let's give them the chance to offer an explanation. I can't imagine what that explanation would be, but hope springs eternal that there is one. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Out of interest, is there anything that explicitly says 'dont do this'? While it is obviously sneaky, is it actually prohibited anywhere? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Not sure, but not convinced it matters. One can compile several books with all the manners people can be deceptive and edit inappropriately. We cannot have comprehensive lists for all "don't do"s. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Deletion tags/notices of any sort must remain visible on the article they are placed on until they are actually removed via a normal process. That's the only way for most users to know that the article is being considered for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • If we're going full-on wikilawyer mode, WP:PROD plainly states that "it may only be placed on an article a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator) may... simply remov[e] the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Lower, it exhorts administrators to "confirm that... the {{proposed deletion}} tag has been in place continuously for at least 7 days" (em mine). —Cryptic 11:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • • There was a discussion that concluded that if the editor that placed the PROD removed the PROD themselves that did not count as an objection to deletion and the article could have another PROD added. I do agree though that the new PROD must be visible on the article for the whole 7 days. This isn't really relevant to this concern as the obvious intention was not to remove the PROD but to make it harder for others to object. -- GB fan 11:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • This is basically fraud. An editor claimed that the banner had been on display for the full period but it hadn't. Wikipedia:Honesty would cover this. Deryck C. 11:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Closing admins should check that there is no silliness like this before deleting, I always do. I don't think it's appropriate to put in a list of all the things that one is not allowed to do, it should be patently obvious to anyone that hiding the tag in this way is not in the spirit of the guideline and not permitted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
          • Closing admins should look for this. Most of the ones I see that were deleted wee ones where there wire no intervening edits. The PROD was added then commented out and then restored. With no other edits taking place. I think I probably saw the edits and thought that they were just fixing the PROD, assume good faith. It was only when I saw the edits by an ip and then reverts that I started to look at every edit to figure out what happened. There are quite a few admins, including me that were deceived. The tactic obvious worked but I am hoping that admins will look closer from now on. -- GB fan 12:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic-ban from Deletion

I recommend a topic-ban from all deletion actions. Commenting out the PROD is disgraceful and deceptive. (Restoring a removed PROD is improper but a common mistake, but making a PROD invisible is a different matter.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from deletion as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban We should just block this guy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• I think this proposal is premature. We need to give them the chance to change their actions on their own first. There is no evidence that CSD is a concern and the only AFD concern is the removal of project banners on talk pages. This is only a concern for PROD. There are many more eyes on their actions now and I believe that if they ever try this again, a block will be swift. -- GB fan 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. Blocking is supposed to be preventative, and I see no evidence that the editor has engaged in the inappropriate activity after being warned, so blocking isn't warranted at this time. As for a topic ban, while the actions go beyond even a careless disregard of process, I think in the interest of process, we shouldn't be instituting a ban for an action that has (not yet) occurred after the first warning. I don't wish to understate the seriousness of the concern, but other than technical blocks for improper usernames, we generally don't mete out punishment without any prior discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thirded. There's a big spotlight on him now, and we can discuss a topic ban later. (Although I'm really interested in the explanation. Just when I thought I'd seen everything.) Katie^talk 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good time to hand out a good-sized length of rope and see what happens. A+ for ingenuity, though. PGWG (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose let them come and explain themselves first, as they haven't edited since the opening of this discussion. Pinguinn 🐧 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature. Lets give them an opportunity to explain themselves before breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
• Support topic ban pending an appropriate response from the editor at issue. Long-term pattern of abuse calling for preventive action until we can be reasonably sure the abuse has been terminated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Disruption is clear enough to support a ban, and frankly I cannot imagine any good faith explaination for using such a trick. I am ready to revisit the vote if/when Sixth of March will provide a decent explaination for his actions, but patience could not be infinite. Three days have passed (and almost four since Sixth of March's last edit, which is rather unusual looking at his history), and considering the user's WP:GAME attitude, I'm not holding my breath waiting a response that could never come. Cavarrone 05:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• SNOW support: We can't just let a disruptive user dodge sanction by simply not commenting in a discussion regarding their behaviour, waiting out the consequences. These actions were clearly not just incidental events, but rather a pretty blatant effort at gaming the system to subvert process and stifle potential opposing views before they even occur--so that said editor can force their content decisions without worrying about that pesky little detail of achieving consensus. There seems to be no reasonable alternative explanation forwarded here, despite the eyes of numerous experienced contributors examining the activity from all angles. This user absolutely should be removed from the area where they have displayed this manipulative behaviour, designed to undermine the consensus process. Though it seems almost impossible that they could do so, if they ever decide to show up and provide a good-faith explanation for this activity that seems to hold water, we can always reverse the sanction at that point. But in the meantime, I'm also concerned that the evidence suggests this is in fact a returning user (which makes the behaviour in question all the more bad-faith and blatantly disruptive) and I'd suggest that they should be considered incredibly lucky to get off with just a topic ban en lieu of an indef. Though it may not matter much in the final analysis if they are in fact a sock. Rollback rights also need to be removed; this user has demonstrated a lack of ethical comportment necessary to be trusted with those tools. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support on principal but suggest Move Discussion to WP:ANI which is really where this sort of thing belongs. I am willing to reconsider my support for the topic ban if a really good explanation is forthcoming, but as of right now this simply reeks of bad faith editing. AGF does not require the suspension of common sense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed block

I propose that the user in question is blocked for 1 year. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support As nom. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Again, oppose. There is no indication that this will continue now that it has been brought out. If it does continue it will meet swift action and they will be blocked, probably for more than a year. -- GB fan 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I refer the honourable editors to the answer I gave a short time ago, in the section above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Opppose - Such a bloch would clearly be punitive. If it happens again, sure, but I see no reason to suspect it will happen again. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Why we are even entertaining the idea of retaining a vandal is beyond me. Support indef block; possible SO in a year if they explain why they engaged in such repeated and deliberate vandalism. There's also the question of who the editor actually is, as they were far too clueful from the get-go to be a newbie. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature. Lets give them an opportunity to explain themselves before breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose Poor proposal: Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems, as policy says; since the issue itself currently appears to be in abeyance, the conditions for a block aren't met. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive and the proposed topic ban should remedy the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Quick note

Please see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Slight tweak and offer your opinions on a proposal I've made that's relevant to this situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

The user has not responded since the opening of this discussion and indeed has not edited at all. I think a stern warning that, if they should ever return, actions like this will result in a block. Pinguinn 🐧 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Such a warning has already been issued by GB fan as an individual admin, and it would be kind of redundant to re-issue it. I guess we could formally endorse it if we wanted to, but I suspect it will be enforced either way given the rest of the discussion here. Monty₈₄₅ 17:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for another warning. I will enforce my warning and I believe there are more admins that will enforce it also if it happens again. -- GB fan 00:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Spamming of "Harambe" and "Donald Trump"

The spam frequency is increasing from various IP ranges and they have no connection to each other. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Do you have any diffs? We've got an edit filter for the Harambe vandalism, but it may need some tweaking -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Spider-Man, but here are a few Harambe vandal edits from the past day or so (all these have been reverted): [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. School articles are particularly popular, I've observed. --bonadea contributions talk 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Special:AbuseFilter/784 currently tags Harambe edits, but I've switched to private with a view to tweak it a little and possibly start disallowing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/781 related -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

They are using variations of Harambe, but their main aim is Harambe. I can't give differences, as when I click Huggle to revert, a message says that it has newer edits, which means some other Huggle user reverted it before me. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/784 has been updated and set to disallow - I invite other administrators to watch the filters log. I'm not entirely sure about the Trump spam -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, What is this? Marvellous Spider-Man 14:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Urgh, 784 is preventing a lot of edits, but it seems more tweaking is needed -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help with this, the filter is currently very effective (though no doubt people will start to find ways around it). You may not be aware, but issues such as this are ideal for filters, and you can suggest new ones at WP:EF/R. Thanks again, and feel free to ping me if you spot any new occurances -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Why???. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, not sure how that got through. IIRC the original filter wasn't case sensitive. Omni Flames (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Updated by MusikAnimal, the filter was only checking very small edits - this has now been changed and the above hopefully won't happen again -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure review requested: Trump

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

---

This is a request to review the close at RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements to determine whether the closer (User:Tazerdadog) closed prematurely and/or interpreted the consensus incorrectly and/or violated BLP by skipping inline attribution. I discussed this with the closer and other editors here.

This is a sensitive matter, because it's a very high-profile BLP, and the closer accurately said that the RFC is about whether the lead should say the BLP subject "publicly lied" (the actual language at issue in the RFC uses the word "false" in the lead without elaboration in the lead).

The issues in this review request include these three: (1) whether the RFC was closed too soon; (2) whether the RFC established any consensus about starting to put citations into the lead; (3) whether lack of inline attribution is a BLP violation.

The RFC was started by User:DrFleischman on 25 August, who then bludgeoned most of the opposes, and unsuccesfully sought to get the RFC closed after only four days, at which point it was concluded that the RfC should remain open for the traditional time period of 30 days.[71] And then it was closed on 2 September. There were three !votes on 31 August and one on 1 September, so it appears that !voting had not subsided.

Regarding footnotes in the lead, like many other candidate BLPs, this BLP has deliberately omitted cites in the lead. But this close requires them even though WP:LEADCITE says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". User:Euryalus is correct that "the RFC was ... not about cites in the lead", or at least the RFC statement was vague about it (the closer rejected the two footnotes proposed in the RFC statement). I asked the closer: "Did you tally editorial consensus on this specific question?" of whether there was consensus to start putting footnotes into the lead, but the closer did not answer that question, and instead pointed out that WP:LEADCITE also says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." In my view, both of these parts of the WP:LEADCITE guideline need to be satisfied in order to start putting footnotes into the lead, and otherwise the lead needs to be toned down or qualified so that it doesn't need footnotes (leaving footnotes for the article body).

I also agree that the close was improper because lack of inline attribution is a BLP violation that cannot be overridden by local consensus.[72]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As the RfC requestor, I am dismayed at the cheekiness of AYW's report, which misrepresents various aspects of the dispute, paints me as some sort of villain out to thwart consensus, and omits AYW's own wikilawyering and disruption. I will keep it simple. The close has now been reverted by DHeyward in violation of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:TPO) so I support a final resolution of the matter here. The other critical point is that this RfC was never about whether Donald Trump lied. It was always about whether Trump made many false statements, which the reliable sources verify without contradiction, and which talk page consensus supports. AYW's concern about footnotes in the lead section is a total red herring; it's a distraction that can be readily resolved through subsequent talk page discussion. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you'd like my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse the close and trout the OP for blatantly misrepresenting the subject of the RfC. The closer weighed the arguments and gave a thoughtful analysis in the closing statement. The RfC was rife with specious arguments and drive by votes. Also, an extra helping of trout for DHeyward for re-opening the closed discussion, out of process, so that he could vote. - MrX 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with User:MelanieN that we need an uninvolved admin here.[73] Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not the process. Any uninvolved editor in good standing can close an RfC. Community consensus is then required to overturn such a close, in close review.- MrX 17:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't cited any policy or guideline that precludes an uninvolved admin from getting involved here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bad close - This is clearly a bad closure, for reasons which include: 1. It is ridiculously early; there is not sufficient concensus to support a WP:SNOW closure, which would, in any case, need to be in favour of not including the text (we don't WP:SYESW); 2. The closing statement explicitly states that it was based on the number of !votes, despite WP:NOTVOTE; 3. The closing statement states that oppose votes were discounted, but does not explain why; 4. The closing statement fails to discount WP:TRUTH based support votes; 5. The closure seeks to establish a local consensus in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV and WP:BLP, neither of which are subvertable in this way. The reversion by DHeyward is the clearest case of an appropriate use of WP:IAR that I have seen. NOTE: I am not a US citizen or resident; nor am I particularly interested or affected by the US Presidential election. I consider myself as uninvolved in this matter as it is possible to be. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse the close. I am an involved editor at that article. I thought the close was thoughtful and fair, although I didn't personally agree with all aspects of it. I also felt the timing was appropriate. Anything's link above is to a note I made at the talk page, documenting that the close had been reverted by someone who disagreed with it; someone else then reinstated the close. Pinging the other people who participated in the discussion started by Anythingyouwant at the closer's talk page: @Euryalus, NeilN, and CFredkin: --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Closure The justifications I could see for early closure would be if the community sentiment was overwhelming in a particular direction or if input had basically stopped. Personally I had to count the votes to determine which version was "ahead", so it wasn't obvious to me. And there were 3 "votes" on the 31st and 1 on the 1st, so it doesn't appear that "voting" had subsided. In addition, we've already had 2 editors who did not "vote" in the RfC (DHeyward and Ryk72) object to the closure.CFredkin (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Re-open. 4 8 days for such a contentious issue is nowhere near long enough. I would have looked at that as a potential closer (I'm completely uninvolved in American politics) and suggested it run for at least another week or until the comments die off. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ahem... It was open for 8 days.- MrX 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry - fixed - still a lot less than I would expect though. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bad Close on BLP policy alone. Attribution and citation are not the same. "Many" needs attribution. Who is saying many? This is clearly a contentious claim that is likely to be challenged and per WP:BLP "must be explicitly attributed." Inline citation is the optional part, not the attribution - the closer got it exactly backward. Wikipedia doesn't make these claims in Wikipedia's voice. Second. "many" is a weasel word. In section 2.4 of BLP policy, we should be wary of using sources that make such claims and avoid them. The lead is not the place for being on the edge. Third, adding "or false" to a previous statement regarding "controversial" is classic synthesis. "Controversial" and "false" are different topics. Which source ties them in such a way that they can be noted together? That source is lacking. that makes the combination a classic synthesis of material. Is the next "or" chain addition "or Hillary Clinton?" That would read "Many comments by Trump are controversial or false or about Hillary Clinton." SYNTHESIS is not allowed and combining controversial with false is clearly synthesis. The rush to close and the misapplication of policy, especially BLP policy, means the close is improper. The edit should be reversed with such obvious defects. --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It looks as if Tazerdadog has taken it upon themselves to revert their own closure, so I guess this discussion is moot. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have self-reverted my closure. I still believe that my closure was correct on substance, but there are very clear signs that I'm missing something. I am apparently in a hole. I should therefore stop digging. The close was also clearly premature. I thought the timing was acceptable at the time, but it clearly was not. Sorry for adding confusion to an already tense process. Feel free to let the trouts fly.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Need rangeblock for longterm vandal

John Kwiecinski (talk · contribs) is back--well, he never left--making his little vandal edits all over the place, esp. in dog articles of course. Sagaciousphil has noticed this too. I just got done semi-protecting a whole bunch of articles, but maybe some of you can figure out if we can block a few ranges. Here's some of the IPv6 addresses involved this past week or so:

• 2604:2000:C815:E00:5036:DDDD:A98B:AD04
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:DD49:7E8E:7608:304E
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:F013:A8A1:694E:C697
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:196F:A13A:E5A:9EC6
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:51CA:2760:EA15:EE05
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:F872:2F99:74CB:7E9B
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:196F:A13A:E5A:9EC6
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:480F:3699:F647:A618
• 2604:2000:C815:E00:548D:F38A:E47A:5FC2
• 2605:A000:BCC1:B900:B9BE:E4F0:4E90:CE8F
• 2606:A000:8211:BF00:7D85:BEE4:91A0:FB62
• 2607:FB90:33B:C5D2:88E9:681B:6225:2C4D

If you have a look at their contributions, or at my log for the last few minutes, you'll get an idea of how widespread and childish the disruption is. Your help is appreciated. This guy has spiraled into just pure vandalism, and whatever we can do to minimize it, we should. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Faster than we can get anything typed, it looks like he's already back again this afternoon? Yesterday he was using this one I reckon.

I've blocked the ones beginning 2604:2000:C815:E00: for 6 months. The other ranges look quite lightly used, so they might be very large. Maybe someone else can get a purchase on them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We can be aggressive and start blocking /64s after one or two IPs show up, but if he keeps bouncing to new /64s or as it appears new /16s, rangeblocks may not be a viable solution. Monty₈₄₅ 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you all. He's also here, 71.185.250.234, and here, 172.56.28.160, it seems. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be him editing again at the moment? Typical edit summary. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Huntster, I don't know if you're aware of this longterm vandal; pinging you because of this edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies, though I'll leave the rangeblocking aspect to those who have a clue, which I do not. I've never heard of this long-term abuser, though I rarely encounter such things in my little corner of the site. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Koala15, I'm pinging you for a similar reason (this edit)--this guy likes dogs and rappers. I mean, he likes vandalizing articles on dogs and rappers. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• And you, Myxomatosis57--sorry, but these are not good-faith edits. If you run into this guy, revert and report please. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Zzuzz, Monty845, 2607:FB90:48:5BAC:A190:8C08:2195:423C is the most recent one. Is a range block feasible? This is the second or third one this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• We can block a /34 (2607:fb90::/34) but that's really big. Any wider and we're blocking zillions of T-Mobile Wireless addresses. Maybe he's doing some of this from his place of employment and the rest from a different geolocation; the pattern suggests he stays on one network for a while then moves. Katie^talk 15:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• KrakatoaKatie, he's moved on--he was at 2605:E000:21D1:2700:81C7:E9B:7F6F:9914 20 minutes ago. Yes, frequently static IPs from Pennsylvania and thereabouts, and then he gets on the train to Virginia. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's good practice to block the /64 range for any IPv6 that you block, since that entire subnet is assigned to one user in the same way that one IPv4 would be. And that's the extent of my IPv6 knowledge - looks like a single rangeblock won't be able to handle this. Also worth noting that you don't need to calculate the specific numbers to put in to block the /64 range; just add the /64 to the end of the IPv6 in the block form and it will do it automatically. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ajraddatz, I don't know if you're talking to me, but I don't understand this stuff to begin with. I'm posting here because I need help--I need y'all to start throwing these blocks around. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

General Help Needed at SPI

Just noting that there are an absolute ton of CU completed but not admin actioned cases at SPI. Any help would be greatly appreciated. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

• Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (Note: spelling of 'United states' in the first AfD)
• WP:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26#Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (closed) (Deletion review of first AfD)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016
• Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25

As many of you know, we just had an AfD/DRV over the above article. A number of users, mostly including admins, have taken it upon themselves to basically delete the article bit by bit until it is a stub. (I believe it was down to less than 10% of the size it was during the AfD). Of course an article can be edited down to size if that's the right thing to do, but this looks like an end-run around community consensus and I think other voices should chime in there. I've reverted to the last fairly-complete version but will otherwise not be touching the article in the near term. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And the BOLD deletion of the material, without consensus, has happened again. I'm bringing this here because I don't think this is simply an editorial dispute and because this area is under a restriction that says "Consensus required" for all changes. And there was no consensus to remove 90%+ of the article. Given it's under 1RR, I'm done editing. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Added links to AfDs and the DRV at head of this report. User:Hobit says that admins are among those who have been deleting material, but I think this was a misunderstanding (User:DHeyward is not an admin). I assume that when you refer to bold changes you are commenting on a recent edit by DHeyward. I'll notify him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd forgotten about needing to notify folks. I should also @Volunteer Marek: who also reverted. And who I _also_ thought was an admin. Not batting 100%. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No Ed, as you can see from my talk page, Hobit characterizes their edit as a WP:BOLD edit which restored a lot of material that had been removed through consensus, previous AfD, BLP etc. I reverted it. Hobit seems to misunderstand the WP:BRD cycle. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The material that was deleted was either poorly sourced or wasn't notable. The fact that not much is left after garbage is removed is your problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that you guys are tag teaming to delete an entire article because you don't think we should have it, contrary to the outcome of the AfD/DRV. DHeward had a 1RR violation a week ago and there was no consensus for the utter removal of basically the whole article. I don't mind a content dispute, but this is something quite different. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, when more than one person disagrees with you then that's "tag teaming". And if only one person disagrees with you then you have consensus. Riiiggghhhhhhttt. Junk was removed from the article. As it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You all have blanked an article that is under discretionary sanctions and edit warred to keep it that way. Hobit (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I added a link to earlier thread: Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25, that the article creator started. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Block review per WP:NOTHERE

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 blocked JustMyTwoCents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:NOTHERE. I am pretty confident this is not their first or only account, from the contribution history. Their purpose here seems on the face of it to be to "correct" our "bias" on creationism and, to a lesser extent, global warming. Long experience indicates that these are the kinds of views and behaviours that do not change in response to patient explanation. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. This aint Speaker's Corner and we aint got no WP:GREATWRONGS to be righted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

NOTHERE is NOTPOLICY. It's lazy to use an information page instead of a policy-based reason for blocking. Why is NOTHERE not policy if it's used to block people? Makes no sense, but the trend continues. Disturbing. Doc talk 09:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Check that. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Y'all don't understand. NOTHERE is rife for abuse. And it's not instructive to the blocked user on why they were blocked. There are 11 points (and more to come, I'm sure) under NOTHERE. No obligation to explain anything. Bad practice. Doc talk 09:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We understand. Most of us don't agree. You know this. Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_22#RfC_about_WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Could just use WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. 'They have been blocked to prevent disruptive editing'. The problem with using 'not here' from the blocking policy is that that particular part of the policy is a list of common rationales for blocking. It does not mean they are always applied correctly. In this case I feel the block is 100% correct, however an information page should not be cited as a reason for a block. They are clearly 'not here'. The next question should be, 'Why are they not here?' and block for that reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that NOTHERE is actually one of the options in the "reason for blocking" drop-down menu on Special:Block, which would probably be one of the reasons it is used so regularly. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  There has to be a policy based reason to block an editor. NOTHERE includes a myriad of reasons. It's not policy, it's unduly confusing and vague, and it's irresponsibly used as a rationale to block editors in a practice that is becoming more openly accepted. It should be removed from the drop-down; but it sadly won't be. It's a slippery slope, folks. Is it better to block per policy rather than a vague list of potential reasons to block someone? Doc talk 10:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  It is policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Then why does it say "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" on the top of the page? Why is it not categorized in Category:Wikipedia policies? Doc talk 10:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  It's semantics, really. The type of editor perceived to be NOTHERE will have been so disruptive as to have made that clear, and disruptive editing blocks are of course policy. However, NOTHERE is mentioned in the blocking policy here. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hmm. The "perceived" is actually the whole thing. Do you not see the potential for abuse? If it's a spammer, block for spamming. Disruption? Block for disruptive editing. NOTHERE points to no specific reason at all. That's why it's not policy. It's really not a good thing that NOTHERE is used in place of a concrete rationale. Who's to say who's "here" and "not here" without being able to point to a specific reason? It doesn't help the community or the blocked user to be vague about why a block is issued. Doc talk 10:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I see your point; I don't see why the other categories couldn't be used - the blocking admin can always add a NOTHERE note in the free text field if they want to. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that NOTHERE as a block reason is unnecessary at best and unenlightening at worst. Nevertheless, it was upheld in the above-referenced RfC. If you want to re-open the issue with another RfC, I personally wouldn't say it's too early to do so. But that consensus is not going to be overridden here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  How is "disruptive editing" any more specific than "not here to build an encyclopedia"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  It's only one of 11 points at WP:NOTHERE, making it 11 times more specific. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  If one is blocked per NOTHERE, all 11 (and counting) "indications" apply. There is no need to point to specific policies or guidelines, as this will suffice. Doc talk 10:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Using your logic, we have 7 8 (and counting) indications at WP:DE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Still more specific. 17 > 7. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  And ten more examples could easily be added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  LOL. It doesn't matter. No matter how many are DE, there will always be 10 more than that at NOTHERE. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  The reason NOTHERE is useful is that it is (if accurate) a summary of the overall situation. Someone might do excellent work for 80% of the time, but is disruptive for the other 20% (for example, they might be too emotionally invested in some topic and can't avoid being a problem when it comes up). If such a person is really disruptive, they might get blocked for that disruption—but generally they are HERE to help the encyclopedia, and it is with regret that they are let go. Another editor might be only mildly disruptive, but have very few benefits for the encyclopedia—on balance, they might be blocked as NOTHERE because wikilawyers could argue that blocking for disruption was not warranted due to its low level. The assessment can always be appealed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Again, pointless outside an RfC at VPP, so I'm out. Enjoy. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm out of this one too. Mark my words, folks. The more NOTHERE is used in place of actual, concrete policy reasons, the more we all lose in the end. Doc talk 11:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bad block the contributions appear to be an attempt at being constructive. They fixed some wording problems and generally tried to clarify things. Perhaps I'm biased (I'm fairly religious and and know a handful of young earth types that I used to argue with a lot), but I don't see anything wrong with their edits. [74] is certainly not vandalism (or at the least isn't clearly vandalism) and feels more like a reasonable application of WP:BOLD. Claims that that is vandalism is the only warning on their talk page. Plus the fact that the only thing on their talk page is templates. If you think this is a sock, file an SPI or something. But otherwise revert and try to communicate first. WP:BITE etc. etc.Hobit (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  His mammoth edit [75] happily bulldozed over, among other things, a lead that's the result of countless excruciating discussions over the years, and comes with a complimentary demand that other editors refer to him before daring revert any of it ("Not to be reverted as a whole; please discuss any specific issues on my talk page"). My take on it is that the editor knew perfectly well, as the commit message shows, that it was more reckless than WP:BOLD, and that he was gearing up to stir much drama upon the inevitable reversion of his hard work. I don't know Wikipedia's blocking policies well enough to comment on their applicability here, but I have little doubt that futures in which he remains blocked will show a lower average blood pressure for a lot of people involved in science-based but socially controversial topics. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) good block - the eye grabber is this dif my goodness, and yes I see Guy's view that this person did not appear to be a new editor; the initial set of edits seemed just to be typical sock/lurker around disambig pages and categories. All in troubled areas. and good on Guy for getting it checked. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Did I miss something? I don't think he got it checked. He blocked because he thinks this is an SPA and/or a sock. No SPI was filed, no checkuser run AFAICT. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block, one SPA less. Max Semenik (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (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.

Articles for deletion

The article Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 was nominated for deletion, survived deletion review and has now been re-nominated. However, the name of the article was misspelled in the first AfD and DR ("States" was not capitalized). So the current AfD appears as a first AfD and does not contain a link to the first one.

The relevant pages are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

Could an administrator or other editor please change the current review to a second review and correct the spelling of the first AfD and DR.

TFD (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"the current review" In other words, do you want someone to move the current AFD to include (2nd nomination), or are you requesting something different? Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here. Someone already noted that a previous AFD exist. I've converted the "see also" to an infobox like other AFDs. Just precede with the AFD as normal. -- KTC (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as users who go to the new AfD can find the old one (and its DR) easily, nothing more is needed here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin deletions in deletion log

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 assume I'm missing a very simple answer here, but how is a non-admin deleting articles? See here here and here?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Entries showing up in deletion log and #For people wondering about non-admins having deletion logs... - NQ (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you (yet again!) NQ. As I hit "save" I realized I should be checking VPT.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 30 August 2016 (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.

Feyli

this article already exists in Wikipedia but a user made this. both of them are one, but when i use propose deletion, he deletes the tag. here and here --– Hossein Iran « talk » 14:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This does indeed seem to be a pretty clear WP:POVFORK, but I'm not sure that it qualifies for speedy deletion; the article has been up for more than four months and thus may not qualify under the "recently created" criteria of A10. Perhaps you could try AfD; I don't anticipate it would be a hard sell. It's worth noting, though, that both articles have substantial issues that need to be addressed just as much as this redundancy. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there's a bigger issue here. The second article (Feyli Lurs) reads like an essay (and I tagged it as such). Now, the first article (Feyli Kurds) does contain a lot of sources, but...a lot of the article's text is taken word-for-word from said sources. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin Eyes Needed on American Politcs

More flouting the letter and spirit of ARBAP2. Please see [76] and talk. POV editors have learned that there's little risk that the DS will be enforced. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobas

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.

---

]

edit war

edit war

edit war

Recently, I have been patrolling the edit activity of a user, Jobas, who I have discovered to have filled many articles about religion demographics (Growth of religion, Christian population growth, Christians, and possibly others) with a mix of (apparently)reliable and unreliable (tabloids and blogs) sources. He has often interpreted the (apparently)reliable sources in a way that distorts what they actually say, or has used references to support claims that aren't actually contained in the sources. His agenda is clearly to distort reality in order to support the religious ideology he claims to be affiliated with.

Originally I added problem tags to the articles, or tried to cleanse them from the unsupported claims and unreliable sources per various policies (WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOCRYSTAL), but I was reverted. I also tried to discuss with Jobas himself about the poor quality of his edits, with no results. You can read the major discussion HERE.

At the same time, investigating the editing history of Jobas I have discovered that on Wikimedia Commons he has been blocked for 3 days in May 2014 and for 1 month in January 2016 for sockpuppetry, edit wars and vandalism (he manipulated the data contained in religion maps). You can find the maps here to the right, with linked the pertinent edit war histories. Here you find the dozens of sockpuppets he created on Wikimedia Commons.

More recently, while not responding to my request to restore the maps on Wikimedia Commons to their original versions, he has been engaged in what I would define a "strange" edit activity: tens of edits in "Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates" entries consisting in the addition, removal, addition again and removal again and addition again, etc., of commas, dots and hyphens (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I think the only reasonable explanation to this behavior is that he is trying to "bury" the chronology of the latest discussions which reveal the problematic and unfair nature of his editing.

I expect further investigation of Jobas' behavior and help in cleaning up articles affected by his editing.--151.82.71.159 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up issues from Wikimedia Commons back to 2012 (Sockpuppets with no contributions) or from 2014 (edit warning with blocked user!), which is totally irrelevant here since this English Wikipeida project not Wikimedia Commons. You'r claim are fales i was not blocked for (manipulated the data contained in religion maps) and sockpuppetry, It was for edit war with the blocked user -we still talk about 2014-, who refuse to disscuse (that was in 2014 in Wikimedia Commons, not even here). and I hope that you don't have connection with this IP (The UAE troll, whith hundreds of differen IPàs) who always try to harrasment and smear me (you using the same langugse and accusation) here an example, of an issue from 2012 you try to push it in every place.

The user who was in edit war with me in Wikimedia Commons back to 2014 was blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism, he made many wrong changes and he didn't want to disscuse it which led to edit war, For example that his version (from 2014) that this IP support and he want it back: He removed the UK (59.5%), Norway (72.9%), Canada (67.2%), Germany (61%), Republic of Macedonia 65%, Greenland (85%), Guyana (57%),Ethiopia (62.8%), Cameroon (70%), Tanzania (61.4%) and Ghana (71.2%), etec from the mape even according to the national census -In case they have- and other sources, these countries still had Christian majority - So who's manipulated the data contained in religion maps-. Even in the case of France there is no official census of religion in France, and estimates are based on surveys only. while United States Department of State determined that about 45% of French are Christians, according to CSA (2012) 56% of french are christians, and according to Institut français d'opinion publique in 2011 about 65% of French are Christians, while CIA World Factbook (2015 est.) determined that 63-66% of French are Christians, Pew Research Center (2010) determined that 63% of French are Christians, and Eurobarometer (2012) determined that 58% of French are Christians. So how I manipulated the data contained in religion maps, and since when these sources are unreliable (tabloids and blogs) sources.

By the way as we can see on page history, user:Elcobbola Reverted to the original version which was before the edit war began, the same for this map. So the last edits in these two mapes are done by user:Коваленко Кирилл who revert to the original version (05:57, 27 March 2014 before edit war began), and user:Leftcry and admain Elcobbola who reverted the edit of B88 5010 (so the mape back to the orginal version 14:16, 13 May 2014). Unless If you consider the edit of User:Ich Pilot and his sockpuppetry, Khny and B88~commonswiki and B88 5010 and etec "original version", that mean you are the blocked user and you trying to make it back again -since these versions that this IP support been reverted by the admians-. Your insistence to revert the mapes to the User:Ich Pilot and his sockpuppetry version of the mape is telling a lot, since it is not the "original version", and admain Elcobbola and user:Коваленко Кирилл revert the mapes to the "original version", which you call it manipulated by me, while as we can see in page history here, and here that the current mapes are the original version, which is the version before - the edit war- between my edit and the User:Ich Pilot edit (that you support and want it back!). - we still talk about the edit war in 2014, that you aware about it-

In talk page of Growth ofreligion, user: Kautilya3 who came as Uninvolved editor and he cited Jobas is correct that the original sources of information are reputable research organizations and, so, considered reliable., and Actually, Jobas is right again, Reliability is indeed decided based on what recognition they receive from other reliable sources. If they Pew results don't agree with national census results, then we have to mention both, The article Christian and Growth of religion is mostly sourced by the Pew Research Center studies, if you have issue with that source, then try to find a reliable source - till now you didn't find one!- consider Pew Research Center studies as unreliable, so you can bring it in Wikipedia:RSN, But till now the source is consider reliable in this project and it is widely used here. the article Christianity by country (which sourced by Pew, Eurobarometer and national censuses) in the case of counties as Russia and Ukraine (that this IP mention before) are sourced by both, Pew results and ARENA (In Russia casa) and Razumkov Centre from 2006 (in Ukraine case), While in case of Belarus (that this IP mention before) there is only one source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned), Other countries are sourced by national census and in some cases by Pew. So you'r cliams that i been favoring the Pew data in these articles are false.

Again about the map, Just a small note there is no official census of religion in Russia, and estimates are based on surveys only. In August 2012, ARENA determined that about 46.8% of Russians are Christians (including Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and non-denominational), which is slightly less than an absolute 50%+ majority. However, later that year the Levada Center determined that 76% of Russians are Christians, and in June 2013 the Public Opinion Foundation determined that 65% of Russians are Christians. These findings are in line with Pew's 2010 survey, which determined that 73.6% of Russians are Christians, with VTSIOM's 2010 survey (~77% Christian), and with Ipsos MORI's 2011 survey (69%). and as user: Kautilya3 cited That is what WP:NPOV tells us to do. If there is some other reliable source that discusses the disparity and gives us more information, then we can use that. We can't make up our own judgement as to who is right. We should not regard ourselves as experts here.

I found the word recently interesting, in the Christianity by country: Revision history from the last 50 edit of that page i only had 6 edits (3 of them were reverted vandalism), Christian: Revision history, from the last 50 edit in that page, i had only 8 edits (most are back to 1 December 2015), While sure i have more editing in the article Growth of religion. and in my last 1000 edit i had very few edit's in religions demographic related artciles, or activity in articles about religion demographics. So are you stalking me? or you are the blocked user in Wikimedia Commons who want his version of the mapes to back. and your investigating of my editing history on Wikimedia Commons specifically, tells a lot.

Last note i was so respectable with you, while you called me liar and faker, so!. And I always edit in "Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates" in that way, since you stalking my edits in every project here, i assume you notice that, so don't take it to a different place to smear me and stop throwing accusations and going to other user pages to smear me.--Jobas (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2016 (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.

Bit of a backlog at CAT:CSD

Any admins who would like to have a bash at it, welcomed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Samtar's edit filter not working

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.

---

@Samtar: And they return. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And then they were stopped. Adjustment made. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Help with Templates

1. I need to link the audio for the IPA ə in this template: {{Pashto_IPA_chart/table_vowels_with_audio}} with Mid_central_vowel
2. I need to make this template smaller: {{Pashto_IPA_chart_vowels_with_audio}}

Can someone please assist me, Thank You

I have asked this question at the other place but to no avail :( Adjutor101 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

More eyes on Cape Spear

Can some more admins (and anyone else who feels so inclined) add Cape Spear to their watchlist? This has become the venue-of-choice for a self-appointed "Wikipedia performance artist", who posts self-promotion about himself to the page and then documents how long it takes to remove it, as an artwork that explores what Wikipedia deems worthy of inclusion as an "open-source" encyclopedia; see Talk:Cape Spear#Persistent article vandalism for his explanation of why he's doing this; the "artwork" itself composed of all the warnings he receives is at www.duanelinklater.com/index.php?/recent/this-morning-in-cape-spear (currently blacklisted so can't link direct). This has been going on intermittently since at least 2011 and probably earlier. Because I've done a couple of the reverts, someone will no doubt start screaming WP:INVOLVED if I enact any protection (he uses a different account or IP each time, so blocking isn't a realistic option), and it seems faintly ridiculous to protect a page this obscure just to pander to a single crank. With any luck, if there are enough eyes on it that his edits never stick for more than a few seconds, he may get bored enough to go find a new hobby. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't an easier option to warn User:Jghampton that if he does that again he'll be blocked? No IP's have been adding the original vandalism since last October, but Jghampton has added the meta-content about the vandalism 3 times since last December. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt warnings will be any use, since the whole point of doing this is to provoke warnings which he can add to his website; if you look at the history, each time he's warned he pops up a few months later under a fresh account or IP. (Although I assume you've at least now earned yourself a mention in User:Jghampton/Books/CapeSpear.) ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah; you're suggesting Jghampton and the IPs are the same person? I took the change in content to mean a change in author. Plus Jghampton has edited other stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt they're the same person, but I assume they're connected. Given the last post on the talkpage, I'd guess Jghampton is connected to the gallery at which this was exhibited, but I doubt one could ever know for sure. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I've been to Cape Spear, too, but I can resist the temptation to make a "wily enfolding of postconceptual structure, postcolonial critique and post-Internet art" about my visit by adding it to WP. If this nuisance persists, I would consider long-term semi-protection. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbers 1 to 100

There is an RFC saying if the articles 1 to 100 should be about numbers instead of years. It is getting a lot of support. Can an administrator please close the RFC, move 1 to 1 AD, 1 (number) to 1, 2 to 2 AD, 2 (number) to 2, ..., 100 to 100 AD, and 100 (number) to 100? Thanks. Timo3 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What fun! Two hundred page moves?!?! In any case, it will stay open for thirty days, which has not yet been reached. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note most non-religious entities now use "CE" (common era) instead of "AD" (Anno Domini) given the latter's overtly religious connotations. But if you do use AD, the letters precede the year number, not follow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FTR, that's not what MOS:ERA says about AD – "1 AD" should be fine. (And, as an aside, this is one "non-religious" person who thinks that this whole CE/BCE thing is complete nonsense...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @JFG: "There is consensus that, if the change is approved, year articles should be titled '1 (year)', not 'AD 1', '1 CE' or similar." Where? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Checking this, the manual of style puts no preference on AD vs. CE vs. anything else. BC years are titled #### BC, so for the sake of consistency I'd imagine ## AD would make more sense. Anyway... Someguy1221 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Timo3: I essentially requested that the closer of the RfC be aware that any move of the pages needs to wait for appropriate dab/nav templates (mentioned in a subsection there) or the moves will invalidate the hatnotes and other links (incorrectly) assumed by the templates on these pages. I also believe I've mentioned this to a reasonable extent at the RfC. Moves, if there is consensus, should be planned for these pages which have been at their locations since 2001. To minimize link breakage in terms of dab, please wait. Also, the RfC still has over a week to go. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: There were good arguments and local consensus in favor of the "42 (year)" format at Talk:1#Requested move 5 August 2016, but the followup RFC is getting a lot more participation, so the question remains open for debate. When formulating the RFC, I did not want the AD/CE/year considerations to interfere with the decision to make numbers primary for terms "1"…"100". If this decision gets consensus support, then we can debate the title of the year articles in a subsequent discussion while technical preparations for the moves get underway. — JFG ^talk 09:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure review on unseen character talk page: "Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify"

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

---

This is a request to review the closing of the Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify. I discussed this with the editor who closed the RfC here: User talk:Mmyers1976. This request is to consider whether the RFC was closed properly, using the correct procedures to end an RfC or not.

The RfC was posted and ended by the same editor. This editor was inextricably involved through previous experience in the discussion, which is not allowed according to “WP:RFCEND”, where it is specified that only an “uninvolved editor” can formally close an the RfC. This is a procedural issue that the closing editor may not have been aware of, but it is a substantial procedural error.

In the reason given for ending the RfC (as posted in the box on the talk page), the closing editor claims that the arguments in the RfC by the other editors are “based on Original Research.” This is not only not true, and hasn’t been discussed, but it doesn’t make sense, because “Original Research" is a WP term with a specific meaning: “Original Research” can only, by definition, be found in an article — never on a talk page. And of course, if found, it should be deleted from the article. The criteria for judging something to be an instance of Original Research would be a consideration of the “citations” and of the “reliable sources”, etc. Citations and Reliable Sources are not required or expected on “talk pages”. (See WP:OR) In this way the the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, and the closer of the RfC interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I think the RfC should be reopened to allow for any new contributions, like the one mentioned above, and then an uninvolved editor should be allowed to end the RfC. Handthrown (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Response - WP:RFCEND states: "There are several ways that RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)." and " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." Six participants (Doniago, DP, SummerPhDv2.0, FoCuSandLeArN, Isaidnoway, and myself) agreed that the examples were well-sourced and significant, and should be included, it was WP:SNOW. Handthrown was the only exception, and as more than one person tried to explain to her, her arguments ran afoul of the No Original Research policy. As more than one editor tried to tell Handthrown, she was failing or refusing to get the point. Her tendentious repetition of the same arguments over and over again even after six other editors had not agreed with her, and her multiple attempts to include off-topic issues into the RfC had been persistently disruptive throughout the RfC. Six experienced editors with well-reasoned arguments against one editor (who has only been on Wikipedia a little over a month and is making arguments in favor of violating policy) is an obvious consensus. Everyone else agreed, the RfC was 28 days old and no one, not even Handthrown, had posted anything new to it for seven days, Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, there was no reason to keep the RfC open just because she and she alone had not had her way, so informally closing, as I did, was completely appropriate. Now, because the RfC didn't go her way, she is attempting to Forum Shop here.

Her complaint about "original research" is due to her lack of understanding of the arguments made in the RFC, and of Wikipedia policy in general. The RfC focused on two characters that multiple reliable sources had called "unseen characters", and asked if they were to be included. Handthrown opposed inclusion of the characters because in her opinion they did not meet the conditions of a general definition of "unseen character" found in the lead. Multiple editors attempted exhaustively to explain to her that her attempting to use a separate definition to disqualify these characters as "unseen" even when reliable sources had declared they are unseen characters would be a violation of the No Original Research policy, but she never understood this, and obviously still does not understand this based on her comments here. SummerPhD's !vote in the RfC survey echoes this concern about opposition being based on OR:

*Favor They are WP:V and the arguments against are all WP:OR.

This boils down to nothing more than an extremely inexperienced editor (Handthrown) not understanding policies, procedure or guidelines, as well as failing or refusing to get the point, and tendentiously thinking that an RFC where consensus was obviously against her should be kept open so that she could continue using it as a battleground, and then coming here to forum shop when she didn't get the result she liked. She should be advised to stop disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is not forum shopping to post here, in fact it is the correct venue to post this type of query. The comments against handthrown above are out of order and not relevant as to whether this was a good close or not. Generally I dislike it when editors close their own RFCs, as it inevitably leads to this. Saying that I don't see how it could have been closed any other way so I endorse the current close. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the endorsement, but I must say Handthrown established the relevance of my comments when she brought up the Original Research issue. And as you say, you don't see how the RFC could have been closed any other way, then what was the point in protesting the closure? Context is the key here, Handthrown was extremely combative in the discussions on the page, at one point calling my use of a source in the lead "fraud" (DP repudiated this accusation, and that's only one of many, many examples). So when a person who has been that combative comes here to protest the closure of an RfC that objectively could not have been closed with any other result, it is reasonable to suspect it is really about trying to reargue a content issue where consensus did not go her way. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I read through most of that discussion before commenting so feel I have some idea on the context. Nothing I read there suggested anything more than a relatively standard content dispute where one editor was outnumbered. In fact it was a lot more civil than many similar situations. This is not the place to rehash the RFC, which both you and Handthrown are guilty of. That is easy to do in these circumstances and pretty minor in the general scheme of things. There is however a stark contrast between the tone of Handthrowns request (a perfectly legitimate one considering you closed a rfc you were heavily involved in) and your response to it. You are throwing around some pretty heavy essays (at least one of which is completely incorrect) without much in the way of diffs to back them up AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reverse closure even though there was no possible other conclusion by a closer, but the author of the RFC should not have closed it, and it should be reopened to permit a neutral close. This issue has been contentious long enough that the close ought to be with perfect correctness, not merely good enough. I don't know why this issue has been so contentious for so long, but it has been, and the closer wasn't uninvolved, and the RFC ought to be reopened, to be closed by a completely uninvolved closer. Coming here is not forum shopping, because this is the proper venue to challenge an RFC close. Reverse closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Mmyers states that they closed the RFC informally. The closure looks like a formal closure. In view of its history of contentiousness, there should have been and still should be a formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• CommentThough after rereading WP:RFCEND I still contest the assertion that my closing was anywhere expressly prohibited, for the sake of argument, let's say for now it was. Both Aircorn and Robert McClenon agree there was no other possible conclusion by a closer than the one I reached, but McClenon wants it reopened so it can be formally closed. This calls to mind WP:SNOWBALL, which states "for example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If, however, the RFC is to be reopened for the purpose of a formal close, then perhaps this time during the brief time it is open it could get some direct administrator attention to guard against the WP:LISTEN violations that disrupted it the first time?Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (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) 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• UPDATE - In the spirit of compromise, I will reopen the RfC, and list it for formal closure, but for the love of Saint Pete, could someone PLEASE attend to closing it in a timely manner? Robert McClenon said, this issue has been contentious for a long time, and to that I would add we have a consensus on the RfC, it's time to finally put it to bed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Thank you for compromising. I have listed the RFC as needing closure, and I agree it should be closed promptly. I would close it, but my close might be challenged as involved due to my past involvement with the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I think that it might be helpful for the closer to have a mop. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2016 (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.

Termination of Mythdon's editing restrictions

This thread serves to notify the AN crowd that, per this thread which was archived before a formal closure was enacted, the topic ban applied to User:Mythdon upon his unblock in 2012 is hereby rescinded. The remedies imposed by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong are not affected by this decision. Deryck C. 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A Discussion at ANI Needs Closing by an Admin

There is a rather lengthy discussion at ANI that needs closing by an uninvolved Admin before it gets archived. Thanks! (Full Disclosure: I am an involved party.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring this up, but now that someone else has, SPECIFICO has accused me of wrongdoing,[77][78] and not for the first time. If his complaints are legit, I would very much welcome someone uninvolved telling me "you went a little too far that time, Guy. Please don't do that" so I can correct my behavior. If his complaints are bogus, I would like him to leave me alone. To me, it looks like SPECIFICO has shown multiple recent examples with multiple editors of trying to turn good-faith disagreements and content disputes into accusations of misbehavior, but of course I am almost certainly biased and thus cannot trust my own judgement on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Useless articles created in other namespaces

Template:Robert Nicholas "The Christians Guide To The Bible",

Wikipedia:CITENEWS, Template:Kunzang Dorji, Template:Indian Metro Rail News

Wikipedia:Poutingpretty, Wikipedia:Jeremy Schacht

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron and Bryce Dessner New innocent user, but someone should have fixed this,

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Musicianguides,Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/musicianguides,

New page patrollers patrols articles, who patrols pages created, starting from, Wikipedia:_____ and Template:______ Template:Nareek,

Template:Web kaynağı, Template:Mitu. Is there any list of unpatrolled templates and unpatrolled Wikipedia:... pages, like we have a page full of unpatrolled articles? --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Newpage patrolling isn't being done enough in the mainspace. In other namespaces, it only gets done very, very infrequently. You can patrol pages per namespace at Special:NewPages (the older and IMO better patrolling tool), e.g. by using this for the Wikipedia namespace only. Fram (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can see the option now. But, we see only those pages which were created within one month? What about those unpatrolled template created in June, Unpatrolled category pages created in July 2016? I mean unpatrolled templates, categories, wikipedia and other namespace pages created more than one month ago? Marvellous Spider-Man 08:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what Special:NewPagesFeed is for. Graham87 10:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you only get the "article" and "user" namespace as options there, not the other namespaces, which is what the OP asks for (and one of the reasons I don't like NewPagesFeed). There doesn't seem to be an option to see unpatrolled, older pages in other namespaces. Fram (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is no option to see unpatrolled templates/Wikipedia:___ pages created more than one month ago, then it has to be rectified. And does anyone has any idea, how many unpatrolled Wikipedia/Template/category/Portal/Book/Module are there in Wikipedia? Marvellous Spider-Man 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating

Template:Alexis Lyonne, Template:WHY?, Template:Harold Descalzo Bantigui, Template:Jakeism, Template:Chris Murphy. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, myself and MusikAnimal have attempted to create a quarry query which will help here - the query times out due to the size of the logging tables. I'm now working on a fumbled together ps script which may help, and I'll let you know if I get anywhere with it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Their favorite target is template namespace. 5% target Wikipedia namespace. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be DeltaQuad and Opabinia regalis. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RfA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 9th September: Request for candidates to apply.
• 23:59 UTC, 20th September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 21st September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 23rd September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by the 26th September.
• 26th September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
• 23:59 UTC, 8th October: Community comments end.
• By 19th October: Appointed candidates announced

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this

I think this should be given equal prominence with the original notice: apparently the WMF don't believe that after all... _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

White space vandal?

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.

---

Lately 189.69.192.178 has been adding 'white space' to several articles, these last few days. Those additions aren't improving articles. The individual has done this week before, with a slightly different IP address. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reached out to the user in question, and tried to talk to them / warn them about it - since no one else did, I also notified them for you. SQL^{Query me!} 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of these don't look like whitespace changes.... [79] [80]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is bigger then I expected :( GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of this user's 35 edits, all but 2 are adding whitespace and nothing else - removing part of the infobox and the protection information here and changing the PC expiry date here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see vandalism, at least not what I sampled. I see they are new and attempted to change page protection templates so they could edit (ignorance of how it works) and I see adding line spaces above and below elements in what would seem to be an effort to make it "look better" in their eyes. These aren't really helpful, but they aren't vandalism. They are more akin to just a newb editor tweaking around. The one instance of deleting part of the infobox may have been accidental and isn't part of a pattern. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but they need assistence, not the ban hammer as I see nothing nefarious here. My suggestion is to stop using the word "vandalism", assume some good faith and offer to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there is a pattern. Last week, GoodDay reported a similar IP address, 200.148.2.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for doing the same thing. That IP had previously been blocked by Materialscientist for blanking: [81], [82], [83]. It looks to me like this is the same user, both from the geolocation data and behavior (blanking mixed with pointless whitespace). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What blanking? Please provide a diff. There is some similarity in white space edits and geolocation as well as overlap in articles, but no one has explained why this IP is doing is so disruptive. This is why I said we need to try dialog first. If we can have dialog and convince them to stop, that is better than playing whack-a-mole with anonymous IPs each week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP has returned & is continuing his 'experiments'. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 5 September 2016 (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 Speedy is backlogged

WP:CFDS is backlogged. Please someone please deal with it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting

Hello, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, there is currently a vote going on at the Donald Trump talk page pertaining to Trump's photo. It would be great if an admin could guide the discussion there so that we can reach consensus in a way that isn't at odds with Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OP is correct. After ten days of heated debate, I started this voting as the quickest and easiest path to a consensus on a very subjective photo selection. By my count, 27 editors, many with upwards of four years experience, have voted so far, thereby implicitly endorsing this method. A few dissenters aim to deny them that decision, insisting that we must continue the debate that has changed no one's mind to date. Continue for how long? I have no idea what would satisfy the dissenters, or what they hope to accomplish by spending that additional time on it. The OP, for one, objects to the fact that the field was narrowed to two choices before they had a chance to argue for their preference image, which is not one of those two. Sorry, that happens. My feeling is that 27 editors ought to be allowed to choose the method of reaching a decision on an infobox photo, without a lot of minority interference. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mandruss: Umm... I "!voted" there too, but that doesn't mean I think my !vote should determine consensus without the strength of my argument being considered first. The other people that voted there didn't necessarily endorse your method either, they might have just went along with it. Some might have gotten the impression that you were the page's owner. Plus, many of them might not have realized that voting is outside of the convention of wikipedia. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I generally dislike and avoid strong words like "absurd", but I'll make an exception for you, sir. I made what was effectively a proposal by starting that voting, and the proposal was overwhelmingly accepted. It could have gone the other way and my proposal could have failed, and everybody understands that except you. So any mention of the word "own" is absolutely absurd. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who originally suggested the poll. [84], [85] [86] Although I'm not the "page admin" (obviously) I use my admin tools to keep things on track there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Apparently we independently reached the same conclusion at roughly the same time. So we have at least one admin who doesn't believe a mortal Wikipedia sin is being committed here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I already notified Prcc27🌍 about NeilN's suggestion here, but it was ignored. I don't think he cares and is just trying to impeede the process. Chase (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @CCamp2013: Their suggestion isn't wikipedia policy yet is it? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: No, however, nothing we did was against policy. If you would have read the content of what I referred you to or you read the talk page of Donald Trump to the full extent, then you would know that we had an extensive conversation about the photo in two seperate talk pages. These discussion were not coming to a conclusion on anything except which two pictures to narrow it down to. Picture C and Picture E. Also, that the consensus based on the best arguements is purely subjective and can't be acheieved at all because everyone's opinions are equal when dealing with a picture. As stated many times, by non-Admins and by Admins. By policy Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion you can see that polling is something you shouldn't do in substitute of discussion. That's exactly right, but we didn't substitute polling for discussion. Discussion was had, extensive discussion. It also states that most decision are based from consensus, not on votes. So saying that we are going agaisnt policy is false. If wikipedia wanted to restrict decisions based on votes, they would say all decisions. Chase (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The essay has this section which is helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole and sole basis for the dissent is that discussion is required to present opposing arguments and make a determination as to which arguments are strongest. That is true, when there is an objective way to evaluate arguments, such as policy or guideline. I tried to explain on that talk page why that doesn't work in this situation, and I feel I made the case, but that was ignored by this OP. So here it is, and I can't do this with a diff because it is the sum of multiple edits that are not consecutive in the page history.
@Prcc27: we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments. Fine, and who makes that determination? Don't say that we make it together, collectively. I think I and those who agree with me have the strongest arguments. You think you and those who agree with you have the strongest arguments. You can say you have the strongest arguments because you pointed to Wikipedia standards not to use dark or blurry photos, and my response is that my preference photo is not dark or blurry. To my mind, I have defeated your claim that you have the strongest arguments. We can debate this to the end of time and neither of us will change our position. Seriously, how often have you seen someone reverse their position in a Wikipedia debate? I've seen it happen about five times in over three years, and three of those cases were me changing my mind. So how is this disagreement resolved without a closer? Such a closer would have to very subjectively decide whether my photo is dark or blurry, and being an admin does not make one more qualified than anyone else to make such judgments. Admins are experts in Wikipedia p&g, not photo evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that photo evaluation is entirely subject to human differences in perception, perspective, and aesthetic taste, and never mind the differences in computer displays. One editor sees "dark and blurry", another editor does not, both acting in good faith. One editor gives more positive weight to the fact that the photo has a flag, another editor gives more negative weight to the fact that the microphone is obscuring the subject's necktie. One editor sees a "forced" smile, another sees a kindly-looking grandfather who doesn't always deliver the best-looking smile in the world. None of these dozens of factors are unimportant simply because they are not mentioned in guideline, but we each have a different opinion as to how much weight to attach to each of them. We might as well be debating whether jazz music is better than R&B. Note that each vote is followed by an argument, which may or may not sway other voting. We have simply elected to skip the unresolvable back-and-forth "my argument is stronger", "no mine is and here's why", "no mine is and here's why yours isn't" - ad nauseam et infinitum. I call that good sense, and 26 others agree with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"26 others agree with me"

As was pointed out to you already by Prcc27, voting in the weighted run-off is not necessarily agreeing with you that voting is better or preferable over consensus in this case (or any case). Personally, I'm concerned that you are setting a bad precedent with this vote. Because, as I pointed out to you at the vote discussion, when the 10 days are up (your parameter set when the vote was instituted) there will not be consensus, there will be a vote tally. And, regardless of the reasons for the vote - whether they be yours or others - a vote does not nor should it ever replace consensus. Yes, the discussion(s) of the images has been alternately tedious, tendentious, irritating, immature, and necessary, but it is what consensus building is made of. Consensus is what makes community, voting has the potential to divide and tear it asunder. That's my opinion, anyway.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Until I see concrete evidence otherwise, I'm assuming that most of those 26 would have at least emitted a weak peep in objection if they had any (even if they did so in the comments following their vote). As a group, Wikipedia editors aren't known for their shyness, and especially those who contribute at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I think that's far more reasonable than the alternative. Your argument attempts to place an unreasonable burden of proof on me, essentially saying that I can't claim support without conducting a comprehensive survey of all participants. No, I'm not accepting that or conceding that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You aren't getting any challenge in regard to burden of proof from me. I'm merely stating my opinion based on what I feel and what I'm seeing in the comments at the talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion (not the vote, but the discussion) with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. Uninvolved admin, unclose it if you wish, but please don't remove my rationale. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely attention to the matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Requiring direction.

Several discussions have been held at Doctor Who (series 9)'s talk page, over the span of many months, and there is a solid consensus. However, one editor constantly refuses to let it go, and continues to create new discussions, forcing RfC's on them, when s/he is literally the only editor to hold this particular view. This has gone on for long enough. Where is the best place to file a report against this user? It's basically turned into a form of harassment now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Given Fan4Life's words, "I know many editors wish for me to drop and just live with the consensus, but I simply cannot", it's clear that Fan4Life understands the situation; this statement basically says "I constantly refuse to let it go, despite consensus to the contrary", which is a good example of WP:REHASH, a kind of tendentious editing. Why do we need any additional evidence? AlexTheWhovian, since you've given a firm reminder that this is disruptive, I'd say the best course of action is to do nothing now, but to request either a topic ban or a block for the user if he engages in any more advocacy for this position. Come here for a topic ban request, or go to WP:ANI for a block request. Either way, provide a link to this discussion; if it happens more than a few days from now, search the archive box, and as part of your ban request, provide a link to the archive page to which this discussion has been moved. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thank you sincerely for your advice, as I had no idea where exactly to go for an issue like this. I'll create a new section this page in regards to a topic ban. Again, thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that User:Fan4Life was not informed about this discussion. So I am pinging him/her now so that this can serve as a final reminder. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Ah, yes, thanks for that! Forgot to notify them when I created this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Mason

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Can someone else take a look at this AfD? Some of the comments appear to me as grossly inappropriate for a deletion discussion. I've opted to close the current discussion and to recommend a re-do, consequently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's more than inappropriate, those comments should have been removed as blatant vandalism/trolling. Good call on the no consensus, obviously there wasn't any consensus there other than some nasty racist comments. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the nominator, TheGracefulSlick, has a history with the creator of the article, CrazyAces489 (blocked). I wonder how much these comments are based on the subject himself or an extension of on-wiki conflict. Personally, I'd consider a bold redirect to the fraternity page. There might be a [weak] case for WP:BIO, but since the most prominent coverage is negative, then as much as I hate to do what the IPs advocated for, a redirect might be the best approach for this BLP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites allow me to explain the situation. CrazyAces, who wrote all those racist comments, is actually far from racist toward black people. If anything, he is a black supremacist, who despises anyone who is not black or does not share his same philosophy. By closing the Afd, you did exactly what he wanted, which was to trick you with grossly racist comments. Do what you will from here on out (a redirect is a good idea), but hopefully this made your decision a little easier.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Thanks for the background. I didn't do the close btw, and I partly agree that it probably might've been better to block/revdel (the comments are still accessible btw) than to close. However, closing in order to immediately stop the violations (which are the sort that do deserve precedence), so that remedies could before resuming, seems reasonable. The comments do look like they're intended to disrupt rather than to actually get the article deleted. Whether it's the article creator, and whether the person's motivations are along the lines of a false flag I don't know (it can always be added to the SPI). For the purposes of what to do with regard to another AfD and the article, I went ahead and boldly redirected it to the fraternity page. Assuming it's not controversial (among non-blocked editors), that would seem to be that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, TheGracefulSlick, I wasn't insinuating any impropriety on your part. Just curious about backstory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 10 September 2016 (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:Fexlajahd gaming the system?

I've noticed Fexlajahd making dummy edits in his sandbox in order to become autoconfirmed and extended confirmed. After he reaches the 500 edits needed to become extended confirmed, he immediately stops making test edits. Pinging Sro23 in this case because he has warned him about this before. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I will be topic banning them from WP:ARBPIA articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else (can't find it now), this still demonstrates how extended-confirmed can be beneficial in limited cases: it required this person to take a good deal more effort and time before he could start doing anything potentially disruptive, and it made him really stand out as obviously gaming the system. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Revdel question

Does spam like these[87] (edit summaries used for promotion, including telephone numbers and advertising) come under any of the accepted Revdel reasons? I wanted to hide these summaries from view, to discourage this kind of behaviour, but none of the reasons given seemed to apply. Would R3 (purely disruptive material) or R5 (other valid reason under deletion policy) be acceptable here? Or should I just use "other reason"? Fram (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I revdel those exact same types of edits using R3. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Fram (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fram, remember to check the page history, not the user contributions, when revdelling edit summaries: since they created new sections and weren't signed, SineBot repeated the edit summaries in its edits. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to remember it for next time (but I do this only sporadically). Fram (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

An R5 deletion wouldn't be incorrect for anything spammy enough that would be a G11 deletion as a new page in the userspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeking admin volunteers to help create a dataset of notable pages

Hi,

We're building a tool to help article creators and reviewers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if sample article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be. This is part of an Individual Engagement Grant.

Since so many non-notable articles get deleted, we really want to include deleted articles in our dataset. But only admins are allowed to view them, so we're looking for admin volunteers to help tag articles, including deleted articles. It would be a huge help for our project. You'll be using WikiLabels, the (fairly) new and shiny, easy-to-use interface for labeling that makes working in small batches easy.

If you're interested, please ping me (Bluma.Gelley), or sign up at our project page. We really hope you can help us out - even a short amount of time would make a big difference for us. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Thank you in advance! Bluma.Gelley (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone patrol User Creation log?

Someone mind patrolling the User Creation log for a bit? Gotta troll making attack names that probably should be removed from the logs. Don't want to inundate OS or active REVDELing admins with emails. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Please, do not feel that you are "inundating" OS with these usernames if you see them come up and you let us know about them. Better safe than sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

Staff list

Is there a comprehensive list of WMF staff who are authorised to have official accounts, i.e. those ending with (WMF)? Patrolling the aforementioned log, I just now softblocked a new account, User:KKoerper (WMF), and given a message comparable to what you get with {{uw-ublock-famous}} or {{uw-botublock}}. Anyone familiar with such a person should unblock readily, but I'd appreciate it if I could find a list of authorised staff and unblock the account myself. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicely handled. I was also going to block if nothing was promptly forthcoming. I thought these were protected by a title blacklist? If not they either need to have some staffer add them to a group, or their userpage to a category. Otherwise they are fair game to block. Somehow I don't think there will be a comprehensive list of staffers (volunteers, etc) and - importantly - their accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As long as we catch these accounts before they've claimed, on their user page, to be staff, they are suspected of impersonation and treated appropriaately; of course, any staff member with admin access would be more likely to know than us local admins, and is free to unblock such accounts as they see fit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Zzuuzz, and Od Mishehu: .*WMF.* <newaccountonly> is on the global blacklist, so tboverride or tboverride-account is required to create accounts with WMF in the username. KKoerper (WMF) is a WMF intern according to the user creation log at Meta. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've unblocked KKoerper with a message saying basically "this person really is with WMF". Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A word of advice, since i'm a meta admin, most "staff" accounts created via metawiki (learn to use the CentraAuth link) are usually legit and if they are not, stewards would block them first so if you find an issue in the future, bring it to meta first or to the stewards channel on IRC..--Stemoc 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

Moved to WP:ANI § Inappropriate editing, advocacy, and control of philo articles, by Flyer22 Reborn

 – ANI is the proper forum for specific issues such as this. clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Editor Xenophrenic's mass-scale disruption of Wikipedia: ban proposal

Editor Xenophrenic is blatantly disrupting Wikipedia.

For just a brief glimpse of his history before I even get to my issues with him:

Edit warring noticeboard listings made of him: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]

General noticeboard listings made of him: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

Even ones he himself has listed where he reports others having made personal complaints of him: [117], [118], [119]

Fulfilled and proposed topic bans: [120], [121]

Likely-found sockpuppetry with the former accounts also having colorful block logs: [122], [123]

His talk page history is also colorful, even though he habitually deletes any detailed criticisms and instead keeps neutral talks from as far as 2014.

Pretty much anyone who has to deal with him eventually finds themselves making a noticeboard report about him. Yet he's an expert at talking his way out of them. Most of his blocks have come from outside of reports.

The following perfectly summarizes what I have to face when I deal with him:

At User_talk:EdJohnston#Re:_Result_of_your_complaint_at_WP:AN3, where RockyMtnGuy's opinion on two matters is relevant and on the second he sort of doesn't agree with me, Xenophrenic twice represents this as what OoflyoO said:

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... — [124][125]

but what OoflyoO wrote was

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help? — [126][127]

This kind of arguing is extremely common from Xenophrenic. It's blatant if anyone bothers to parse through his lengthy posts, but most don't. I'll return to another thing he wrote here shortly after introducing where I began with him.

I met him after I tried to introduce a short bit to Genocide in history about the spread of smallpox being similar to that of syphilis, the diseases likely having been exchanged in Columbian Exchange: [128]. I believe it's very relevant to the paragraph of the disease exchange. However, this isn't even the crux of the matter at that article. I noticed that Xenophrenic had been edit warring at that page for long before me and continued on even after me. The specific case he warred over was even sillier than removal of the syphilis mention. It's a fringe case of smallpox having been tried to infect a warring native tribe in 1763 with two blankets. The sources Xenophrenic cites themselves state that it wasn't likely, or particularly effective. I'm quoting two of his main sources used here. Anyone who bothers to research the matter even a bit will find out that smallpox spread across the Americas over two hundred years earlier. He also forces it to be at the beginning of the section about Americas, even though American West is written about near the end. Like I have written before and what he calls a personal attack, it seems he's trying to force it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic among natives thus confirming it as a genocide. Even though his main sources state likely not particularly effective.

Then among other articles about the matter we especially continued with the syphilis matter at History of syphilis, which was linked to at another article and I noticed had Xenophrenic editing it as well. CatPath had tried to clean up his fringe studies cited by no one. Xenophrenic had come back and edited his stuff back in. I then went in and tried to clean it up as well. Compare the section/listing about the Columbian theory in my edit: [129] versus the current by him. The current version of that listing is a mess and very notable statistics have been removed, replaced by fringe cases not peer-reviewed. I'll note here that I made a mistake in that edit by accidentally removing one unrelated criticism sentence of the modified theory I'm not even concerned with, as it began with "However," like one another sentence. He's pushing a fringe opinion at this article and completely disregarding any and all Wikipedia rules.

Now he even aims to remove mentions of smallpox as one of the reasons for depopulation of the natives. RockyMntGuy had written that smallpox wasn't genocide. I incorrectly wrote his opinion as that smallpox doesn't belong at the article of genocides, which is something he didn't write. There is a clear reason for it being there as it majorly explains the depopulation unexplainable by pretty much anything else as there were too few Spaniards to have caused the kind of loss of life that happened. Pretty much all literature agrees with this view, but many just sideline it to focus on the crimes of the Spaniards. None seem to disagree.

So what Xenophrenic writes next at Ed's talk is just strange:

But, s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either. If that is the position Etsy wishes to stick with, it should be a simple matter for me to craft an RfC asking if the smallpox content (and its reliable sources) is appropriate for, and within the scope of, these genocide articles. Sound like a plan? — [130]

I hadn't written anything like that. And sure, let's have an RfC about that matter, but it's plain what literally everybody else will think. This isn't even any of the two fringe matters we dealt with before, this is basic knowledge. But again this is him just misrepresenting after misrepresenting. His use of sources like I have mentioned incredibly odd, with his own main sources disagreeing with him. It's been proved that he keeps edit warring after been blocked multiple times and warned for it just recently, provingly constantly lies and pushes untruths in his edits and use of sources.

I took a look into his recent edit history and this is the kind of edit common to him: [131], which should be reverted by someone. We even have a separate article just for the subject of that section. The matters I edited pale in comparison to sheer number of problematic editing I found from him, and I consider it much more important to cease his disruption of this site. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Etsybetsy (talk · contribs) It is too soon for an account created on 29 August 2016 to make pronouncements about other editors. Why not try asking on the article talk page why your edits were reverted? There is also WP:HELPDESK for how-to questions, and where quick opinions regarding the suitability of an edit would be available. Established editors who monitor controversial topics end up in disputes with many enthusiasts over the years—previous complaints are not a useful indication of what should happen regarding the current issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That has absolutely no relevance and there is no such rule that I'm aware of. I'm not a new editor as visible from the contribution history of my IP. This editor is the sole reason I had to create an account. You also didn't even take a look at the evidence presented. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's drive is to get new editors. The way to it isn't to state that a new editor can do absolutely nothing, even if mounds of evidence were to be presented. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This really belongs at WP:ANI. Before we get too into it here, I strongly suggest this discussion be closed and the OP's complaint be copied and pasted over at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a ban proposal appropriate here? It's about many, repeating incidents too. Etsybetsy (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong here but I have always seen ANI as the forum where disputes and policy/guideline infractions are dealt with excepting those specifically covered by other noticeboards. Yet I have to admit it seems like this noticeboard has slowly been turned into a sort of second ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong This is the correct forum for BAN discussions. Almost all other disputes etc. belong at ANI or one of the other forums. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Etsybetsy - you are in a content dispute, someone disagrees with you, deal with it. You don't get to dredge up every bad thing the other editor has ever done to try and get a ban instead of having to pursue consensus. You may notice that most of what you've posted is ancient (in Wikipedia time scales) - Xenophrenic has managed to go nearly three years with only one block for edit warring. Regarding the content dispute itself - no admin cares what you think is the right version of the article, nor should they. Content disputes are handled by dispute resolution and consensus, processes in which admins have no special authority. No one is going to block Xeno over stuff he did five years ago, no one is going to block him because they like your edits better than his. Unless Xeno is somehow breaking policy in this content dispute, which you have not shown, nothing is going to happen to him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit-warring a little over a month ago, warned about it very recently and yet still he's back at it again? I also showed you the red quotes where he blatantly and very hurtfully misquotes people, the way he misquotes sources by ignoring the bits in them which say otherwise and his overall neglect towards most rules? Etsybetsy (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

He did not quote you, his paraphrased you, which is very different. He did not misquote sources, he misinterpreted them (assuming you are correct that he is wrong). Most likely Xeno has a very different point of view from yourself. At worst it would appear he is simply wrong about something. None of these things are blockable offenses. His reverting activity on the named articles has been minimal before he went to the talk page. This is how things are supposed to work: Bold, revert, discuss. If Xeno is so obviously wrong about what these sources say, then your proposed changes will have no trouble prevailing in dispute resolution. There is no need to rush to a conclusion. You have done nothing to show that Xeno is being malicious, or has violated any policies since his last block. Regarding the edit warring: Yes, he was blocked a month ago, I noticed. So what? That doesn't forbid him from getting into new content disputes, and absent an editing restriction it doesn't forbid him from making reverts. If you plan to stick around Wikipedia, you are going to encounter people who disagree with you. You are going to encounter people who you think are wrong. If you cant handle being in disputes with them, it would be best if you simply disengaged. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You call him stating that I want smallpox mentions removed from the article a "paraphrasal"? And he did sure as can be fully quote OoflyoO with the quote mark. He purposefully, twice, clearly posited and untruthed that OoflyoO had opposed me even though OoflyoO, as clear as can be in many different posts, opposed Xenophrenic and supported me. You know what rule that breaks? WP:Don't lie. And he did even quote a source wrong and stated the source criticized another which it didn't. He also ignored when his main sources doubt the smallpox blankets in clear terms: that it wasn't likely or not particularly effective. Is that "misinterpretation"? His revert actions stand against 4 editors in total, with the syphilis editor added. The only reason he hasn't racked it up massively is because I actually tried following the rules and didn't just revert his revert. Other editors similarly have just given up against his edit warring. Is continuing to edit war with him what I should have done per your description of Bold, revert, discuss?

Notice that I haven't removed any of his edits other than shortening a department title from 13 words to 3 and stopping a WP:FORK which had both of our edits at Columbian exchange. I add critical sources after his bits. His first reaction to any of my edit is to just wipe it off, even in the cases where I provide more sources than he does. Talking to him is incredibly fruitful and a good way to spend an afternoon. He'll just break WP:Don't lie. And I have stuck around Wikipedia for a long time and when I see something disruptive I report it. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On and on it goes

He's at it once again at the very recent article I pointed above and haven't touched myself. Someone noticed the edit was problematic and reverted it: [132]. Xenophrenic then just returned and reverted that edit: [133]. His style of editing is just removal of entire paragraphs and reverting when someone returns even a bit. After the bold edit gets reverted, there should be no more reverts from his end which he doesn't seem to understand — however at this point I'd say he understands perfectly and just doesn't care. Any talk with him is absolutely pointless. No one has even been able to approach a compromise with him across the multiple articles he's edit-warring at. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW -- this was years ago so I am not sure what it *is* worth -- I found Xenophrenic extremely toxic to work with on the CISPA/SOPA articles. He would delete my comments from the talk page, and move them to my user page when they displeased him. He refused to consider the idea that the inventor of a computer networking protocol could be an expert in that protocol. At one point I was having to cite almost every word in the article, and there were as I recall three separate reliable sources disputes in one single sentence. He accused me of being a lobbyist for the EFF (!), which does not have lobbyists, and lied to an administrator when I complained about this; he said I admitted this in an email. At the time I encountered him I had forgotten that my email was even visible and had never heard of a noticeboard. OK, to be fair, the subject was contentious (remember the day Wikipedia shut down?), but I think his behavior was well beyond wikilawyering against a relative newbie. (I'd been around but mostly doing uncontroversial copy-editing). He also told the administrator that I didn't want any other point of view in the article, which I still find insulting. I thought the proponents of the law should have their say, just not control the narrative. I also suppose "this will break the internet" might sound like a fringe theory at first blush, but it happened to be true and he didn't seem to care what the evidence was. In other words, skepticism possily would have been understandable, but there was no such thing as discussing anything with him; he decided wikipedia needed to be protected from me, and mass-reverted a whole bunch of work, many times. Some of the relevent discussion is still on my talk page, if anyone wants a sample. Some of the stuff he was telling me was in fact true -- wikilinks vs external links for example, but he was so caustic and obstructive to deal with that... well. You want to know why wikipedia lacks editors? I am sure he has run quite a few off in his time. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again - Xenophrenic has posted to my user talk page demanding diffs: "I just want to be sure I'm addressing the correct instances when I post my responses, and when I have uninvolved administrators carefully examine and evaluate each allegation, I want to be sure to point them to the correct exchange." I really don't want to re-wiki-litigate the SOPA issue with him; the fact that Wikipedia closed for a day over this is, to my mind, sufficient validation. I did not know the issue was being discussed here; I noticed it because while on the page because of an RfC I am following, and because I've been working on the Content Translation list. I assume that given the elapsed time, my comments won't be given that much weight and that is fine; I merely wanted to respond to the idea that EtsyBetsy is just a possibly oversensitive new user. I know nothing about that particular dispute and have had no dealings with Xenophrenic since, but I find it likely that she does speak the truth. I was actually having mild flashbacks re-reading the stuff on my page, and have no desire to return to the days when he repeatedly moved my comments from article pages to my user page. I also don't have any desire to look up how to make a diff again, but heh, I did speak up, and I do stand by my remarks. So. I don't see why we need a diff tho? At this section Xenophenic says

I made the ludicrous assertion that Elinruby admitted to being a paid lobbyist for EFF, in response to Elinruby's ludicrous assertion that I "admitted conflict of interest here". I hereby retract that statement, and have struck it out as well. It was wrong of me to respond to a false statement with a false statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The false statement I supposedly made, according to him, was saying that he had admitted a conflict of interest. A little further in the same section he explains why he is calling this false:

I mentioned to you that I have business interests (clients, in fact) that would be negatively impacted by parts of this legislation. I also have clients that would benefit from this legislation. As such, I get to hear the whole range of criticism and praise about specific provisions of the bill while working with my business clients.

Apparently I was supposed to intuit this? In any event this is the "lie" I told which he felt justified fabricating an offensive accusation about me. There was much much more, but it's water under the bridge that I've done my best to forget. And now, please. I will answer any questions anyone may have about this matter, but I strongly request that Xenophrenic refrain from contacting me. Elinruby (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's response

@Admin Someguy1221: You have assessed the situation correctly. Thank you. The original poster is upset that he is in a content dispute and Wikipedia policy won't let him/her edit the way s/he wants. Hence this attempt (not his first) to try to litigate other editors out of the picture.

@Etsybetsy, the original poster: This is quite a monument you have constructed. And you've even canvassed many editors to join you in re-hashing disputes from many years ago. Did you have trouble finding active editors to canvass? That's because almost all of them are, to use Elinruby's words "run off" (translation: blocked or indefinitely banned). You've posted 30+ diffs, claiming disruption, but you failed to note that almost every last one resulted in "No action", "declined" or boomeranged on the originator. I think that is the take-away from your efforts.

@Elinruby: I decline your request that I "refrain from contacting you". I have not contacted you in several years, except for now, because you came here and posted lies about me. You can expect the same each time you feel the need to bring me up for discussion. (Interested Admins: please review discussions between Elinruby and myself on her Talk page firsthand, to get a more realistic account.) I politely requested that you provide diffs substantiating your charge that I lied to an administrator when I complained about this. I see that again you have not done so. Because it didn't happen. It is unfortunate that you still feel the need to fabricate and misrepresent our discussions, even years later. Rest assured that each time you do so, I will respond, but only to the extent necessary to clear up your misrepresentations. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

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:Etsybetsy sent me an email with the following message:

"There is something that may interest you at the administrators' noticeboard, regarding your report[134]"

I suspect that I was chosen because I had previously criticized Xenophrenic, which would seem to violate WP:CANVASSING. For the record, I have no opinion on the current case because I haven't looked into the relevant history, and I do not think a content dispute I had with Xenophrenic in January 2013 is relevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not good. Etsybetsy, who else did you email? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we required to reveal who we emailed or is email considered private communication? And if it is considered private communication, has Guy Macon received permission from Etsybetsy to pass the information along that is being disclosed here? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not required to reveal but see WP:STEALTH. And you do not need permission to reveal the contents of unsolicited emails sent to you. On Wikipedia, there's the outing policy to consider but that's not a factor here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Where do you find support in policy or guideline language for "you do not need permission to reveal the contents of unsolicited emails sent to you"? Also WP:STEALTH refers to "a group of editors", something we have not established here. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EMAILABUSE covers this: You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). They didn't post the email 'itself'; they did 'describe briefly' its contents. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the thrust of WP:EMAILABUSE are instances of abuse or harassment. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And- "an objectionable email". _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me turn this around. Where in policy does it say you need to have permission (as contrary to the "real world")? And my question was trying to establish the extent of the canvassing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have policy for everything, thank goodness. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So Guy Macon did nothing wrong, either according to Wikipedia policy or real world standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. But I'm not sure a discussion of "real world standards" is a viable possibility. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement is not rooted in policy and is not shared by the many editors (including admins) who publicly ask problematic users to stop emailing them because whatever issue they have isn't going to be solved by email. I'm not saying personal details in emails should be copied here and not to use common sense, but Guy didn't do the former and followed the latter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My disagreement is partial. I initially raised questions. That is not, strictly speaking, disagreement. As the conversation rolled along you introduced the concept of "real world standards". I disagree over whether "real world standards" approve of or disapprove of the initial posting by Guy Macon. But obviously "real world standards" are various. We can agree to disagree about "real world standards" and how they may apply here. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It has always been acceptable to post a generalization of an email. The real concern isn't privacy, it is copyright, if you ask Legal@ here. NeilN is correct, you are very mistaken. It isn't about our opinions, we are both telling you what the general practice is, and THAT is what consensus is. Policy is nothing more than than a written version of that consensus for your convenience. ie: consensus/practice trumps written policy every time. What Guy did was fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the original question: Etsybetsy, who else did you email? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As has already been established here, Etsybetsy does not have to reveal who else they have emailed (if anyone else). There may be an applicable question as to whether a "group of editors" has been emailed. Language pertaining to that is found at WP:STEALTH. They may not have emailed anyone else. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which policy guideline, is not confined solely to emailing a 'group.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But it is "group" that is emphasized. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No; just because it ends talking about a group does not men it began by doing so: "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors". Plural, not collective. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And it has not been established that any other editors have been notified. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you keep arguing that it shouldn't be established! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am arguing nothing of the sort. I am saying let us not jump to conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You questioned, pejoratively, whether "we [are] required to reveal who we emailed" when asked. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong about this but we don't find in policy or guidelines that we should disclose who we may have emailed. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To barge in apropos of nothing, I certainly don't believe anyone is obligated to talk about their e-mail tendencies, but I for one would draw a negative inference in a situation like this if the person refused to answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Etsybetsy may volunteer to respond. It would be in their favor if they did. No one is forcing them to do so. Not sure why you're wikilawyering over this. An editor was probably canvassed. We (or I) want to know who else was approached. It may be no one else was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did send it, and I figured it out you'd probably point out me having sent it. But isn't your report pertinent to the matter at hand? I didn't tell you to do anything, I just told you there might be something of interest and only a person who had dealt with Xenophrenic would know whether he has learned his lessons or is this just a repeat. For example of someone I thought contacting: Johnuniq had dealt with Xenophrenic before, but he already responded here. I don't think anyone who knows Xenophrenic and has discussed him isn't somehow culpable to criticizing him? I also have to state I weren't familiar with WP:STEALTH before and thought it was just best to email directly. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The canvassing was legitimate if Etsy contacted all editors involved in the 2013 dispute, as Etsy alleges the same misconduct (not content) dispute as alleged in 2013, which, however, was not proved then. Then, and now, Xeno was accused of intentionally (or with blatent disregard of the English language) misinterpreting sources and Wikipedia editors' comments.

If Etsy is quoting Wikipedia correctly, then the misinterpretation is clear and intentional. (I'm on my smartphone, and find it difficult to pull up the relevant pages.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There were no other editors besides the closing admin involved in the linked dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And on the article talk page, there was one other currently active editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so anyone knows: I didn't contact Arthur. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about the lack of a precise answer. How many people were emailed? Did they get essentially the same message I got? How was I selected? Was it because I had reported Xenophrenic to ANI in 2013? How many other editors who had reported Xenophrenic over the years were contacted? Were any editors who supported Xenophrenic in any of these disputes contacted or just those who opposed him?

BTW, regarding our original content dispute, later events showed that Xenophrenic was right an I was wrong. In 2012 Mitt Romney predicted "President Obama sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China at the cost of American jobs" but as of 2016, 96.7 percent of Jeeps sold in the U.S were assembled in the U.S. with near the top (70 percent) North American parts content. I updated the page in question. [135] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I also contacted editor CatPath on his talk earlier but he didn't respond and I thought talk page messages are ineffective so I contacted people directly. Second one I contacted directly was before and one who had participated at our talks, RockyMntGuy. Other than that it was truly frankly what two other editors? Jobas was the one who had filed the very recent report of Xenophrenic? If you look at the diffs above none of those editors have emails available or they are no longer editing. I got tired because not even RockyMntGuy showed up. So as much as you make this seem like a shadowy tactic it was an idiot at work really. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well now he did... Etsybetsy (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I found it useful that Etsybetsy emailed me, because I don't monitor things that closely and don't have a lot of interest in this subject. I have a lot of knowledge of North American Indians because I used to work in the Land Department of a Canadian oil company . In Canada, there are serious issues involved, because in 1763, the year of the alleged genocide attempt, George III put a stop to the French and Indian Wars by giving the French King Guadeloupe in exchange for Canada (which at that time was worth more money than Canada), and settled with the Indians by making a royal edict that American settlers should stop taking land away from the Indians and pay for it instead. The American settlers disagreed, one of the causes of the revolt in 1776.

Before making any edits, I made a comment on the talk page:

Genocide by smallpox exposed blankets? Urban myth or documented fact?

This story of native people being killed by exposure to smallpox exposed blankets seems to pop up in relation to a lot of early explorers, but it has a few problems: 1) The germ theory of disease wasn't generally accepted until the 1880s. So how would colonists prior to that time have thought of using germs to kill natives? They didn't know what caused smallpox.

2) It wouldn't have worked anyway. Smallpox can't generally be spread by infected blankets.

I mentioned it because I had been doing a little research into biological warfare. Don't do this at home because weird things happen. If you mention biological warfare and smallpox in the same sentence on Wikipedia, Homeland Security will be reading your posts. Hi guys, how are things going, caught any terrorists lately? Unfortunately, my proposed edits met considerable push-back from Xenophrenic because it didn't fit into his world view, and he reject everything I proposed. Later, another author brought up the matter of syphilis because it is an example of a disease that made the return trip from the Americas and killed millions of people in Europe, which I agreed with. This didn't fit into Xenophrenic's world view either, so he has been repeatedly deleting it and things like it from the article. Apparently he thinks he "owns" this article. This is a common problem on Wikipedia because some editors think they have ownership of articles and can control everything that is said about them. I am getting sick of it and think it should stop.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I MOVE TO CLOSE THIS SECTION. The answer above seems reasonable, and I think this was just a good-faith attempt to do the right thing. Could someone uninvolved please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have "a lot of knowledge of North American Indians because I used to work in the Land Department of a Canadian oil company." I must therefore rely exclusively on high-quality, peer-reviewed reliable sources, rather than my own personal knowledge. RockyMtnGuy's edits, which are based wholly on his personal knowledge and original research, did indeed receive considerable push-back from me, as he says. Not because of a "worldview" I hold (as I said, I'm not educated enough in the subject to have a "worldview" - I'm not an oil worker), but because Wikipedia policy (WP:OR and WP:NPOV) don't allow his type of editing. Similar edits of his are likely to encounter similar resistance in the future. RockyMtnGuy apparently doesn't realize that no individual editor can own an article (see WP:OWN), and every editor must comply with Wikipedia's editing policies - and he is getting sick of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2016 (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.

Eclecticology has passed away

Eclecticology has passed away. See wikimedia-l. Please do the needful. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User page fully protected. Thanks for taking care of the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I collapsed the long talk page, not sure if archiving it was a good idea since he never archived. Amazing how you hate see a compatriot go, even one you didn't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: At over 170Kb, the page should definitely be archived; preferably in two or more parts, if you don't want to do it, I'm happy to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would Andy Mabbett, that would be great. I breezed through it and didn't find anything that really needed to be there, and collapsed as the safest option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a note to WP:RIP. Please feel free to expand it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Quiet guy, it seems, but managed to average 1000 edits a year doing good things. As I said there, I wish the best for his family and friends coping with the loss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who logos

Can I get a hand with List of Doctor Who logos? The article was recently created by PSandboxx 123 (talk · contribs) and I turned down a CSD A1 / A7 nomination, both of which are not valid applications of the criteria (it is clear what the purpose of the list is to me). The article appears to have been created a few times, so I've merged the content together as best I can. I did pull out some reliable sources specifically about the logo to believe it might withstand an AfD debate. Unfortunately, half the logos don't have fair-use rationales, but I'm sure somebody here can make one, and also resize the images to a sensible size. Sorry - image list formatting isn't my forte - can anyone help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The first three logos here can be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The other logos will need detailed fair use rationales to assuage WP:NFGALLERY concerns - are there sources that discuss the logo changes, and what changed in the logos, in detail? My sense is that the gallery can only stay if there is detailed discussion about each logo and about changes from one iteration to the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the latter logos may also fall under PD-ineligible-USonly - I am rather dubious that they'd be PD in Britain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ritchie333: The UK has such an extremely low level for TOO that none of those would be PD in the UK. Logos for the 1st through the 7th would be PD-ineligible-USonly. Logos from the 9th on (8th didn't have a logo) would need to be under fair use and cannot be on that page without a valid FUR. And frankly, in my opinion, there cannot be a valid FUR for those images as they are don't fit into the strict fair-use guidelines we use. --Majora (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that all of those PD-ineligible-USonly ones are on Commons. (Sigh). Now I have to go and DR them all. Might want to reupload them locally while you have the chance. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jeannajacki

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

---

Could someone block him out and delete his pages, got tired tagging! VarunFEB2003 12:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, I instead left him a message politely explaining we aren't a social network site, we are an encyclopedia, in fairly plain English. This is a common mistake for new users, particularly if English isn't their first language. They come here and immediately create a profile page in main space. The best way to handle is assume good faith, delete the material, politely explain, then point them to the Teahouse. He wasn't vandalising or trying to disrupt anything, he simply misunderstands what Wikipedia is. That means the solution is giving him information, not the ban hammer. He has so few edits, it is difficult to assume much, except good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 14 September 2016 (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.

Verbal and Psychological Abuse of a female editor by 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 have been editing for approximately 10 months. I consider myself a newbie still. I recently made an edit using a bare URL. I've been on WP for just under 1 year, and am still learning. I honestly did not realise this was not the way to cite a website. For this one error, Jytdog verbally abused me by saying "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage." I am a mature aged woman and am greatly offended. I do not need to be exposed to this filthy language and abuse for no reason. I thought WP was trying to keep female editors not scare them away with foul mouthed abuse!Charlotte135 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the language isn't great. Jytdog should moderate his comments a bit.

Disagree that this is abusive, and that being female has one mamafreaking thing to do with it. I'm a mature woman as well and if this is the worst you find, you're very fortunate. I'm not suggesting it's okay to talk like that. I am suggesting that abuse isn't one salty word. The woman admins here regularly get rape threats, Charlotte135, so your claim that this is psychological abuse is somewhat offensive to me. Katie^talk 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to the offending remarks to provide some context. Also of relevance is this discussion at the edit warring noticeboard regarding the filing editors conduct at that article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that in that discussion User:Lizzius also expresses concerns about Charlotte135's editing behavior in general. She's a female editor. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we just agree that the comment was WP:BITEy and rather uncivil and ask Jytdog to be more careful on both fronts? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can, and I believe that's what I said. But hysterical claims of psychological abuse to woman editors cause more harm than good, and that's an important point to make. Katie^talk 15:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Filing editor has form for that. I wondered why the username seemed familiar. Turns out I have commented before. So feel free to consider my comments coming from an involved perspective but Charlotte135 appears to have issues related to their gender and gender issues in general. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Worth noting that this report was filed by Charlotte135 15 minutes after they were reported for edit-warring... but seven hours after the event. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This was when I logged in intending to post it here Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and saw the other already made. I still followed through with this post here at ANI. I just want an apology for Jytdog saying "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage." Is that too much to ask? It seems pretty uncivil at best. And sorry as a woman, I really do not expect to be treated like that.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a man, I really would not expect to be treated like that, either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, no-one does! Not even a dog.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, because apparently it needs to be said: being disparaged while being a minority is not the same thing as being disparaged for being a minority. Confounding the two is at best petty and distracting, and at worse a crass insult women specifically, and minorities generally. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets look at the text added by Charlotte. They added the text "Pesticide self poisoning is the most common form of completed suicides worldwide, with around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries." The second half of the content was copied and pasted verbatim from the source in question "around 30% of global suicides ... low- and middle-income countries."[136] The first part was simply made up by the editor in question supposedly based of a source they had not used as a reference.[137] Charlotte was previously banned from the topic area of gender issues[138]. They are once again causing disruption in this area per here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's entirely incorrect Doc James regarding my cut and paste. I did not copy and paste anything! My comments related to you and Flyer22reborn communicating off Wikipedia to form consensus, but then you denied it when Flyer22reborn said you both were. I just thought that undermined the consensus building process, that's all and would be better if you talk on WP rather than in secret. I was topic banned because of my interactions with Flyer22reborn, nothing more. And it was 2 way. I also requested a permanent 2 way interaction ban with Flyer22reborn. I am sorry I proved you wrong on the suicide talk page despite your experience on WP, but please don't use your credibility here at WPO to falsely discredit me because you are angry. That is not fair. I posted here because your friend Jytdog said waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Jytdog is currently fighting numerous other reportings for edit warring and abuse, and has just been reinstated after a permanent ban from Wikipedia for COI as you know Doc James. His abuse needs to stop. I just want an apology. Is that too much to ask?Charlotte135 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide difs for "but then you denied" or cross it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Doc James, I am confused. I asked you directly. Flyer22reborn said you were communicating off Wikipedia not me, and you said she posted on the talk. I will find the diffs. For the record, were you then?Charlotte135 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• yep I lost it in that dif which is where I inappropriately expressed my frustration: "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage" Yep.

That said, Charlotte is crazy-making, kind of concern-trolling the Talk page with claims that content isn't "right" in one way or another without actually citing a source supporting her "concern" or offering a concrete proposal - this is pretty much what fills the whole Talk:Suicide page. Examples: (dif, dif, dif, dif etc etc) and when directly asked what ref she is talking about or what content she would actually prefer (for example here, here, here, here etc) the issue just squishes away into some new angle for "questioning" or she just keeps repeating the question or claim.

Then she jumps to the article (a Good Article) and makes a trashy edit like this (updating only the lead, using a bareURL for a ref already cited many times in the article, bit of copy/paste going on as Doc James mentioned). I reverted and went ahead and started to add the content she wanted (two diffs when I realized that the bareURL (bad enough) was already a named ref and expressed my frustration with that dif... but what I allowed to push me over the edge was that she had actually reverted, restoring the trashy edit. When I realized that she had done that and my work fixing it had been lost... yes, I lost it. That is the offending dif, which immediately follows the one I just provided.

the intricacy and persistence of her vague concern trolling in combination with this kind of sloppy editing is very frustrating and yes is a huge waste of time. She had Doc James pinned down for hours trying to address her "concerns" - time he could have spent making a zillion edits to build the encyclopedia. I don't know what Charlotte's deal is but the same thing unfolded at Domestic violence a few months ago (one example: see Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_6#For_NPOV_sake) where she drove other editors up the wall making vague claims not supported by sources.

I did not personally attack Charlotte. I did not say "You are a waste of time" or "You &^%&*%*(&%" . I described her behavior and how I felt about it. But it was definitely unCIVIL and entirely my fault that I lost my temper and expressed my frustration. I am sorry for that, to everybody. In addition to offending Charlotte it led to this additional drama which is taking up yet more time. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, I was clear what I talked to Doc James about, and why I did. I stated to Charlotte135, "When I see what I consider a problem with an article, I am very likely to comment on the matter. I have no desire to interact with you. If I did, I would not have alerted Doc James to an edit of yours he recently reverted at the Suicide attempt article. That edit you made was problematic because intending to commit suicide is not the same thing as trying to commit suicide. Instead of interacting with you by reverting you at that article, I contacted Doc James to review the edit."

The edit by Charlotte135 was wrong; it needed fixing, and I did not want to make the revert given my tempestuous history with Charlotte135. Yes, I could have commented on the article talk page about the matter, but that likely would have led to more animosity between me and Charlotte135.

As for Jytdog... Yes, he has a temper. I have also been known to be hotheaded (for a few years), and have been taking different approaches to make sure that I don't lost my cool. As a number of editors have stated, it is somewhat understandable for editors to be temperamental after editing so many controversial topics and encountering so many disruptive editors along the way. Regardless, Jytdog is a solid editor and Wikipedia is better off with him here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs from Talk:Suicide and Suicide Highlighting Editing Issues with Charlotte135

Alright, User:Charlotte135 has asked for specific diffs, so I’ve attempted to distill much of the chaos from the Talk:Suicide page below:

1. Charlotte135’s edits were obviously related to gender

• [[139]] First change to exclude "… are four times more common in females than in males."
• [[140]] this one is kind of funny to me because she changes the section she has primarily edited throughout this whole exchange from “sex” to “gender”. Obviously her edits were relevant to gender.
• [[141]] Changes "generally" to "overwhelmingly" with regards to completed suicide rate ("overwhelmingly" higher in men than in women). There is accompanying talk page dialogue for this one, but Charlotte135 doesn’t name any specific sources for this change and we will cover that elsewhere. This is here just to establish that the bulk of her significant edits to this article/talk page have been about gender.
• [[142]] Brings up gender differences in suicide as represented by popular press.

And the list goes on. As I said above, all of her major edits to the article in question and the talk page have been related to gender in one way or another.

a.'Charlotte had the same “difficulty” picking out the gender relevance of her edits (or that is, avoiding articles which would fall under her topic ban from gender related edits) when she was on a topic ban. The banning administrator made that abundantly clear here'. [[143]]

2. Charlotte135 engages in tendentious editing regarding statistics of the gendered difference in suicide attempts and completed suicides. She repeatedly questions the reliability of the sources presented in the article without specifically remarking on content or alternative sourcing.

a.) Charlotte’s vague requests for changes to the article’s reference to gendered statistics that lack specificity regarding sourcing or content but demand attention from other editors (there are accompanying main space edits that have to be frequently reverted by other editors to prevent Charlotte’s strange bias towards these statistics from being reflected in the article).

• [[144]] Charlotte135 questions sources on talk without giving a specific source to frame conversation.
• [[145]] Essentialy same question, asks Doc James for an answer after he has given one.
• [[146]] Same
• [[147]] Asks for "compromise" on wording (after deleting a portion of Doc James response on talk page), again citing unnamed reliable sources. It becomes clear as this progresses on that “compromise” means “agree with me though I provide no sourcing to support my alternatives” to Charlotte135.
• [[148]] Another claim that the majority of reliable sources don't agree with the article, with absolutely no mention of those sources.
• [[149]] Does not supply sources, simply says the entire article should reference global statistics (even though this specific sentence is prefaced with "in the western world". Note that Charlotte once again mischaracterizes what Doc James actually said, which is here. [[150]], and was also stated elsewhere on talk and in edit summaries)
• [[151]] Charlotte135 again claiming inconsistency in the sourcing without providing specific content changes or alternative sourcing.
• [[152]] Says sources will be provided that refute "false" statistics regarding female suicide attempt rates (no secondary sources are ever added).

It goes on and on… It really does.

b.) For the few sources Charlotte135 provided, there was confusion regarding primary vs. secondary sourcing and even an attempt to draw conclusions from a sheet of raw data used by another source differently than that source interpreted it.

• [[153]]
• [[154]] Once again mentioning reliable sources with no actual cite of those sources, this accompanied changes to the articles that inserted primary sources to refute or discredit secondary ones

c.) Charlotte135 refuses to accept alternative viewpoints from other editors who do present valid sourcing. Charlotte 135 also interprets other editors growing weary with the constant sourcing demands (see above) as “compromising” with her. (Very much WP:IDHT)

• [[155]] Doc James says "we have a few sources" clearly referring to what has been referenced in the article already. This will later be misconstrued as Doc James agreeing with Charlotte.
• [[156]] An editor introduces sources on talk page that agree with statistics regarding female attempts at suicide.
• [[157]] Essentially tells another editor (whom had a similar run-in with Charlotte at Domestic Violence) that their opinion isn't welcome on talk page. Misprepresents Doc James as "agreeing" with her representation after all of the above exchanges.

• [[158]] Off-Topic, very much dismissing the points that were raised and instead choosing to focus on contributors.
• [[159]] Refers to everything that has happened on talk page as a "compromise".
• [[160]] This reads very much to me as my way or the highway.

3. Other editors asked countless times to provide specific content changes Charlotte wanted with appropriate sourcing. All went unanswered (in fact, many of Charlotte’s answers were highlighted in the diffs above and can be summarized with “The current sources are wrong” without any further detail)

• [[161]]
• [[162]]
• [[163]]
• [[164]]
• [[165]]

It’s worth noting that these weren’t separate requests for separate issues raised by Charlotte135. They all flowed from her disagreement with the statistics used to describe the gender differences in suicide, and growing frustration from the other editors involved that Charlotte wasn’t providing any specific detail.

I have saved many of the diffs from the article and talk page if anyone would like any further evidence. I’m honestly not sure if this is too much or too little. It’s also worth noting that I didn’t include anything from Talk:Domestic_Violence or the diff’s that garnered Charlotte her previous topic ban. Lizzius (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Holy formatting. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no! I hope it's not hard to read. If so, please feel free to change it. Lizzius (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

holy cow that was a lot of work gathering those diffs. don't sweat the formatting; thanks for doing the work, Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Consider yourself barnstarred, Lizzius, great work! _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Charlotte135

How is any of that related to any controversy in gender topics???This is statistics!! Not gender. Is there something I'm missing in this equation. I'm a statistician and health researcher! I'm also a middle aged woman! Where is the controversy? How is that controversial.

Could anyone answer that question? Anyone?? How is that controversial? What did I do wrong. Any talk page discussion could be diffed like that. Could anyone, anyone at all, list here any evidence in the form of diffs, how my above edits deserve a 1 year topic ban??? What exactly have I done?? I will need these responses, or lack thereof, when I appeal at the arbitration committee. This is classic bullying of another female editor, being driven away from Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This was about Jytdog verbally abusing a female editor by saying waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage.

Instead someone just diffs a conversation on a talk page??? Where is the controversy? Anyone? What have I done wrong?? Anyone?? Anyone at all!!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Once you post here, everything around the dispute is fair game. You don't get to decide what admins look at and what they don't. See WP:BOOMERANG. It seems to me that your filed complaint is specious, and your proposed edits lack consensus. I strongly suggest you walk away at this point. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:Charlotte135

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 like to propose a one year topic ban of Charlotte135 from all things sex / gender related. Issues include

• Copy and pasting from sources [166]
• Misrepresenting sources [167]
• Edit warring [168] while claiming they made no reverts
• WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE [169]/(here they are calling secondary sources primary)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James, your post at edit warring has been discredited. I clearly showed you that I did not cut and paste on my talk page discussion. And I was factually correct at the suicide talk page, as your sources were proved invalid, and I have proposed we simply go back to our compromised consensus, established a week ago and use the WHO source. Its as good as it gets as far as sources go. I will take it to the arbitration committee to prove these 3 points, if needed. I realize you are angry at me right now Doc James for proving you factually wrong on the suicide article, and that you have great influence here, but you proposing this ban on no grounds, is incredibly unfair and against everything WP stands for.Charlotte135 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, how has the edit warring report been discredited? I ask because I was leaning towards a block there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a back seat, but I was considering the same, as edit warring doesn't seem to be the only problem here. EdJohnson has already given her a clear warning on her talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclining towards Support on this proposal, not solely because of the issues reported but but because of the general attitude indicated by subsequent discussions. The suggestion of WP:IDHT is actually far more troublesome than just edit-warring, or even the referencing problems, because IDHT indicates that whatever problems arise in the future, this same scenario will be played out- time and time over again. In one afternoon, how many editors have we now got tied up over the same editor at two different noticeboards and a talk page? This needs to stop, now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

None of the above diffs point to abuses in sex/gender related articles? Am I missing something? All of the diffs point to infractions a newer editor might incur and with a little patience and help can be improved on. This looks familiar, an attempt to create a boomerang comes to mind. Does this thread serve to side track the real issues and the focus on Jytdog? A one year topic ban, proposed by an admin, with the above diffs as proof of mistakes in the sex/gender related articles is surprising to say the least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

The editor's problematic edits with suicide related articles have all pertained to gender related statistics, and gender differences in suicide/suicidal behavior. The editor also had a topic ban from gender related articles (which expired a few months ago) after a dispute with almost identical editing practices called into question. I believe someone else has already linked to the relevant pages. This isn't the first time many of these issues have been raised with her, and the talk pages for both Suicide and Domestic Violence (when Charlotte135 was active there) are riddled with pages of this type of editing. I tend to agree with many above that Charlotte135's editing is a distraction, and in the interest of the encyclopedia (but also the interest of keeping Charlotte135 around to perhaps improve her skills as you mention above) would favor a longer topic ban from gender related subjects broadly construed over an outright block. Lizzius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to be sure that the editor is very clear about exactly why she is being sanctioned, if she is. Diffs must be very specific to the sanction because supposedly Wikipedia is not punitive and the sanction should be educational rather than a punishment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

• Thank you Littleolive oil for asking the same questions I had. That said, I tend to SUPPORT as there does seem to be a clear pattern. This is separate from the edit warring, I would note. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my previous links/comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• support if you review their talk page they have been disruptive on gender issues pretty much since they arrived, advocating a men's rights position. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone provide diffs here over the past few months as evidence of anything I have done or how in any possible way this is over gender. I work as a statistician and researcher and hold natural interest in these areas. The simple matter over wording at the suicide article had already been solved through a compromised consensus and everyone moved on to other articles. I have only ever had problems at WP with one editor who suddenly showed up at the article. I had been avoiding this editor at all costs. This editor insisted the wording must be suicide attempts. The literature simply uses the term suicide behaviors, not suicide attempts. That was only point. Nothing to do with gender! I wanted our articles top reflect that fact, and what the WHO states even. That was it. Nothing else. How has this become about gender! My response to this editor was here in this diff [170]Charlotte135 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As a kind hearted and fair editor noted above, "Diffs must be very specific to the sanction" Can someone provide these diffs please. I don't understand, and am quite upset over this. I'm sorry that as a mature aged woman, I may be different to a man as far as my emotional reaction to all of this, but I am. I this is very unfair and obviously seems like a punishment, particularly with no evidence, and the fact that Doc James is involved should not matter. Again, could someone please provide me with diffs that are specific to any proposed sanction. Thank you very much.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So, can someone please just provide diffs here over the past few months as evidence of anything I have done or how in any possible way this is over gender and diffs that are very specific to any proposed sanction? I am completely confused here and think I've been entangled in some gender issue going on at Wikipedia. As far as my own editing on the suicide article all I can do is present this diff again showing my attitude. [171]. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neither your age nor gender is a factor nor justification here, even if you insist on bringing it up. We have no way of verifying if you are an 80 year old woman or 14 year old boy, so claims are meaningless; only actions matter. We don't discriminate based on age or gender anyway. Also: Editors may consider any time range when considering behavior, although it is typically less than a year, so they aren't limited to just a few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support That Suicide talk page is awful. So many times simply asked to provide wording and a source to back it up yet instead endless circles. Confusion about primary and secondary sources as well. Perhaps if this was the first time it would be understandable but the past ANI's say otherwise. The hyperbolic header to this report doesn't help either. I was supportive of a longer TB back when the Domestic Violence conflict came to ANI and this hasn't changed my mind. Capeo (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???Charlotte135 (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???Charlotte135 (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this dispute via the commotion I saw on Charlotte135's talk page, which I think I had on my watchlist from a prior incident (topic ban discussion perhaps). First off, I really don't like how this went down. There are worse sins, for instance, than putting a bare URL between ref tags (at least she's providing a reference) and Jytdog's response was inappropriate and disproportionate. I also take exception to Doc James's actions: slapping a "warning" template on the editor [172] over 6 hours after her last revert, then opening an AN3 report less than a minute later. Furthermore, one of the four reverts he reported there wasn't a revert but an initial introduction of new text. The evidence he provides at the top of this section isn't stellar either: the link he gives as evidence of the copyright violation has her apologizing for forgetting to use quotations on the part she didn't paraphrase.

  That said, I can understand why Jytdog was so quick to fly off the handle and why Doc James seems eager to have Charlotte135 blocked or topic banned. She has been a tremendous waste of time for many productive editors, engaging in endless circular arguments while refusing to ever get the point, and pursuing what appears to be a personal vendetta against Flyer22. I came to this conclusion after spending way too much time reading Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_6#For_NPOV_sake. I had to stop about 2/3 of the way through before my brain turned to mush. (@Charlotte135, that link is definitely gender-related.) So call it what you will: Disruptive, Tendentious, CIR, or Randy; I Support a broad and lengthy topic ban of User:Charlotte135. ~Awilley (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But I haven't been anywhere near the domestic violence article or any gender topics Awilley?? So I ask again, Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???' Still nothing has been presented. I will need to show this fact, when appealing to the arbitration committee for the lifting of any sanctions falsely placed on me, based on gender topics, when clearly there is no evidence and I have not been involved in any gender topics. So please, if anyone has ANY evidence or diffs at all which supports a sanction based on gender please provide them here. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When the Arbitration Committee consider my appeal against gender based sanctions placed on me they will need to have clear evidence and diffs as to how?? Which gender articles?? What have had to do with gender?? I will take my appeal as far as is possible. I genuinely have no idea why sanctions are proposed. If Doc James had given me more than one minute to cool off after his warning he would have done so. Not even 90 seconds and he reported me here because we were both edit warring. But as far as a year sanction!@!!! being applied under gamergate what evidence is there? Administrators in the past have confirmed I have nothing to these gender based articles!! Any evidence?? Here is your chance Anyone> Anyone at all, to show evidence and diffs justifying a one year sanction on gender???Charlotte135 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is no secret that Jytdog and Doc James are also friends here. But is there any action on Jytdog foul mouthed filthy verbally abuse on a public forum such as WP, by saying to me as a mature aged woman and for no good reason waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbageCharlotte135 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a dif from Sept 1st,2016[173] were you change "sex" to "gender" and here is a dif from Sept 2nd[174] were you adjust the wording to no longer reflect either common usage or the references that follow in the context of sex related difference in attempted suicide rates. Also you have brought up gender/sex multiple times in this threat including the opening heading and the opening text all the while denying that you have commented on sex/gender.

With respect to reverts, I agree there is some variation is counting practicings and agree that three reverts in 24 hours is also a reasonable conclusion. That you arrive at "I did not even revert once" however is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those diffs seem ban worthy. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This was only a reply to Charlotte's Q regarding evidence that she has been involved in gender / sex related disputes since the prior "domestic violence" issues. Their claim in bold above was "I have not been involved in any gender topics" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I find our interpretation of "broadly construed" to often be a bit too broadly construed. - Bilby (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I should note that I am also a bit disappointed in myself for using a November 2015 discussion as evidence in a September 2016 topic ban discussion. That said, having now read a couple sections at Talk:Suicide I believe little has changed since November. She's still repeating the same arguments verbatim (copy-paste almost) without convincing anybody, still dodging making specific content proposals, still going after people personally, and still frustrating lots of good content editors. As an example of the copy-paste thing, try a Ctrl+F on this page with the following words: "Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???" ~Awilley (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James, and anyone else, I stand by my comment that I have not been involved in gender / sex related disputes since the prior "domestic violence" issues. It's true. Me asking you Doc James, whether we should change sex to gender is straightforward. I was puzzled by your reply, to be honest. I had been looking at our other suicide related articles, and there are many, and they all use "gender" rather than sex. So I thought it sensible for consistency to change it to gender. You said no. I said okay. Nothing more.

As you know Doc James, our dispute has been over the wording of suicide attempts compared with non fatal suicide behaviors used by the the WHO, nothing to do with gender/sex controversies. These two diffs, show my point. [175] [176] We were about to seek resolution and you pounced on me and reported me here. I also asked if we could again perhaps compromise as I was attempting to seek consensus and end our dispute. Point is I have not been involved in sex/gender disputes for months. I also have tried as a relatively newbie, to work with the community and am again asking if anyone has any evidence in the form of diffs relating to gender/sex disputes please present it. If not, please accord me the same punishment or warning, any other person here would want to be served if they were fairly new to Wikipedia, and in my shoes, rather than topic banning me for a year from topics I have clearly, and voluntarily, chosen to stay away from for months.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Due to Charlotte's constant complaining, I decided to back to her first edits, which are less than a year ago. Same thing as now, and early on I see article talk page badgering of editors. Topic ban is surely the answer, and site ban if she can't comply. Otherwise it will end up a drama fest at Arb where the same outcome is likely. We don't need to even concern ourselves with previous Arb cases, there is plenty of evidence of simple disruptive behavior in a given topic area, ie: gender. I'm tired of seeing her repeat the same thing over and over, and would ask she refrain. We all see it the first time, you are bordering on badgering us when you keep repeating yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. As I keep saying, I have had nothing to do with gender/sex controversies for months and months and months, and no-one, but no-one has shown any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. In fact people desperately keep going back to a year ago. How would others like their past history continually dragged up. So new Question Dennis Brown. Are you saying I have not got the right to appeal at the arbitration committee?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And please don't be so uncivil and disrespectful Dennis Brown by saying when I do, it will be a "drama fest" There actually are very formal protocols that apply to all of us and all of us are accorded the same rights as any other editor. I will present an extremely tight, well argued appeal, with diffs, believe me. And I should have the right to do so. Please don't undermine that process by adding such language in a further attempt to taint by good character and good editing on WP. Thank you. Look forward to your brief reply on my above question.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I will comply with a sanctioned topic ban Dennis Brown. How disrespectful. No need to further threaten me before I even have a chance, as Doc James did by warning me and then within 1 minute, report me here. Hopefully the ARB committee can look at these type of things objectively, and fairly, if I provide an extremely well structure appeal with lots and lots of diffs. Thank you again for your time.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please then go ahead and topic ban me Dennis Brown, with detailed reasons as always, and part of our protocol here at WP. I can assure you I will comply. I can assure you also, if i have a right to appeal to the Arb Committee I will. However I have nothing more to say at this place here, where anything goes! That way this thread can be closed, and so I need not repeat myself. No actual evidence was ever provided for a 1 year topic ban, apart from reverting back to my history. That's fine. Please close.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention Dennis Brown, if possible, would you please tell me before closing, what admins did about Doc James's friend Jytdog, verbally abusing a female editor by saying on a public forum (that children can read) waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage

As a fair and decent editor stated in a comment above: "This looks familiar, an attempt to create a boomerang comes to mind. Does this thread serve to side track the real issues and the focus on Jytdog?" As I said Dennis Brown, I will comply fully with a topic ban but would just appreciate a response on Jytdog's filthy and unnecessary abuse to a female editor. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support a one year topic ban of Charlotte135 from all things sex / gender related as proposed by Doc. In all of my 10 years here she takes the cake when it comes to editors that can about drive a person nuts. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Gandydancer you are still hanging on to our dispute 11 months ago. And like everyone else, have presented no recent evidence in the way of diffs. Don't you remember 4 months ago when I contacted you on your talk page offering an olive branch? Charlotte135 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's here... and it will be interesting to see how many editors- as I have done- find dificulty in finding the 'olive branch' little other than a cover for continuing self-justification. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

New Article - Is this notable?

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

---

I wanted to know before I published it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlackAmerican/everypedia

BlackAmerican (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: May want to add a {{subst:submit}} to the user sandbox; this way it will be reviewed by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, but it may take a while. I take note that Breitbart is not usually considered a reliable source; is there a reason why it should be in this case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: Indeed, if you're unsure about a specific page, you should consider running it through the WP:AFC process. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I figured, I would bring it to AN as this isn't an ANI issue since AFC is very slow. It can take months and I have heavily sourced this article. I am unaware that Breitbart isn't considered to be a reliable source. I simply did a google search and went to "news." It was one of the sources used. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi BA, I would agree with Izno here, and go with the WP:AFC process. Just be a bit patient. In the meantime you can help with editing established articles, and read some guidelines to help you along in your skill build on WP. WP:RS is a good one to start with on Breitbart and other sourcing stuff. This just may not be the right board for this question, although it is a perfectly good one. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

[ http://everypedia-the.wikia.com ] or [ http://www.everipedia.com/ ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.everipedia.com/ BlackAmerican (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I brought it to an article. Worst case scenario it can be AFD'd. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (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 close on WP:ANI

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.

---

Having been on the receiving end of Engleham's vitriolic comments a number of times I have been following a discussion about their behaviour on WP:ANI for a while, without commenting there since I didn't feel my presence was needed. As a result of that discussion Engleham (a user who has been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, with the first such block in 2007 and the latest such block in May of this year) was blocked for just a month by Ritchie333, in spite of there, IMHO, being a very clear consensus for a community ban. The length of the block was also the exact same as for Engleham's latest block, in spite of Ritchie333 claiming in their closing comment to have escalated the length of the block. Since I feel that Engleham, for a reason unknown to me, is being let off the hook for the umpteenth time with just a slap on the wrist, in spite of it being obvious that they haven't learned anything from their previous blocks, but just keep on doing what they've always been doing, and in spite of there IMHO being a clear consensus for a community ban, I would like uninvolved admins to review the close, and the "sentence". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I addressed some of this on The ed17's talk yesterday. When I see a lynch mob shouting "Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!", I need to look at the context to see if it's justified. I spent about half an hour going through Engleham's contributions and noticed a lot of mainspace work, not all of it to FA quality, but that's not crime of the century. I also saw a lot of typical Australian humour where one tends to "call a spade a fucking shovel" and read it in that light; obviously it is not a good idea to use such humour in an environment here where offence is caused.

There has been an insane amount of disruption at Cary Grant and its talk page recently; the last thing we need is an RfC on content where there has already been a long drawn-out discussion only a few months ago where consensus was not to include it, so accompanied by the escalating heat at ANI (which is at least partially of Engleham's own doing), a lengthy block is appropriate. Past the end of the month, we should have a firm consensus on Grant's article, and any changes back to the "right" version can be swiftly dealt with.

Also, Engleham hasn't commented on his block, but if he had responded with personal attacks against me, another admin would be well within their rights to up the block to indefinite. He hasn't, so I'm prepared to AGF that staring the "exit" door in the face and narrowly avoiding being booted through it is sufficient to give him a wake up call that his methods of communication aren't working. (On a more pragmatic note, I speculated if Engleham could get hold of Splendour & Squalor: The Disgrace and Disintegration of Three Aristocratic Dynasties and on his return use it improve John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, which seemed to be the sort of topic he'd be interested in ... but that's just wishful thinking) I suggest we wait and see if we get any unblock request or other action on his talk page before doing anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 made the exact correct decision, and quite boldly. The call for measures to prevent disruption never rose to the level of a community ban. If process wonking about consensus is the reason for this review, please bear in mind that a community ban is the most extreme measure available to protect WP from a bad person. No evidence of socking, egregious harassment, or any of the other hallmarks of a user that must be banned was presented. Ritchie333's very fair and bold decision here was the right one. Doc talk 10:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Of course you would say that, since you were one of only two editors opposing a community ban... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that there was no need for a community ban. Doc talk 10:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Cary Grant is just the latest article being hit by Engleham, he's moving from article to article doing the exact same thing (check Talk:Gary Cooper and the history of that article...), trying to get totally unsubstantiated rumours about homosexuality into the article, not accepting that other editors don't share his views and starting RfC after RfC just to wear down the opposition. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Supervote by admin. Not only was there a clear consensus in the existing votes for a community ban, the discussion was ongoing and an early closure forestalled any votes which may have altered the consensus towards the result that Ritchie clearly prefers. Ritchie, if you close a discussion your job is to be neutral and assess the consensus and arguments provided, it is not your job to assume good faith that a block will be a wake up call when the voters have clearly indicated previous blocks have not done so. And frankly to laugh off both accusations of homophobia and borderline racist jewish stereotyping as 'Typical Australian calling a spade a spade' is both insulting to Australians AND indicates you agree that his unfounded allegations of Collect being motivated by homophobia are accurate. Which is not only a disgusting attitude for an Admin to have, but a particularly abusive use of your admin status when you cite it as a reason for ignoring the consensus in a request for a ban. If you close a discussion early, the result needs to be obviously clear and that leaving it open would not result in a change. If consensus is unclear it should be left open. If (as in this case) consensus is clearly opposite to the result you want, it should be left open. The discussion needs to be re-opened (preferred, given the short length) or reclosed with the result of the consensus discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Wait, Admins are exempt from WP:AGF? Where is that written? --Jayron32 10:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  For the purposes of closing a discussion? It shouldnt come into it unless the participants speak to it. The point of closing is to assess consensus, not supervote your own opinion of the editor's potential future actions. It basically disregards anyone who says 'Yeah we have been here before'. Its practically the definition of a supervote. Placing their own judgement over others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe we should have a "double-header". First we string ol' Engleham up, then Ritchie333 for the main attraction. It's be a great lesson for the others not to go against consensus. Doc talk 11:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah that wasnt funny or helpful the other times you said it either. We get it. You dont want to see them banned. Go you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  It's perfectly possible to be racially offensive without using a single "naughty" word as Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen have proved several times. However, I find Engleham's comments to be puerile attention-seeking rather than a genuinely held belief of antisemitism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Why do I care what you think about their comments? Your opinion does not hold greater weight than anyone else even if you had participated in the discussion. Multiple people thought the accusations of homophobia (which you laugh off as 'calling a spade a spade') and race-related comments are unacceptable, just because in your opinion he should be allowed to get away with it does not make it less objectionable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Your comments: "And frankly to laugh off both accusations of homophobia and borderline racist jewish stereotyping as 'Typical Australian calling a spade a spade' is both insulting to Australians AND indicates you agree that his unfounded allegations of Collect being motivated by homophobia are accurate. Which is not only a disgusting attitude for an Admin to have, but a particularly abusive use of your admin status when you cite it as a reason for ignoring the consensus in a request for a ban" are just so wrong for quite a few reasons. What's disgusting, really, is bad faith in the extreme. Doc talk 11:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  He stated his conclusion after investigating their edits was that it was calling a spade a fucking shovel. If anyone can seriously look at accusations of homophobia and anti-jewish sterotyping and come to that conclusion, there is nothing to assume. I am not *required* to assume good faith when someone states a position that explicitly allows/makes excuses for vile personal attacks and racism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I did not participate in this discussion, but I was watching it. At the point that Ritchie closed it, the clear direction was for a community ban. However the discussion hadn't been open for very long, so I assumed nothing would happen until later. Therefore, I was surprised at Ritchie's close, which seemed to substitute his opinion for the community's. The discussion should be reopened, allowed to run its course, and eventually closed by a different administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bbb23 - the debate should be reopened and allowed to run its course. Outside of DS or Arbcom/WMF action, the community reserves for itself the authority to impose or reject a community ban. There are very few reasons to short-circuit or override that discussion, or to substitute an alternative outcome. The close appears to be a good faith attempt to reach a compromise between the differing points of view, but it was a) premature and b) outside the application of the policy on bans and ban debates. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocking Engleham was a reasonable admin action. Closing on ongoing ban discussion trending toward a clear consensus was improper. It should be reopened so the consensus about the ban can be resolved.- MrX 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Things have moved on, though. Engleham has given a reasonable and civil response to my block message. He's grumpy about how admins can swoop in and indef block without so much as a how d'ya do, but he's hardly the first person to experience that. He hasn't kicked off with personal attacks, bad language or sarcasm at me, and I believe that's because I listened to what he had to say. If an administrator sincerely believes that upping the block to indefinite is an absolutely genuine benefit to writing an online encyclopedia, just do it. I'm not precious and we don't need any more ANI threads than necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  No things have not 'moved on'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, you seem to miss the point. Your role as an admin is to carry out the will of the community, not substitute your own judgement. I know you know the difference between a community ban and a block (indefinite or otherwise). - MrX 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Re-Opening ANI Discussion or alternatively re-closing in a manner that reflects the very strong consensus of the discussion. Let me begin by saying I have no reason to believe that Ritchie333 acted in anything other than good faith. Had it not been for Engleham's long history of blocks for the same issue, coupled with their comments in the ANI discussion that demonstrated that they just don't get it, I likely would have agreed with the close. In the end however there was a very clear and strong consensus which appears to have been intentionally disregarded. I should also note that characterizing the editors who supported the BAN as a "lynch mob" was an unfortunate choice of words and perhaps one that Ritchie333 would like to amend. Sadly my own view has not changed. Given his multi-year track record and his clearly un-repentant commentary at the discussion, I am convinced that a one month block is just kicking the can down the road. How many times does someone have to be blocked, for the same thing, before it becomes clear that they are unable or unwilling to self-correct? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support reopening. As I said on my talk page, I think Ritchie cut the community out of the discussion. We give admins pretty wide leeway, but Ritchie misapplied it here. (He's a good admin overall; let's not send trouts.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support reopening. Stopping a discussion prematurely, converting a clear consensus for a ban, with a minority report calling for an indef block, into a one-month block is a bad call – be the intent ever so commendable. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've overturned Ritchie's close and reopened the community ban discussion. I'm very confident this is correct and I'm not just supervoting in the other direction, because (a) 90% of the time I instinctively agree with Ritchie (especially when he's ignoring a rule) and yet this still seems a pretty obvious mistake to me, and (b) everyone but two people supported a ban in the original discussion, and no one new is supporting the close here in this thread. @Ritchie333: you get a karma bump for good intentions. You say above "If an administrator sincerely believes that upping the block to indefinite is an absolutely genuine benefit to writing an online encyclopedia, just do it". I'm not sure about that, but I do genuinely believe that ignoring such wide support for a community ban discussion damages the writing of a community-written encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (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 ban for User:PoetryFan

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

---

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932#Disruptive editing by PoetryFan I recently documented the erratic, disruptive, and aggressive behavior of the new single-purpose account PoetryFan (talk · contribs). No action was taken. Now, PoetryFan has left me a very nice apology, and 2 minutes later deliberately falsified the vote of an opposing editor! This editor's behavior goes beyond WP:NOTHERE, and at this point I don't see how WP:GOODFAITH can be assumed. I am requesting a ban. In addition to PoetryFan, I will notify @Mooseandbruce1, @Bonadea, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and @Alicb who commented on the previous notice. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Phil wink (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just keepin' the home-fires burnin'... Phil wink (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I would certainly like to see an explanation for that edit from PoetryFan (indeed, both those linked edits, acually, as they seem to have unstruck a !vote too). However, I also note that they haven't edited since 23;49 yesterday night. Any explanation forthcoming wil, I expect, be phenomonally imaginative- but should still be heared here on its merits. However, if a consensus appears within this discussion prior to that occurring, as there seems to be prima facie evidence of malpractice, I will not speak against it. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So far, PoetryFan seems to be a more-or-less once-a-week editor, so we should probably not expect a response for several days. Phil wink (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. So- _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that they had tried to misrepresent my comment on that article for deletion. This is offtopic, but does anyone know how long these have to remain open for an administrator takes action? Alicb (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: I'd say it was very on topic in the context of an editor under scrutiny who may not edit again before this thread is automaticaly archived by the bot... which is what will happen. Admin advice, please? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant about the WP:AFD discussion. It's been active for a week or two with barely any discussion and it was relisted recently with no discussion. I really don't think that anyone other than this one guy argues that the RCC is unnotable or a hoax and I'm concerned that it's going to be outstanding for a month or more. Alicb (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that! Well, since it was non-controversial, open nearly three weeks, and 100% in against the nominator, I closed it as keep. This thread, however, is still in danger of being held to ransom by his absence- I thought that's what you meant. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Yeah I think that we can keep discussing this here and hopefully the user in question will drop by with a reason shortly. I am not really sure if there is any policy basis for why this user thought that they could just change other people's comments like that though but I agree with the above that it will be interesting and fair to give them a chance to clarify. Alicb (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban. No longer possible to assume good faith on their part (not that it was particularly easy when they first appeared). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What sort of "ban" are you seeking? A community ban? For a currently unblocked account with 23 total edits? Please, explain. Doc talk 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm seeking an indefinite site ban, but I'm happy to consider other remedies that more experienced editors may find appropriate. Plainly, this case cannot rise to the standard of long-term abuse. But I think it's clear that this is an WP:SPA that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and that WP:GOODFAITH cannot be assumed. The stark contrast between this collegial olive branch and this falsification of Alicb's vote 2 minutes later suggests to me that patiently inducing this editor into the ways of Wikipedia will serve only to instruct them how better to WP:GAME the system. Does anyone really see a future in which this editor contributes positively to this project? Phil wink (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. I honestly don't have any idea what's going on with this guy. I can't tell if this is someone else making a new account just to do weird stuff or if it's a new user with an agenda or anything. The edits are rare enough that I don't actually care if this person is blocked or not in terms it interfering with my work on Wikipedia; I haven't had a chance to do much editing recently anyway due to work. However, it's pretty clear that this account is at least partly devoted to abuse so a ban is pretty reasonable. I don't know the policy around bannings (I've never been banned myself haha despite the efforts of you-know-who) but that's just my 2 cents. Alicb (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of placing a Do Not Archive template on this thread. It will expire in 15 days. Blackmane (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• This may (possibly) at first have been a new editor who sincerely was trying to edit constructively but did not understand how Wikipedia works. However, the falsifying of Alicb's comment was clearly deliberate, and at that point assuming good faith disappears. I have blocked the account indefinitely. The suggestion that "hopefully the user in question will drop by with a reason shortly" was a good one, but PoetryFan has not responded in over a week, and it is better to bring the matter to a close, rather than leaving it in the air. PoetryFan can request an unblock if and when he or she returns, and he or she can just as easily explain his or her actions at User talk:PoetryFan as here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if, as the original requester, I am now supposed to withdraw or modify my request, but suffice it to say that I am seeking no further remedies. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (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.

ECP - Remove manual AN posting requirement - and mass notice to admins

Putting out one last call for comments, please see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#ECP_-_Remove_manual_AN_posting_requirement - notice was also placed on policy pump when this started. There are 2 items being discussed: (1) Removing the "manual posting" here on AN for using this protection - which is not being done by anyone; (2) The draft of a mass message to send to all admins - describing what ECP is and the community expectations for usage. Your input to either one of these sections would be most appreciated! Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux, There is enough encouraging support there now to start a proper RfC on a dedicated sub page, otherwise it will just stagnate where it is at the moment, and probably a lot of admins (like me) will not use the new protection level if its rules for use are left in a controvesial limbo. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Will leave it anyone else to comment, but I think the discussion is sufficient - it has been well advertised and open for all input. I respect if you personally want to oppose change with out more paperwork - but I really just see this as codifying the status quo. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Osman bey and Seljuk Empire

Osman bey (talk · contribs) is a WP:DUCK. He constantly adds Modern Turkish spelling to Seljuq Empire, while it is completely irrelevant. It was discussed man many times on Wikipedia, the last one was here in the talk page. Seljuks neither spoke Modern Turkish nor used Latin alphabet. Many users similarly tried to add Modern Turkish spelling to this article and somehow connect Seljuq Empire with modern day Turkey. Please have a look at the history of the article. Most of them were Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and have been blocked. Most likely this user is also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. He made his first edit on 3 September 2016, and almost all of his edits are related to Seljuq Empire. His predecessor was User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu and he had exactly the same behavior. He was banned on 6 September. And User:Osman bey made his first edit in Seljuq Empire on 8 September. Most likely all of them belong to User:Blahhhas. He also tried to add Modern Turkish spelling to Seljuk Empire with different user accounts. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas/Archive is his checkuser page, which confirms some of his SP accounts. -- Kouhi (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Short of semi-protecting relevant articles (th only one you mention here is already semi-protected), thre's nothing to be done except at SPI. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kouhi, Osman bey was blocked as a sockpuppet 3½ hours ago, i.e. a few hours after you left this message. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK

The next queue has a penultimate blank entry. ("* That...?")

Template:Did you know/Queue/2

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

 DoneCommented out for an instantaneous fix, any of the DYK regulars can fix it further. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also left notice at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Queue_1 should anyone want to fix it further. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Spamming of Harambe continues

The spammers return --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

While I personally have my doubts on the "official" story of Harambe's execution, I think this kind of vandalism shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Do we know if the accounts and IPs spamming these pages/vandalising these pages are all one person or is it just a bunch of different people doing it? Either way I think a revert and a warning or a block may be in order. Alicb (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked several I think a lot is coming from schools, but not just in one area. Maybe we need an edit filter. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

With the prevalence the topic has had, I don't know how you guys haven't added it to an edit filter yet. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Filter 784, set to disallow edits, has been going for 6 weeks with nearly 3,000 hits. The example above is an outside case for which the filter might need a little tweaking (ping samtar and MusikAnimal who might have special insight into the particulars). The Harambe thing is just an Internet meme. Memes are popular with schoolkids. Schoolkids like to vandalise. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - zzuuzz is spot on with this being an outlying case (which is now fixed in the filter). Please feel free to report other incidents which get past the filter, either here or at the edit filter noticeboard -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention → AIV

I haven't seen AIV get this big of a backlog in quite some time. Would some friendly sysops care to wander over and clean up the mess, please? Some reports have been sitting for almost 7 hours... WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 03:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Credited for creating a page

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

---

I had already brought this up to the admin that deleted the page, however, wanted to get more input because I don't understand. The original page of American Horror Story (season 6) was moved by Talijaqueline to American Horror Story (Sweepstakes), but then realized the parentheses were wrong and then Talijaqueline moved the page to American Horror Story: Sweepstakes. I noticed that the first wasn't correct so I moved the page to American Horror Story: My Roanoke Nightmare at the same time the other user was moving the page to American Horror Story: Sweepstakes. How do I get credited for creating a deleted article? Especially the second one that was created that I didn't even touch. Shouldn't the other user get this credit? I find that quite unfair that I was trying to undo a mistake and got screwed for it. Chase (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused: what do you mean by "credit"? American Horror Story: Roanoke was created by CAWylie as a redirect (later expanded by someone else), and as far as I can tell, he's not touched the page since creating the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If we're getting credit for other editors' articles, can I have all of Drmies'...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Tell you what, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you can have Thanks Obama. Now beef it up and we'll see it at DYK. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am being credited for creating a deleted page; American Horror Story: Sweepstakes, after I moved a moved someone else created. Chase (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked under my Articles created X!'s tools tab in My Contributions, and, yes, American Horror Story: Roanoke is listed there, due to that being the current name of the original article title American Horror Story (season 6) that I created as a redirect, regardless of any work I haven't done on it since. The talkpage discussion seems to be leaning toward Roanoke as being its known name now, so anything done, moved, or deleted after is moot and not creditable as a "creation". However, American Horror Story: My Roanoke Nightmare by Dakotacoons is. — Wyliepedia 05:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is understanding what I am trying to say. The original page didn't have the subtitle, just (season 6), as the episode was playing a user that I have named above move the original page to the page American Horror Story (Sweepstakes). I noticed this and immediately knew she got it mixed up with the show naming a sweepstakes winner for being the subtitle. So I move the page to the actual (at the time) subtitle American Horror Story: My Roanoke Nightmare. After I did this, apparently that other user moved the page again, to American Horror Story: Sweepstakes Both of the ones the other users "created" I nominated for speedy deletion because they weren't plausible names. I then looked in my article creations and noticed I was being credited for creating American Horror Story: Sweepstakes. I didn't have anything to do with making this page. The other user did. Chase (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A) You created the redirect by moving the page. B) Anybody who holds having deleted pages or edits against you isn't someone whose opinion you should care about. —Cryptic 06:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought not having deleted pages was something that was good? I know I have been in a discussion before where I was trying to get a right and someone said I had a recentely deleted page and that was not good. Chase (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard such a thing. Either this person was going crazy, or you misunderstood something that was said. Going through my deleted contributions, I found that I have several thousand of them (many related to tagging articles for deletion, but many not), and anyone who complains that you've made edits to now-deleted pages, just because they're now deleted, is nuts. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What Nyttend said. We don't care about how many deleted pages you have. We care if you've created inappropriate pages that were subsequently deleted. That's not the case here. I haven't looked through my deleted contribs but I'm sure I have a couple thousand also. Don't worry about it. Katie^talk 13:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I could see one permission discussion where having recent deleted articles could be taken into account for denial of the permission. If someone is requesting auto patrolled and they have recently deleted pages, especially speedy deleted articles, it might have a bearing on whether they are given the right. It shouldn't be denied just because there are deleted articles. The content of the article, nature of the deletion, when they were created and other factors should come into the decision also. This redirect should have no bearing on any decision at all. -- GB fan 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the admin that deleted the redirect. The conversation the op is referring to is on my talk page. -- GB fan 15:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have between 4500 and 5000 deleted contribs, including a few articles, almost 10% of my contribs. I don't think anyone cares. If you tag a lot of speedy deletes, you get a lot of deleted contribs, for example. Same if you spend time trying to rehab articles at AFD. Both are good use of time yet generate deleted contribs. I don't know of any tools we admin have that could change the histories short of some really convoluted hist merge voodoo, which is a lot of work to accomplish nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Community ban for User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk · contribs) was indefintely blocked back in March, and since then has created dozens and dozens of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets, mainly to be used for edit-warring, personal attacks, harassment and threats. Based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"/Archive, the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. I think by now he's earned himself not only a block, but also a ban. For abusing the community's good faith and patience well beyond its limit, I am therefore suggesting a community ban.

• Support as the proposer. Sro23 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as one of the targets of said harassment. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 21:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As they have been quite the prolific sock master and this would be a de-facto ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This person is a clear detriment to the encyclopedia, its editors and users. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Might as well make it "official". Clearly clearly clearly NOTHERE and extremely disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Even before the block (or the account), they were only here to make a point, as seen by their behavior on eBay. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support for wasting...I don't know...I would love to see a scholarly estimate of how much community time. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As has been said many times above CLEARLY NOTHERE to contribute constructively to the project and has wasted a great deal of other editors' time and effort that could have been spent on more pressing matters.   Aloha27  talk  23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NOTHERE. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - as NOTHERE as they come. Jettison pronto. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 23:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. NgYShung ^huh? 05:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NOTHERE and good riddance! Favonian (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per NOTHERE. Chase (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a proposed wholesale replacement for the GamerGate controversy article. Should it be covered by 30/500 sanctions? The risk of votestacking is pretty obvious, and it's very likely at this point that support and oppose will bring in the usual suspects split along the usual lines. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, given the problems with this topic are so pervasive that even Talk:Gamergate controversy is covered by 30/500 restrictions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

I would support that as being a logical extension of the original Arb case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It will be an unusual case though. Will we permit all to edit Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Allowing will be a pain, but there is a bit of wisdom in letting the socks/canvassed and the like have a place they can talk as they are going to anyway. Better there in one place than all over the wiki. I would consider either option to be acceptable, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've commented over there. WP:ECP does not allow its usage in cases where disruption or sockpuppetry has not occurred and where semiprotection has failed to stop it, and I don't see any evidence of that. In addition, it has never been applied in the Wikipedia: namespace, and I'd rather not set that precedent. I don't like 500/30 as a means to stifle discussion except as a last resort. We have never applied 500/30 to discussions about the article taking place elsewhere. I think we can trust the closing admin to weigh the arguments appropriately. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: It does seem as though you're slightly outnumbered in your belief that the RfC regarding solely the Gamergate page is not a subpage of the Gamergate page. Might you be willing to enforce a decision where consensus seems to be against you, or simply stand aside that another person might? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I have no problem with that. If consensus disagrees with me I can respect and enforce that. I still think that applying 500/30 to Wikipedia: space is a bad precedent to set, but I will enforce whatever the community decides. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I supported is that that normally the RFC would be on the talk page itself, which is why I called it a natural extension. But I do understand The Wordsmith's concerns here about creep in applying the restriction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your reasons. As a compromise, what if we moved the page to Talk:Gamergate Controversy/Request for comment? Then the extendedconfirmed protection could appropriately be applied as an actual subpage and not a theoretical one, and we don't set the dangerous precedent I'm concerned about. Talk: subpages for RFCs have been done before. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind that idea. That removes a lot of problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied signatures

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

---

How does one deal with an editor who has copied the exact layout of their signature? Please see this discussion of me confronting TedEskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about copying the exact format of my own signature (Their signature: Ted|Eskey^?. My signature: Alex|The|Whovian^?.), that the editor then removed after personally attacking me after my polite request. The first occurrence of TedEskey using that particular styled signature was on August 30, 2016, when they replied to a comment by me at Talk:American Horror Story: Roanoke. I, however, have had this particular signature for almost a year now – the exact dates elude me, but an example of it exists back on January 7, 2016. Does WP:SIGFORGE account for this sort of situation? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen, TedEskey has attempted to remove this discussion not once, but twice. That means that they are quite aware of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No Actually Idiot, this mean I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT!!! PERIOD!!! THIS IS COMPLETELY STUPID AND A WASTE OF MY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TedEskey

Perhaps then, you shouldn't have stolen and copied another editor's signature, and used your own sense of creativity. And see the personal attacks - this editor obviously doesn't want to discuss or accept the consequences of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I DIDN'T STEAL YOUR SIGNATURE!!!!!! YOU KNOW WHAT MY TANK OF CARING ABOUT THIS OR YOU IS AT ZERO!!!!! I WILL NO LONGER BE ENGAGING IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE!!!! TedEskey

Such personal attacks should not be tolerated on this site. I recommend action taken against the violating user; perhaps then they'll learn to discuss issues civilly and to not steal other's original content. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to speak directly to whoever has read through this and waste their time on this small little man's pathetic complaints. If you look back at the original conversation, the conversation was never civil from the moment that the issue was addressed to me. I was approached with sarcasm and nastiness about the issue rather then civility and that is clearly reflected in the way that he said this, "A complete coincidence, I'm sure..." Now I've gone back and read your rules for the signature theft or whatever this falls under and in it it says that giving the benefit of the doubt should be employed so as not to start a conflict. I was not given the benefit of the doubt. I felt attacked by him and so I attacked back. He never treated with any civility and so therefore should not expect to get it back. TedEskey

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it was a coincidence. However, given that your first reply was an attack, I then assumed it was not a coincidence, and that you did in fact steal it from me. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't give me anything except sarcasm and I'm ignoring you. I don't see you Hellen Keller. Back to the person who has to read all of this: I didn't steal anything on purpose. I had no idea it was his original content or whatever he claimed it to be. I'm very new to editing on Wikipedia and I only really edit in American Horror Story. So the bottom line is this, I'll take whatever the punishment is for this but I had no idea that I stole anything from anyone. TedEskey

Never use another editor's signature. Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden. Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation. Editing the code of your signature to link it to another editor's user page is not permitted. It is also ineffective, as the change log of the page records the IP address and (if applicable) username of all editors; as such, any impersonators can easily be caught if the signature in the diff view differs from the editor's default signature. While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. If you encounter a user whose signature is disruptive or appears to be impersonating another account, it is appropriate to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this policy. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Wikipedia is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. SO WE ALL CAN READ THIS! Then, go and look back at the original conversation. I was not given that good faith assumption when he snakily said a coincidence I'm sure... TedEskey

Wait. So. Get me right here. You say that you copied it directly from the AHS talk page, you've admitted that yourself, from my comment, and then (obviously) changed the links to your own talk page and saved it as your signature. And you've also read the "Never use another editor's signature" section. Thank you for admitting that you stole it. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever dude, you're a bully and I have ZERO TIME for you!! YOU WIN!!!!!! OK?????!!!! I hope this makes you happy picking on someone who has very little editing experience on Wikipedia, and instead of trying to help them all you're doing is tearing them down, being horrible and abusive and mean to them, and not even helping them to see what they did wrong. I thought this was supposed to be a community of editors but clearly I was wrong. This site is elitist! So I'm backing out because I'm sick of dealing with a fight about NOTHING!! Goodbye, God Bless, and I hope this makes you happy. TedEskey.

I tried that, and you violently attacked me. Up to you. Bye. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And for the record and I will get the last word here, I promise, no you didn't! You were sarcastic and nasty to me and I didn't steal anything from you with the intention to hurt you. You on the other hand are a bully and just want to bully me into submission well you won. I only attacked because I was being attacked if you'd addressed this properly and politely towards me I wouldn't have attacked back. You get what give my friend. TedEskey — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. I asked you to change it. Politely. And you rudely told me where to go. Don't play the "new editor" card when you're just going around attacking people you disagree with. Hell, you even attempted to wipe away this discussion. Also. Learn how to write your posts in one go, and sign your posts properly. Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ewww You're just showing what kind of trash you are by continuing to bully me! Leave me alone! The discussion is closed, you won, wanna boot stomp some more???!!! TedEskey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Copying sig styles is not a policy violation. Period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OH WHAT?????????? WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the bully looses once again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEskey (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks ARE policy violations, so you need to go chill out and put this to bed. And fix your sig to something with a link in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:44, 18 September 2016 (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.

Harassment of User:AFlorence

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

---

Hello. I make Davod Farhadi article and @Doug Weller: delete it. Article was complete and only was stub. user Aflorence Wikipedia:Harassment my edites. I'm complaining.--Farhad2016 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi please see this Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets thanks Sharaky (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:.He wasnot answered. to sharaky: شاراکی جان اینجا ویکی انگلیسی است و مسائل فارسی را به اینجا نیاورید--Farhad2016 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

• • Maybe he was asleep. Or at church. Or busy. He isn't paid to do this, you just have to wait. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd replied, ec I guess that I missed. Anyway the editor has been CU blocked. As an aside, I'm just one of 4 editors who have A7 deleted the article. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:,@Bbb23:why am I block?--FarhadFarhad2016 (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• That was stupid. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)a

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.

Watchlist

I think it might be a good idea if a few more of us would add Kevin Cherkas and Draft:Kevin Cherkas to their watchlist. Agathoclea (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? If they're being repeatedly created and deleted then why not simply SALT them? GiantSnowman 07:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I believe in the good in people and see an outside chance that someday there might be a good article there. Anything else will be caught when the draft reappears on somebodies watchlist. It is not like are dealing with somebody intent on wasting admin time. In fact it looks like the editor in question has realized the futility of the matter. I just want to add a little failsafe. Agathoclea (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

At the top of this page it clearly states: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators". This isn't in that category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It affects Agathoclea, an administrator. - NQ (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I posted this here as I was only looking for volunteers with the ability to read deleted edits. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Salt the article for a year. Leave the draft unprotected. If a good draft is created, they can request it be moved into the mainspace at WP:UNPROTECT. Easy peasy. Katie^talk 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Done that now, though I feel a bit uneasy for that to be a) a little heavy handed and b) if there really is a problem - waiting 14 month does not appear the issue. Thanks all. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Rev/Del needed

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 person who has been spamming someones personal info on various ref desks for the last several days returned a few minutes ago at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thankfully Favonian took care of the page protection. Their edits and summaries may look like gibberish but they are using a substitution code and have linked to the article that allows people to crack it so their edits and summaries need the same R/D that has been performed in the past. Thanks for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 19 September 2016 (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 Range-block possible?

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.

---

Is an IP range block warranted and feasible in this situation? Static 50.107.50.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is presently blocked, by Admin Prolog, for one week for disruptive editing.

This blocked editor is evading his block, and continuing with his disruptive edits as you read this. (A few examples: Sept 17, Sept 18, Today, Also Today)

This editor has been blocked for block evasion before, by Admin NeilN here. He has also been blocked here by Admin Drmies, here by Admin Wifione and here by Admin Bbb23. This IP editor has caused articles to be temporarily (by HJ Mitchell here and again by Drmies here) semi-protected because of disruption. The IP has also been warned and instructed by numerous editors and Admins, including Bbb23 (here), DrFleischman and James Cage (here). The primary form of disruption, since mid-2014, is to dump large (25K or more) blocks of text about legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act into numerous articles. As articles were semi-protected in response, this disruption expanded to targeting random, unrelated articles. Additional disruption includes legal threats and vandalism, posting of phone numbers in edit summaries, and personal attacks on Admins as "conspirators" and "paid censors".

99% of the dynamic IP disruption over the past few months has come from this narrow range (see sample of disruptive IPs below). Is a range block feasible, or would it snare well-meaning editors?

173.67.158.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.172.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),

Your attention in this matter is appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

173.67.158.0/23 - Blocks 512 address but only hits 7 of the current addresses Contribs for range

173.67.160.0/20 - Blocks 4096 address but only hits 51 current addresses Contibs for range

Smaller ranges are available but youd be looking at 20+ ranges to cover them all. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the 125+ uses of the 173.67.128.0/18 range (covering all of these IPs) in the last 3 months, I see only 10 of the IPs used making possibly positive contributions. Given the extensive abuse, I don't see a soft block on the range being a problem.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up to my own message. I've reset the clock on the block of IP 50.107.50.51 for block evasion and soft-blocked 173.67.128.0/18 for the same one-week period.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

RfC of possible interest

Editors and administrators may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC about outing and blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

At it again

All of the ref desks are being spammed with the personal info again. Your attention on protecting and ref/del will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Os requested on IRC. I suggest these matters be dealt with off wiki. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention required

at Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions, where there is currently a 35-day backlog. Most of these are very easy closures, and any help would be appreciated -FASTILY 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

35? The oldest open discussion is from June 22nd. Pretty sure that is 87 days. --Majora (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the third time you've posted such a request here. You're welcome to ask for you bit back and help out too. —Cryptic 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Cryptic, thanks for the suggestion :) RL commitments leave me with so little time for Wikipedia, such that I am simply uncomfortable committing to any additional responsibilities. In the distant future perhaps, but definitely not anytime soon. Best, FASTILY 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we please have an early close to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#RFC: Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

Thirty editors have commented, it has been four days since the last !vote, there is a two to one consensus in the responses, yet the side that is in the minority insists[177][178] that after thirty days the closing admin will override the` majority on BLP grounds. Could be please have an uninvolved administrator make a ruling one way or the other on the BLP question and close the RfC? Thanks!

I will be posting a link to this section at the BLP noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is there a reason it needs to be closed early? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The murder of Seth Rich has become an issue in the current US election cycle, with comments by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and various other politicians on both sides. There are also a lot of conspiracy theories posted about it in the usual places. Those who have been working on the page all agree to not mention the conspiracy theories, but we are also leaving out important (meaning covered in depth by multiple reliable sources) basic facts about the case. Furthermore, it looks really silly to have a reference section with citations to articles in reliable sources titled

• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer", (Omaha World-Herald)
• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich". (The Daily Telegraph)
• "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer", (Washington Post)

in an article that does not mention Wikileaks. Also, we have a clear consensus at the RfC, and it isn't being followed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: thanks for explaining. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The above mischaracterizes what I wrote on Talk page which is for example here: "I'll be interested to see what an experienced admin does at the closing. Many of the !votes don't grapple with BLP and will probably be discounted. Decisions in WP are not made by raw tally but by reviewing policy-based arguments. But we'll see. "

Guy is kind of losing it over this issue. See this edit note and the edit made under it, and this comment and its edit note. See also the post here at AN, here. This all seems problematic with regard to the DSes on BLP and American politics. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy's description above about who reverted, is also just wrong. User:Herostratus who reverted Guy's addition of the content here (same dif provided by Guy above), actually !voted to include the content (see here). Per the edit note, Herostratus' reversion was purely on the grounds of waiting to see what happened in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs arguments have already been addressed by another editor on the article talk page[179] I have nothing to add to that excellent analysis. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs is correct, I reverted purely on procedural grounds. I hope the material i reverted ends up being included! But not until someone has said "I read the BLP rule, took a walk, read the rule again, considered precedent, considered the underlying spirit of the rule, considered our duty to be informative, considered that after all the main player here is actually dead, and so forth, and here's my ruling: _______________". Not until then.

That being said, an early close might be called for if someone wants to do it: I think the basic arguments have been laid out, and it's just going to turn contentious I think. Let's get a decision. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've glanced through this. The closing admin will have to consider the numbers, all the arguments and the policy position. I can see no reason to close it early. Better to let it run and see whether others comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It has now been over a week since anyone commented on the RfC, there still exists an overwhelming consensus, and the editors who had the consensus go against them are still willing to edit war to keep the article in a state that the consensus rejected until there is an official RfC close. Again I ask, will an uninvolved administrator please evaluate the results and close the RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I went ahead and closed it, and fully expect some on both sides to be disgruntled, although I feel comfortable the close safely reflects the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking your neck out! Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good close. I especially like the way you made it clear that the RfC was about addition of specific information and that we shouldn't try to piggyback other stuff on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis, the problem with the article is that it isn't really about Seth Rich. His death, if it was an ordinary criminal act (and there's no reason to assume otherwise), isn't notable enough for its own article. As you can see from the first version, the only thing that justifies the article's existence is the alleged connection to the leak. Arguably that allegation belongs instead in Julian Assange, WikiLeaks or 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak.
  We wouldn't host an article about a living person based only on a hint of something by Assange (or anyone else), and BLP extends that protection to the recently deceased. See WP:BDP:

The only exception [to the policy not applying to the deceased] would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends ...

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Slim, you wrote, "As you can see from the first version...." The first version doesn't seem relevant to me. We don't say at AfD, for example, that the first version had no cited sources, so delete — we instead consider the present and potential future versions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I agree. My point is that no one would have thought to create this were it not for the conspiracy theory and the hint by Assange. Remove that, and you have a sad crime in an allegedly high-crime area. The RfC was a kind of category mistake—what was really being discussed was whether the article should exist. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I felt the most I could do is what I did, narrow the scope of what was allowable to the strict wording of the RFC, and maybe an AFD is best to address that. One inch more on my part would have been a supervote. As to whether it should be an article at all or not, that is out of scope for that RFC. I respect your concerns and honestly have no opinion on the article itself, but I feel like I had no choice in the close and did so in a fashion that addressed the concerns as much as I could within the authority given a closer. The BLP concerns are real but I saw them and the opposition as insufficient to completely overcome the extremely strong support. Of course, I welcome an appeal at WP:AN if you feel I erred. I won't take it personal, accountability is part of the job. At this time, however, I have to stand by the original close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, I fully take your point about a supervote. I do think this is an error, but it's an error that lots of people are supporting, so it's tricky.

  Again, the question is: would the community have supported the same outcome were it a living person? I think the clear answer is no. If so, we ought not to support it for the recently deceased either. That's the policy position, and this is a core content policy, not something that local consensus can override. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  This is a catch 22. I don't know the whole story and all the details behind JA's reward and this death, so you certainly understand the ramifications better than I. In a way, that is why I can close it: I don't have opinions, so I don't have anything to inject into my close. If there is more at stake, again, I really don't take offense at a review. As for if the person was living, that isn't a strong argument because then there wouldn't be an article or the reward. That is more of an AFD argument, and a bit of a chicken and egg problem. I think I pushed the line hard in closing, almost saying "you can say one line of text only", forcing separate discussions for any other text because I could sense sincerity on the BLP side, although the addition isn't an actual statement about the person nor their character. To me (and as I understand BLP), these are slightly different shades of grey. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, I don't have opinions or detailed knowledge either. What seems to have happened is (a) someone was killed during a mugging; (b) because that person worked for the DNC, Twitter started producing conspiracy theories about the death and the DNC email leaks; (c) Assange joined in saying: "we'll offer a reward for information, not that we're saying we know this person"; (d) someone created a WP bio. That's all I know, but looking around for RS, there doesn't seem to be more to it than that.

  The living-person analogy is indeed a strong argument. If someone were to create a BLP based on Twitter and Assange (obviously not about a shooting death), it would be deleted/redirected without hesitation. You're right that the RfC is more of an AfD question; that's why I called the RfC a category mistake. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that Steve Quinn has started a discussion about this at User talk:MastCell#RFC close. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Before people overwhelm that talk page - this is not a discussion about the RFC. This not the proper venue for challenging an RFC. There are proper channels and this isn't it. Right now I have decided not to pursue this, having gotten comfortable with the RFC decision. I doubt User:MastCell would appreciate having his talk page overwhelmed with a discussion that does not belong there. If anyone wants to challenge the RFC then please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but please discuss with the closing Admin first. Therefore, SV's statement is not correct. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Steve, I'm not sure which of my points you're saying is not correct. This is indeed the correct place for a discussion about the RfC, although a discussion with the closing admin can take place anywhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Since this is an informal discussion and not an actual challenge, this section at WP:AN is indeed the best place since it is so public. This way I don't have to answer the same question twice. Obviously I will answer reasonable questions or concerns put before me, and fortunately, everyone on every page that I've seen has been civil, even if they disagree with my conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, my question is this: how would you have approached this if Seth Rich had been badly injured—so badly that he was unable to respond to press inquiries—but had not died during the shooting?

  Suppose that everything else is the same (including that WikiLeaks put up an award for information about the shooting), but that the page is a BLP. It seems to me that a BLP of this kind would have gone straight to AfD and would have been deleted, because without the WikiLeaks innuendo, the subject isn't notable enough, and with the innuendo, the article is a BLP violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  The problem with hypothetical scenarios is they are seldom useful or verifiable. If the circumstances were different, it is easy to assume those different circumstances would have influenced the votes and the close as well. That is the key, the votes would have changed as well. I don't claim to know how, given your scenario. The same is true about whether or not it would have gone to AFD. Honestly, that possibility didn't enter my mind when I did the close.....and it shouldn't have. My job wasn't to decide the fate of the entire article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  The point of the thought experiment is to highlight that the actual and hypothetical situations do not differ in any editorially significant way. We wouldn't allow this article to exist if it were about a living person, and the BLP policy does not distinguish between the living and recently deceased.

  I'm sorry, Dennis, I think this was a difficult close, and that it should have been left open for 30 days and advertised centrally to attract more comments. I also think the close should have addressed whether what was really being examined was whether the article should exist. I do take your point about the importance of avoiding a supervote, but sending it to AfD would have been one way to explore whether the article violates policy. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  You realize that it's already been to AfD, right?[180]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Anythingyouwant, thank you, I hadn't realized that; I haven't looked into this in any depth. I wonder how Sandstein views the argument that this is a BLP violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, no problem. There was also a BLPN discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• i want to pick up on what User:SlimVirgin said above about the close of the AfD. Sandstein's close didn't mention, much less nod, to BLP, but of the 16 delete !votes (including the nomination, the ones below explicitly mentioned WP:CRIME which in turn refers to WP:BLP1E, or to BLP1E itself, or WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE which is a BLP thing:
  • Volunteer Marek; Krelnick citing VM; Platypus of Doom citing VM; Geogene citing VM; Valeince citing VM and NOTNEWS arguments; Calton; Lipsquid citing VM; Steve Quinn; Four Violas also with WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE;
  • it is implicit (not explicit) in the nomination: "It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder"

• • Arguments mentioning BLP issues outside of !votes: Volunteer Marek also addressed the privacy issue with the parents asking to keep their son out of this conspiracy theorizing; here; Savenoux brought up BLP1 - their original rationale had been NOTNEWS.

i'll also that an interesting argument was made here that article is not a biography but rather is about the crime; same argument made differently here

In any case, 10 of the 16 delete !votes and some discussion focused on BLP issues; the other delete !votes focused on other arguments. I think the close should have addressed the BLP issues.

So I guess I am asking User:Sandstein to reconsider their AfD close. If that isn't appropriate (and after all this time I could see how folks would say that), input on whether or not a new AfD would be appropriate would be welcome. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a determining issue at least in the deletion discussion, in my view. To the extent it even applies – per WP:BDP, it "can" apply to recently deceased persons, which is to say that it does not necessarily apply in all such cases – it appears that the issue whose mention seems to be controversial, i.e., the reward promised by the Wikileaks organization, is reliably sourced and seems therefore to meet the standards of WP:BLP. The issue of whether to mention this reward, and any associated theories, etc., is an editorial issue about which editors must find consensus by taking into account WP:BLP (if they consider it applicable), WP:V, and other content policies and guidelines. But this is certainly not a case where WP:BLP compliance mandates the deletion of the article without regard to the consensus (or lack thereof) emerging from the AfD discussion, so I did not – and still do not – consider it necessary to mention in the closure of the (first) AfD.  Sandstein  08:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the opinions expressed in the AfD: in my reading, they were mostly concerned with notability, which is a matter of editorial judgment. This applies even where they referenced WP:BLP1E, because that rule together with WP:BIO1E basically expresses a special notability constraint for both dead and living people. The opinions mostly did not voice "genuine" BLP concerns, i.e., the need to verify content about living persons particularly thoroughly.  Sandstein  08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My take on the applicability of BLP in the RFC is exactly as Sandstein has stated here, although due to the differences in AFD and RFC, we had to consider different elements. Properly sourced inclusion isn't a clear cut BLP violation, thus it is an editorial decision subject to the consensus of the community and their read of BLP, and not something the closer can decide in a closing supervote. For the record, I had not read the AFD before closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You hoped we would give it more weight, but Sandstein and I independently came to a similar conclusion regarding one of the key elements in this article. We are two experienced admin who seldom cross paths, so there is no "group think" at work. This isn't the place to re-argue the RFC nor talk about BLP or GNG in general nor make points about renaming. I've answered the questions I could and I don't think anyone is going to file a formal challenge, although they are free to, keeping in mind that formal challenge can't re-argue the case and can only consider my close and whether it was a reasonable interpretation of consensus and policy. At some point, you just accept that a majority of people disagree with you. We are all on the losing side of consensus from time to time. None of us are immune, we just lick our wounds and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your reaction. I said nothing about "Group think". As I understand it this has been designated as venue for discussion. I didn't say anything about anybody changing their mind. I asked some general questions preceded by necessary commentary. This has nothing to do with the majority of people disagreeing with me. All I am asking is if I have valid points. I can continue to talk about BLP and GNG because this has been designated for discussion, and because GNG and BLP have already been discussed above. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I redacted my post. I really wasn't intending to offend anybody, nor challenge any decisions. I did not think this would be interpreted that way. I think the RFC decision was an excellent decision based on the intensity of the RFC. It is in the top tier for being circumspect. I don't recall my feelings on the AfD - it seems so long ago. And I appreciate the closing Admins elaborating on their decisions. I apologize for approaching this the wrong way. Lastly, my sense is this is not the appropriate place for my question - so, I apologize for that. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just wanted to show that more than one admin viewed the BLP issue in a similar light, and that we don't know each other very well, so the opinions are really very independent. I don't mind specific questions, but most have been asked. It was a heated RFC and I guess AFD. It wasn't a simple close, I spent a great deal of time on it, knowing that people really care about this subject, and I'm trying to be helpful and attentive in responding to concerns here as well. I know all too well how it feels to be on the losing side of consensus for a topic I care deeply about, I empathize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sandstein and User:Dennis Brown thanks for your explanations. I hear them. I am pretty confused as to where the community stands on some aspects of BLP issues these days. We just went through an arbcom case driven by people screaming BLP bloody murder over an april fool's day joke outside of mainspace about a very public figure; here we have an article in mainspace about a recently murdered nobody whose only notability is based on julian assange's slimey action of "linking" the murder victim to the DNC email leak (see the video here if you haven't - just the first one and a half minutes is all you need - the dutch TV interviewer is just incredulous and asks Assange pointblank, "are you really saying X?" ); and the parents have pleaded with folks not to drag their dead son (and them) through all this conspiracy theorizing. This is what WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E were written for, as far as I can see.

I really don't understand where we are, as a community, on some applications of BLP. But so it goes.

And Sandstein, i took time to actually quantify the delete !votes that explicitly dealt with BLP in the AfD (which is what I asked you about; I didn't ask about the RfC). BLP-based objections were objectively the most common basis for deletion !votes. Your response above about "not a determining issue at least in the deletion discussion, in my view. " is fine, but in my view, for your close to be sustainable, it needs to actually address the most prevalent deletion rationale. Again I will ask you to amend your close. As I noted above, applications of BLP seem to be somewhat unstable now (maybe that always happens during the election season?) and an explicit addressing of the BLP issues at stake in this article would be useful. Please consider doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To underline this a bit more. Newspapers don't have a BLP policy. We do.

• Here in the entirety of what the NYT had to say about this matter: "WikiLeaks, the group that put out the D.N.C. emails publicly last month, interjected itself into the hacking case again this week when it offered a $20,000 reward for information on the shooting death last month of a former D.N.C. staff member, Seth Rich, outside his Washington home. His killing fueled speculation on the internet that he was somehow tied to the hacked emails, but the police have not given any credence to that speculation.
  The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has made it clear that he would like to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House, opposing her candidacy on policy and personal grounds. He has hinted that he has more material about the presidential campaign that he could release."

• here is the entirety of what the LA times has had to say, which is in a slide show on Assange (around slide 20 - source text is view-source:http://latimes-politics-chatter.latimes.com/politics-talk/slideshow/transparency-treachery-career-wikileaks-julian-assange/ if you just want to control-f it)

Hints of murder (right after a slide called (ahem) "Causing personal problems for nongovernmental people")

"While discussing the DNC leaks, Assange appeared to suggest that a DNC staffer named Seth Rich was murdered in connection to the leaks, potentially implicating the dead man as a source -- something Assange says his organization does not do. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington,” Assange said on a Dutch program, per BuzzFeed. Rich was killed walking to his apartment in what police said was an attempted robbery and Rich’s family asked Assange not “to politicize this horrible tragedy.”

So the best of mainstream media knows how to deal with this sort of BLP thing but we can't - and it is not even discussed in the close of the AfD. This is not good. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't amend my AfD closure, as there is currently a second AfD going on, and anything that needs saying can be said there.  Sandstein  09:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Sandstein. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• for anybody who cares, 2nd AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)