Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280

Rfc needs closure at Time Person of the Year

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

---

Would an un-involved administrator please close the Feb Rfc at that article? thanks. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's a simple close. 8 people preferred to remove a column, 8 people preferred not to. It's no consensus. It's just that SOMEBODY needs to close it. It doesn't even need to be an admin. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:29, 13 April 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.

Wayne High School

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 am Ryen Wilson and I don't approve of what was written about me on Wayne High School (Indiana) article. I tried to delete it but it was soon changed back. Please remove what was said about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWilson1985 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need your approval. And if you are indeed Ryen Wilson, then what Wikipedia says seems to be the least of your problems. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should be scaled back significantly. While it concerns a teacher who was convicted (not merely charged) with child seduction, it's very recent, and dedicating 5 sentences of a 6 sentence lede strikes me as violating WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

RWilson1985 Wikipedia reports what's been reliably reported, and it's sometimes not what the subject of the article would like. The source is a reliable news source so it meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing . However, your | edit summary does not meet Wikipedia's Civility Requirements . Please use more precise edit summaries, stating why you're removing information. KoshVorlon 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They got broadband in Indiana State Pen?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest Kosh, while it can be reliably (if you consider a couple of local news channels and the Daily Mail reliable) sourced, should it be? The event has no lasting notability, Wilson would not qualify under GNG and would be disqualified under BLP1E for an article of his own. Essentially this paints the school in a bad light for having the misfortune to hire someone of loose morals. I would be tempted to nuke it on Undue grounds alone from the school's article. (Of course this is a result of every fucking high school in existance being 'notable' despite having little encyclopedic value, so *anything* that actually makes the news ends up in the article.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: He wasn't convicted, he pleaded guilty. Please strike. I see from your user page that you're also an American, so you should already be aware that plea bargaining here has at best only a smirking acquaintance with justice. —Cryptic 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Pleading guilty, if accepted by the judge, is still a conviction. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's at the very least imprecise and misleading. —Cryptic 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I won't be striking. A plea resulted in a conviction followed by a sentencing. I apologize if you consider the difference between a conviction resulting from a verdict and a conviction resulting from a guilty plea to somehow be significant for BLP purposes, but in this case you're mistaken. What I said was not imprecise or inappropriate per BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The info is BLP1E material and should not be reintroduced. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A pattern of conduct leading to a 4 year prison sentence is not a 1event. If we apply the standard that way we would delete thousands of parts of pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't? The example used on the WP:BLP1E policy page is that of someone who is still without their liberty more than thirty-five years later. The policy page specifies that he is notable because "the single event he was associated with ... was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented". This one fails to meet some of those criteria. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 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.

I'd just like to point out that Wilson is not the "subject of the article" as Kosh states above, the High School is the subject of the article. I also think it is WP:UNDUE to single out this one individual when this person received significant local coverage as well. And Indiana has had dozens of teacher sexual misconduct cases, what makes this case such a notable event that an entire section is devoted to it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

notification

Please give notification to user for this comment which is a clear personl attcakWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

World Cup 2010, the link provided pertaining the Announcement of Establishment of Iranian Biofuel Society (IBS) in the Official Newspaper of Iran was a very valid reference."آگهی تاسیس: وبگاه روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران".. This could be also verified by any Farsi speaking Wikipedia Editors. کاربر:تهراني ها,(User page on Farsi Wikipedia), who originally created this page on Farsi Wikipedia "روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران". could be contacted to verify the authenticity of this claim (and the above-mentioned Link). You were also informed of similar pages on English Wikipedia about Iranian Academic Societies under the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (Iran), i.e., Linguistics Society of Iran. User: Hamid Hassani who has made more than 14,000 contributions to English Wikipedia and has also edited this page once could be contacted to verify this. It is unfortunate that although your profile at World Cup 2010, indicates that you know Farsi near Native level and therefore, you could have easily investigated the references provided and could have tried to improve the page on the Wikipedia accordingly, instead you ignored the explanations and references provided on the Talk page and posted a note implying that "None of the References introduced by this user is valid". Given the fact mentioned about your profile, i.e., level of proficiency in Farsi, this might have misled the other Editors who are not Farsi speakers. Anyway, please bear in mind that we all strive to improve English Wikipedia and that nothing is personal here. Wikipedia Editors regardless of their years of presence and number of contributions are advised to try to verify the references provided very carefully before trying to nominate pages for speedy deletion. They are also advised to try to talk to each other on the Talk page of articles with an aim to strengthen the editorial community. Meisam tab (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Banned editor continues to WP:EVADE

Notice: Banned editor continues to evade with pointless posts at WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities & Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I'm sorta tired of dealing with this individual these last few weeks. So good luck. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA Nom Reviews

About a year ago I put out a message offering to review potential candidates for an RfA nom. I had about a dozen responses and I provided a detailed and thoroughly researched response to each and every one. I'm once again offering to conduct a review for anyone interested. Feel free to email me using the link to the left of my user page.--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, we also got this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS seeking applicants

Hello! Have you ever thought about expanding the way you assist the Wikimedia movement? Did you know there are several off-wiki ways to do so? I am posting this information in efforts to get more people on our Volunteer response team. Currently, we're in the process of working on some heavy backlogs on info-en queues, as well as others. As an info-en volunteer, you will handle tickets from readers, editors, veteran users and others. Some emails are quick and easy - such as typos or simple minor corrections. Other emails are more difficult such as ones dealing with BLPs as we are frequently emailed by the subjects of our articles. If you are interested in learning more about the OTRS team, please see m:OTRS. On these pages you will find a lot of information. If you are interested, feel free to apply on Meta. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or post here. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How has the English Wikipedia usually dealt with G7 annihilation requests?

Could someone please point me to a policy or discussion on cases where a single user wants to retire and asks the administrators to delete all the articles that they have ever created (using the speedy deletion criterion G7)? We are discussing this on the Finnish Wikipedia, and I'm sure you guys have received several requests of this kind and have an established policy how to deal with such requests. --Pxos (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pxos: No such thing, Users DO NOT own articles they create. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

G7 only applies in cases where the requesting editor is the only party to make substantive edits to the page, and even then, can be denied because editors don't WP:OWN the pages. In your example, I presume many of the retiring editor's started pages were subsequently edited by other users. I would also question the good faith nature of such a request, since pretty much the only logical reason to request that everything be deleted is that you are going off in a huff. So if I was met with such a request here, my response would be "that ain't gonna happen, bub". Resolute 16:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There's some (very, very old) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion). —Cryptic 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia would handle that by saying "Thank you for your contributions, we'll cherish them. Caio."--v/r - TP 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

YSupport Renaming our 'delete' to 'annihilate' . — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if that would get more people to run for RfAs! ansh666 06:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, deleting an article in Finnish Wikipedia is simply called "removing" since the Finnish language does not actually have an exact word for "deletion". As the angry user has already requested that "an eternal block" be imposed upon him and that every single article, where he is the sole contributor, be removed from Wikipedia, I thought the word "annihilate" would be suitable for the occasion. --Pxos (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

G7 is often used when people realise a problem, and want to avoid embarrassment of some other deletion reason. But in the case of an angry user trying to raze everything they did, the material would likely be kept, and so the G7 should be declined if there was any value in the articles. For user pages you can accept the delete nomination though. If some articles do get deleted, by different admins not aware of the situation, then it should be OK to restore them again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that CSD doesn't promise that any page written all by a single user will be deleted under request of that user; it only says that an admin may do so. While an admin will generally decline a request which technically meets these requirements if (s)he has a good reason, a user trying to erase all of his/her edits would probably be such a reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, of course, the recent events when an angry coder asked all of his code be removed from the repository and subsequently broke the internet. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent AN/I close

Requesting review of the closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System (which has since been archived here) per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Limiting my comment to that neutral statement at this time, though I'll answer questions if pinged.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close @Godsy: Why are you challenging the close of an ANI discussion that was started on 28 March 2016 and where none of your proposals have got anywhere near consensus? The ANI discussion has established that some people support (almost) all material being retained in user space and some don't—there is no prospect of more than that being achieved at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close I am pretty sure that the community has made progress since then in that they have started an RFC on the topic. I see very little value in revisiting an old drama thread. You have not even presented a basis for reviewing it, which part don't you like? HighInBC 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close The first question you need to ask is 'Would another party have closed it with a different result?'. It is highly unlikely anyone would in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq and HighInBC:"Godsy is just going to keep opening alternate proposals until they exhaust the community's patience (learn to drop the stick)" is the part I took issue with. If the close had simply stated that there was no consensus, and linked the relevant RfC, it would have been reasonable (and would have pushed IAR far enough). My issue was with an involved administrator who directly disagreed with me in the last subsection and was involved in the actual page move matter to an extent leaving commentary regarding me in the close. If it had been a neutral third party making those statements, while it would have still been inaccurate, I could have dealt with it (perhaps some self reflection would have been due). I didn't bring this to AN/I. I did open a couple subsections and provided evidence that the user who did start the thread regarding my actions engaged in canvassing and personal attacks, and I opened one alternative proposal for sanctions against said user as the thread completely boomeranged against them (my actions are barely discussed by anyone except the one who opened the thread). I had no intention of suggesting any more proposals (The closer didn't even say it seems that I would keep doing that, they stated what I would do). I understand the whole thing is convoluted, but; It doesn't seems like the closer properly read all the sections, or else they couldn't set aside their own bias. The close shouldn't stand. The closer is free to express their opinion about me, but given the circumstances, in the text of the close is not the place. If the part I quote above of the close is stricken, I'll withdraw my objection.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Step 1 in dispute resolution is discussing the dispute with the person you're in a dispute with. Give it a rest. No one is interested in dragging this issue out any longer. Drop the stick.--v/r - TP 19:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @TParis: IAR close, why not an IAR (to a much lesser extent) review?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You know what, you do whatever you feel is necessary. I'm not even interested. You have a serious problem with letting things go and I'm not even going to engage you on this any longer.--v/r - TP 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Whoever closes it the outcome's gonna be the same and as noted above your proposals haven't got anywhere, I would strongly suggest you drop what ever stick you have with LP and just move on. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of consensus and a pragmatic close of a discussion that wasn't going to achieve anything more. I can't see anyone else closing it significantly differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn close. I am completely uninvolved, was unaware of all of this, generally don't participate here, and am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here (if not, mark this as a Comment instead). But I read all of the now-archived Godsy Disruption thread and I do think Godsy is right: the personally-directed language in the close was wrong, and it was especially wrong that an involved editor closed it that way (note maybe only involved editors would speak that way). Godsy was bashed by automatic edit summary in every edit to the entire meanly-named discussion. And it is mean and inappropriate to bash them in all other ways during the proceeding. To me the underlying actions of Legacy-whoever seem bad, it seems to me that Godsy was right about that being gaming that should not be allowed. It's not clear to me that the underlying actions by Godsy's to return pages to userspace were "wrong", as I am not sure if realistically those could have been proposed and addressed as a batch anywhere. All the actions that are manufacturing work by others--such as creating fake AFDs where real editors are to waste time judging quality of drafts that no one really supports--seem awful. About the proceeding, by my reading, Godsy made one proposal that was a stretch, the last one which proposed sanctions, and they were taken to task for doing that as a highly involved party. Okay fine they got some grief there. It is hypocritical to dictate that only uninvolved editors should propose anything serious of one type, then as an involved editor perform something else serious in a mean way (closing the discussion with a mean, unjustified personally-addressed statement). And, to all of you, why deny giving some respect to Godsy, who seems multiple times victimized in this, by not acknowledging the closing's wording was mean and unnecessary. Neither Godsy nor I are seeking continued discussion there, what's sought is just a revised close by someone else. Now that it has been archived some might assert nothing can be done, but obviously here one could get semi-agreement on an alternate close wording and then go and edit the archived thread (with link to this discussion). I hope this is helpful. --doncram 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're entitled to that opinion, but in mine, Godsy instigated at every turn. And yes, editors get a !vote here. In fact, editors can close issues here as well. If you want to reclose that topic from your perspective, be my guest. My point is, nothing is going to happen, let's move on.--v/r - TP 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram: Re "...am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here". Yep, it's community consensus that counts, and we're all supposed to be equal in that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reclosed with neutral edit summary [1]. NE Ent 11:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment to Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)

Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:

• The two-way interaction bans with The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) enacted in a September 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case.
• A two-way interaction ban with Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) is enacted in accordance with the Race and intelligence case review.

This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.

Support - Callanecc, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis

Abstain - Casliber

Not voting - DeltaQuad, DGG, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment to the Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)

Reedley International School

Reedley International School reads like an advertisment. Just letting you admins know about this. --86.177.178.49 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It sure does, even though some of the worst fluff was removed in 2011.[2] It's too old for me to feel comfortable speedying it, but I've prodded. Domo arrigato, Mr IP. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

This is the second IP on an administrator's noticeboard in a week not to get blocked. I think we might have a serious issue going on here. Anon's can't just come to an administrator's board without the overarching threat of blockage - that's unheard of!--v/r - TP 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Said the guy who only comes around when the expiration date on his admin tools is approaching. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, was it that obvious?--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with anons coming to any of our noticeboards, including this one. If we really wanted them to keep away, we would have permanently semi-protected the page. The fact that many IP edits here are either disruptive or WP:FOOTSHOT doesn't mean that they all are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the joke.... Blackmane (talk)

Coordinated strike/raid at Supreme (clothing)

Resolved

 – Page was semi-protected about 20 minutes after this post was made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Between vandalism and reversal there's now some 150 edits or so in the past 2h at Supreme (clothing). Appears to be a coordinated strike, considering the sheer amount of just-created rednamed accounts involved who are focused solely or primarily on this specific article. (Considering the simultaneous editing of these accounts, a one-man-sockpuppet-raid seems...unlikely, though not impossible) Some IPs are involved too.

Could an administrator please protect the article and block the wave-upon-wave of rednamed accounts and IPs intent on vandalizing the article? AIV and RPP are both backlogged; a report to the latter has been in place for over an hour, and at least one of the accounts has been at AIV for around the same time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Already handled. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland

@Nyttend: seems to have become inactive administering the interaction ban between me and three others. I've had no response to several emails, and the interaction ban seems to have fallen by the wayside. I don't know what's going on, but perhaps the easiest fix would be for another admin to take over supervision of the interaction ban? I hate to have to post this considering the replies it will attract, but I've gotten nowhere with email. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's because, frankly, I'm tired of dealing with everyone's petty arguing. I can handle it if you want me to enforce the ban literally. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Petty arguing is the reason these bans happen. It seems like anyone who has no desire to be involved in these kinds of disputes should let someone else administer interaction bans. And anyway it's not fair to you to have to do this indefinitely. Why not let someone else take a turn? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Spacecowboy420 went to Anthony Appleyard's talk page and requested that he revert my edits on Dodge Tomahawk. He said he didn't know who made the change, yet he also said he couldn't talk about it because of the interaction ban, indicating he had checked the page history and seen that of course it was me, and he is banned from reverting my edits. I see this as a blatant violation of the interaction ban. Spacecowboy420 is not supposed to follow me around and revert my changes, nor is he supposed to slyly talk around whose edits he is having reverted. This is after several previous violations, such as Spacecowboy420 reverting our previously discussed criteria for List of fastest production motorcycles, removing the street legal requirement. I don't understand how he can do that if he knows that he and I previously couldn't agree on it. He's taking advantage of the ban to make changes and I can't respond. Yet if I overrule his old objections on Dodge Tomahawk, then he is allowed to come along and revert me? How is that possible?

  72bikers did the same thing when he deleted my source Legendary Motorcycles on List of fastest production motorcycles, even though he knows I told him I added the source and checked it myself. He says "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing I can't do anything about it.

  I don't think Nyttend is willing to take action to enforce the interaction ban, because he simply finds it unpleasant to deal with. He also doesn't check his email, for some reason. I think he should have told everyone before he became the ban admin that he never checks his email, and someone who does could have been chosen instead.

  So what's next? Can we please have a new admin for this interaction ban? Is my only other option to go to Arbcom? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why admins hate iBans. Nyttend, you have my sympathy. Bratland, if someone doesn't respond to email, that doesn't mean they don't check it: they may just be tired of the person sending them. Now, if you want anything done, you're going to have to a. be kind to your reader b. provide the proper diffs. And leave ArbCom out of it, unless you really want to experience what it's like not to get your emails responded to. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't accuse me of making things up. The reason I know Nyttend doesn't check email is because Nyttend told me very clearly that he does not check email. You have to pester him every single time you email him, and if he chooses to ignore you then you have no idea if he even saw your message. Since the use of email is an integral part of how ibans are administered, telling everyone up front that you don't check your email would have been a courtesy, to say the least. If Nyttend hates dealing with ibans, he should never have volunteered himself for the task. Wikipedia is not compulsory.

      I've stopped providing diffs unless they have been specifically asked for. I've found that any time I offer unsolicited diffs, I'm immediately told, "I don't have time to read all those diffs!" You yourself, Drmies, said exactly that to me, the last time I took the initiative to collect a large number of diffs for you to see. It's either, "Sorry, but where's your diffs?" or "Sorry, too busy to look at all your diffs!" Can't win, eh?

      So if you, or someone else, is telling me now that you intend to investigate the issues I've raised, and you will in fact read the diffs I provide, then I'll spend the time collecting them and posting them here. But I am tired of providing diffs only to be ignored. So is anyone willing to look into this? Or not? Sorry if I sound frustrated but I'm tired of being insulted and dismissed by admins who don't like doing the job of admins. I'm not the problem here. The problem is a widespread failure to enforce basic community standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland as I have no recollection of what you are accusing me of, and can find no evidence in the Revision history on the List of fastest production motorcycles page. Would you be so kind as to actually show some evidence with the diff. Also I would like to point out it is you who are breaking the iBan with your repeated petty emails such as here [3] in that you were asked to stop sending emails. About my edit here [4] of things that are not iban violations or any wrong doing. And I believe you were already warned about this type of behavior and that you would receive a block if continued here [5] and here [6]So would you be so kind as to show were I deleted your source Legendary Motorcycles. Were I know you told me you added the source. And were I state "I haven't seen this source" and deletes your source. If you would please thank you. 72bikers (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Right here.

  Please go away. If there is a good reason to involve you in any discussions, you will be notified. Nobody wants you to resume bickering. Nobody asked you to come here and argue with me about things I said to someone else. That's why there is an iban in effect. Please respect it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Mr bratland respectfully what you are saying to someone else is accusing me of breaking the iBan. I was told by a admin that I could come here and ask you to show the evidence of what you are on here accusing me of. Respectfully what your diff shows is not iBan related or is it referencing what you have stated I have done. It does not show me removing your source Legendary Motorcycles nor does it show me saying "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing you can't do anything about it. All that diff shows is you saying to me on a unrelated subject other than what you are accusing me of ,that references do not need to be online to reference them. And I know and acknowledge this fact as I use and list references from service manuals and magazines in print I subscribe to. If you made a mistake listing this diff as your reference. I would respectfully ask you again to show the diff of what you are on here accusing me of please thank you. 72bikers (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I note the diff given above is dated November last year, and the IBAN began in February this year. Just reminding all parties that IBANs aren't retrospective. --Pete (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit looks like a clear violation, however. Editors are prohibited from referring or responding to each other except in the process of appealling to an administrator for enforcement of the ban. I'd like an admin to rule on this, please. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

Request for the removal of User:Vanjagenije as an administrator

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 posted this on request for arbitration and was told by one administrator I should first post it here. So here it is.

1. While editing Saint Thomas Christians article I encountered a disruptive user Jossyys who was commenting as a sockpuppet with 117.196.150.216. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jossyys for evidence of sockpuppetry.

2. An edit war7 ensued and was reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.196.150.216_reported_by_User:Josslined_.28Result:_Semi.29

3. Meanwhile 117.196.150.216 reported me of sockpuppetry. I had inadvertently been logged out when I made some edits.

6. Vanjagenije blocked both me and my shared IP address 192.76.8.34 for 3 days.

7. In my appeal I clarified that I had been inadvertently logged out and provided detailed evidence proving I had taken ownership of my edits on the talk page almost immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined

8. Vanjagenije removed the block for sockpuppetry but found a pretext to put into place the same block-'edit-warring'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Josslined

He did not lift nor change the reason for the block for my IP address 192.76.8.34, nor change the status on the sockpuppetry case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josslined/Archive

(The edit warring incident had already been adjudicated above- to make the page semi-protected so people could discuss which I had engaged in. Others who engaged in edit warring who had reverted more times than me and refused to engage in discussion did not receive blocks. Me being blocked was a case of finding an offense to fit the punishment wrongly given previously. It makes no sense that the person who at least tried to follow the guidelines gets the punishment).

9. I had made 4 reverts- I had wrongly interpreted the 3RR rule to mean 3 reverts of a single user. I had reverted user 117.213.58.242 once in addition to user 117.196.150.216 thrice (both are likely sockpuppets)

10. Vanjagenije refused to engage with my appeal that a 3 day block was not justified for edit warring my case nor was based on Wikipedia Guidlines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Administrator_instructions#Results

See particularly: ""If the admin decides a block is warranted, then they must take into account the user's past history of edit warring (by checking their block log), if any, and the severity of the 3RR violation." [Emphasis added]

See my full appeal of this block on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined (second block appeal).

72 hour block was clearly excessive given:

- I broke the 3RR rule by mistake. - I tried to discuss with the opponent. - I am a new user with no history of edit warring. - I let the page stand as my opponent's version and stopped the edit warring. - My opponent was not blocked for more reversals than me and the page was semi-protected.

11. Vanjagenije has proven incapable to administrate wikipedia properly:

1. They can not follow the guidelines or refuses to do so, either out of incompetence or an ego trip. 2. They can not admit they made a wrong ruling nor revert their punishment. 3. They are easily manipulated by a disruptive users- such as Jossyys through false sockpuppetry accusations.

Josslined (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Administrator note} I refactored all of the user links above to use {{u}} instead of stylistic links that appear like signatures. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely no reason to remove tools from the admin. only (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @ only (talk) In which case I'm sure he/she will be able to demonstrate how they followed the guidlines: "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."" Not a single word was followed. Is there accountability for admins or isn't there? Does the system run because brown nosers protect them? All unanswered questions. I am quite confident that reason and evidence have little bearing on this system, much less than relationships and inertia. But lets see. Josslined (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • What policy has he broken and misused the tools for? I don't see any policies that were violated. Remember, guidelines and policies are two different things. There is absolutely no grounds to remove tools here. But if you want to continue assuming bad faith, you can. only (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm imputing incompetence. They are different. This admin's ruling in this case reeks of incompetence. I'm looking to seek redress and for accountability. I suspect there is none but a mirage. Josslined (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• You need to drop the stick right now. You were edit warring, plain and simple, regardless of whether you were logged in or out (and I'm not buying your 'inadvertently logged out' excuse, because those edits are all in the space of 90 minutes and that's much too close together for you not to know what you were doing). Vanjagenije changed the block reason. The block is expired. Move on. Katie^talk 01:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Josslined, I'd also recomend that you take responsibility for your actions and move on. I can't see anything that Vanjagenije did incorrectly, and you were actually very lucky to escape with such a short block: WP:3RR is a "bright line" rule which admins are expected to enforce, and incidences of edit warring from both logged in and logged out accounts are taken very seriously. This thread seems to be a continuation of your disruption. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• @ Nick-D (talk) I think you are assuming bad faith -"This thread seems to be a continuation of your disruption". @ Katie(talk) I had posted in the talk page of the article implying the edits were mine, so I have evidence that I had taken ownership of the edits and never meant to deceive anyone.
• My contention is that the guidelines weren't followed by an admin and I want an explanation. The questions here shouldn't be my motives but 1. Were the guidelines followed? 2. If not what should be done?
• What Vanjagenije did incorrectly is as follows: 1. he blocked me for 3 days, when the usual guideline is 24 hours for first time offenses. He didn't check for aggravating circumstances- there were none since I let the page remain as my opponent's version and tried to have a discussion which wasn't reciprocated. 2. He didn't take into consideration I was a new user, who misunderstood the rule. 3. He didn't take into account the multiple other parties engaged in the edit war. Not a single word of the guideline was followed. That's what he did incorrectly. Show that his actions were according to a fair interpretation of the guideline, otherwise you have to accept he has shown to be unable to apply it. So far the response has been attacks on me and unsupported denials.
• Finally, I posted this complaint here, not because I am naive as to think there are going to a large number of editors who will show support against the actions of a clearly powerful admin, but for the minority who really care about accountability and evidence.
• Also to add drop the stick is only applicable if the debate is lost, which would be true if a debate is won when an admin does what he wants with no justification, or in another words if might is right. I have every right to complain about unjustifiable admin decision making and seek accountability. Josslined (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

1. No admin is every going to be desysopped over a single incident unless it is exteremely, uniquely serious, and (without even looking into it), what you've described is not that.
2. The only entity (aside from Jimbo Wales, and he's not going to do it, so don't bother trying) which can desysop an admin is ArbCom. There is no community process for desysopping.
3. As noted above, drop the srick, this ain't goin' nowhere. BMK (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@ BMK Firstly, I don't know what deysopping is. Secondly an admin clearly bypassed the guidelines in his dealings with me and I want to that redressed. Surely there must be some accountability mechanism? I get the impression there isn't. I went to ArbCom and people there said I had to first start a discussion here. So I'm doing things by the book- but then again I get the impression doing things by the book isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia seems to work on the basis of influence and might is right basis. From my perspective its quite interesting to see it in action. Its quite clear this powerful admin could bypass the guidelines a million times and there is no accountability at all. At least this complaint will raise some awareness. Josslined (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Josslined: No, an admin did not clearly violate anything. The admin performed policy exactly like the community expect to the community's standards. You clearly find it out of sorts with the guideline. But you're alone in this perception. And that you're the recipient of the action, it's not at all surprising or uncommon that you'd find it unjust. Those on the receiving end of any sort of negative action rarely believe they are deserving of it. No one here agrees with your perception.

Now, that doesn't mean that we like Vanjagenije anymore than you; or that we think Vanjagenije is more deserving to be here. We'd love to retain you as an editor. But, this issue, you've got to drop it. You've made your case in front of others. No one sees it the way you do. Time to move on.

@NE Ent: There, I've given my advice to Josslined.--v/r - TP 04:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can see no systematic misuse of admin tools by Vanjagenije that would justify calling for a desysop or indicate incompetence at all. Also, there's no requirement that blocks be a certain length. Considering OP is currently unblocked, I'd advise them to get back to contributing to the encyclopedia instead of tilting at windmills. clpo13_(talk) 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just ranted at the admin / arbitrators who told Josslined to forum shop this here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Exasperation_from_NE_Ent ... could a passing admin / senior editor gently close this thread, maybe? NE Ent 03:12, 16 April 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.

Problematic User

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

---

User:ReillyG13 has been making various pages for small non-notable parks. We need admin block or topic ban for the user ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ReillyG13; this guy really wants to get blocked badly. —swpb^T 15:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Or, it could be a classroom exercise of some sort - precisely as indicated at the sockpuppet investigation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: He is part of a school IP, this is a school making these pages. Although they have good intentions, this violates Wikipedia rules. Admins, could you block the IP? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI with no action taken. It appears to be a school project. The edits appear to be in good faith, so rather than block the accounts and discourage them, perhaps it would be better to educate them on how to edit Wikipedia. We even have the Wiki Education Foundation that can reach out and assist the faculty and students. In the meantime, instead of requesting deletion of the articles, why don't we move it to the draftspace instead? Mike V • Talk 15:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion opened at WP:EN/I. (Protonk) Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 15 April 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.

Revdel requested

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 can someone revdel this as a severe BLP violation? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Declined puerile vandalism only — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely this is the very definition of "pure vandalism"? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the decline. It's childish vandalism and doesn't rise to the level of obscenity that needs to be redacted from public view. I don't see a mention of "pure vandalism" on the criteria for revision deletion page. Perhaps you were mistaking it for the third criteria, which is purely disruptive material? That's more for links to malicious websites, shock pages, phishing pages, edits where vandals enlarge inappropriate images to cover the page, etc. Mike V • Talk 18:24, 12 April 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.

Mass temporary accountcreator assignments in need of cleanup

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.

---

Back at the end of February we had a discussion regarding a large group of users requesting account creator access for some events (see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive279#Large_group_of_users_requesting_accountcreator_permissions). This was primarily closed here on WP:AN and were going to be managed by Pharos.

• Access was widely issued for March 2016 ("this month").
• March has come and gone, however these have not been cleaned up.
• I have attempted to contact Pharos on 04-April and 07-April, however I have received no response, though Pharos has been otherwise active.

Barring objections from other admins, I intend to begin a mass cleanup of this, please comment below if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

AN notification was sent to Pharos. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, I will take care of them in the next two days. The intention was to finish them after March.--Pharos (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 13 April 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.

Possible Issue with Move Log

I had some difficulty reverting a good faith move of the article Oceanic (unfinished ship) a short while ago using Twinkle. Not sure if there is a tech issue in there somewhere. I eventually went into the actual move log and reverted the move but had to do it separately for both the article and the talk page. This is not how it usually works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something to mention at WP:VPT. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK you shouldn't actually "revert" moves via the log (or, say, watchlist or history) or Twinkle. The easiest way is to just go to the article at the new title and move it back to the old title, noting that you're reverting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I was reviewing a draft Draft:Light gap, and noticed that an article, Light gap, already exists, and the draft is clearly meant as an improvement to the article- both have the same lead section for instance. Could we get an admin to history merge the 2? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What seems to male the most sense here is to paste the new version (Draft:Light gap onto the article, referring to the author in the edit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Merged the two. Really need to stop overthinking things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: actually this was a perfect time to perform a history merge, so your thinking was correct. I have now done this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Saib Tabrizi

One of the administrators, judgment about talk:Saib Tabrizi.--Samək^Talk 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Beside giving a false reference for his claim and breaking WP:WAR, this user has illegally used his rollback right against AFG edits (1, 2), please revoke his rollback privilege. -- Kouhi (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My first judgment is that several people there seriously need to learn basic wiki-markup, as the discussion is well-nigh impossible to follow. Beyond that this is a content dispute that falls under AA2, so if you really think there's something requiring intervention go file an AE report. Due to the abuse of rollback I'm removing it from Samak, and further noting that competence is required and Samak isn't filling me with confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think this case is related to WP:AN3 and WP:ANI. Content dispute and edit warring. But one of involved users abused several rules during this edit warring. WP:3RR and using rollback feature in edit war [7], [8], [9], [10]. Personal attacks and stalking on talk page [11], [12]. Don't you think User:Samak deserves a block? He's not a new user but abuses basic wikipedia rules. Who gave this user rollback right?! If you review his contributions, he abused rollback since the day he gained it. User:Kouhi and User:HistoryofIran should submit a new case on WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --24.191.178.196 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this hits on so many different issues is the very reason it belongs at AE. And might I ask exactly how you're so familiar with Samak's editing history? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I just browsed his contribution page and looked at his reverts to check if he did this issue by mistake or not. But it seems he always prefer to edit like that. According to his contributions, he abused wp rules several times and evaded blocks. Anonymous users (ips) did not report him to admins. Now, this WP:BOOMERANG report revealed his behavior. --198.244.109.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

Unsure where best to ask this so will try here as admin action would be needed.

Have recently moved home and my new IP address has been blocked from creating accounts as it goes through a corporate ip that's got account creation blocked.

Am a member of ACC and as such am a bit stuck. Would IPBE allow me to create accounts through the IP block or would I need to find an alternate route of connection.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Amortias: I've added IPBE to you while we sort this out. Are you comfortable discussing more details of the blocked range on-wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE has allowed me to create an account so thats sorted that. The range is blocked for vandalism and various other unpleasentaries as there are a couple of hundred schools that go through this IP so the blocks a good block I was just new collateral. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

E-mail would be preferable for discussion as id rather not reveal my employer as that would prety much give away my location. Amortias (T)(C) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to email me (or any other arbitrator) and I'll look into it. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Have spoken to Courcelles. Have confirmed IPBE until I can get a workaround in place. The earliest this could be is the 3rd May but I will advise when no longer required. Amortias (T)(C) 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of history merges

When someone has a moment, could they look into doing some history merges based on the contributions of this user? I have left a note on their page and assume they are working in good faith, but it would be good to have all of the histories intact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As MSGJ has reverted these edits, someone who knows more about Russian might want to reevaluate whether the moves were appropriate, as I would be willing to change everything on the templates to reflect this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started merging history instead of just reverting, but they can be moved back easily enough if the new titles are not appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical bug or issue

I don't know where to post this. Went on the help channel but couldn't find any admins.
There is some kind of technical glitch in an edit history/edit summary. Please take a look at this edit on Wicked (musical). There seem to several issues:

• The linkage to the user page for Bovineboy looks incorrect. When I hover over that it will give you the wrong editor, instead of Bovineboy I see "User: Wik" (who is blocked).
• The last edit by Bovineboy was in January of this year.

Something's wrong. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The link to User talk:Wik I don't know about but they really did undo a revision by Bovineboy it was just one from last November --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think this would get more eyes at WP:VPT. ansh666 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• The link in the edit summary correctly leads to Bovineboy's contributions page. Also, Bovineboy remains active to this dat, why do you say he hasn't edited since January? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

1. Hover over the linkage to Bovineboy's talk page within Wicked (musical)'s edit history.
2. Does that go to Bovineboy's Talk page? It does not. Instead it links to a blocked user's talk page ->User talk: Wik.
3. By the way, User:Wik has been blocked since 2004.
4. Bovineboy has not edited the Wikipedia article Wicked (musical) since January 2016.
5. Leemleem's edit undoes an edit by Bovineboy from November 2015.

So

• as I said below, I see stuff and want to understand what is going on. Taking MSG's idea from below into mind, I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary by fooling around with the code. I've never seen an edit summary like this, it's very tricksy. If Leemleem did not deliberately craft this edit summary then I guess it's a phantom technical glitch... Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I imagine that the edit summary has been manually edited before saving. I won't guess at why this was done. Perhaps you could ask User:Leemleem if he/she edited this and why. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary. I'll ask Leemleem on their talk page if they did anything other than the usual edit/preview/save.. And if Leemleem comes back and says yes, then they deliberately posted a misleading edit summary... If they say they did not, then it's a technical glitch? Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked Leemleem on their talk page. They responded to my query and explained the edit but they do not know why Wik's talk page is appearing within the linkage. Perhaps it's just ghosts within WP's machine... Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. I did revert an edit made by Bovineboy. He removed the sentence because it was cited as being unreferenced but I lacked the ability at the time to reference it. I went back and added a reference to that section. I don't know who User talk: Wik is and don't understand how that user is involved with what I did. I really hope I didn't screw things up by doing this - if I did, I greatly apologize. It was not my intention at all. Leemleem (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just seems to be some kind of a small bizarre glitch in the system. I had never seen an edit summary with this kind of issue so was puzzled and wanted to post about it to see if anyone else had ever seen something like this before. Thanks for your responses. Shearonink (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is some really bizarre error, but it does not mean that you have screwed anything up. I just undid one of User:Bovineboy2008's edits and there was no issue. Unless this happens again I suggest that we don't worry about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  My only thought about this is that perhaps the link to my talk page was accidentally truncated before the edit was saved. Perhaps Leemleem ran out of room in the edit summary so part of the pre-written "Undid revision...." was manually deleted for more room. BOVINEBOY2008 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's technically possible to undo any edit, regardless of how long has passed and how many times the page has been edited since then, provided that the part of the page that edit was done at is the same as it was after the said edit. This restriction is a question of the software being able to figure out how to undo the edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic school shared account?

So there are several issues here. User:USC_GESM

• Appears to be a shared account for a USC class https://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/gesm-120/
• Writing a lot of "book report" style additions with lots of WP:OR WP:NPOV issues (see my talk page comment to them for some problematic examples User_talk:USC_GESM#Neutrality.2C_editorializing.2C_unattributed_opinions

I don't know if this is part of an organized school ambassador/outreach thing (do we do that anymore?), or just a class assigned to write for wikipedia, but it may need some outreach beyond what my (and others') talk page comments can accomplish. In addition to the username issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• There was movement on trying to reestablish the ambassador/outreach program, but it's stalled at the moment because of busy schedules and the like coming together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Are they part of some Wikipedia-organised event, or is the project known to the education noticebard? If so, then there should be a point of contact to speak to. If not, then I guess a warning/softblock about shared account, and an explanation on reliable sources vs original research? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:ENI asking for people familiar with the education program to comment here. ansh666 00:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we've identified the class and instructor. Samantha (Wiki Ed) will reach out to them over email and let them know what's going on. Per Joseph2302, it would be helpful if someone left a plain english message explaining the ROLE account problem on their talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In This Moment discography

I do not want to violate WP:3RR, but I have twice reverted unclean edits on In This Moment discography. Where should I post about this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm noticing a distinct blankness at Talk:In This Moment discography. Have you tried discussing it rather than repeatedly editwarring over it? ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you engaged in any discussion so far? It doesn't appear that its blatant vandalism, and your edit summaries don't even really indicate your objection, so you're probably going to want to start with, you know, communication. So probably, in this order:

1. Talk page at discography article. (Notify the editor to discuss there.)
2. If there's no discussion/resolution, try to band's article talk page.
3. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try a music related WikiProject.
4. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try an WP:RFC.

There's really no call for admin intervention here, other than you're both starting to approach WP:3RR. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright Violations that spans 100s of pages

Dear administrators User:Capankajsmilyo has been inserting material from news sources into Wikipedia pages despite many earlier warnings. He should be blocked from editing and stripped of his auto patrolled user right before he causes further damage. 68.104.31.142 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there may be something to this. Going through a few of Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) larger recent edits, he seems to have copied entire sentences (with citation, but without quote marks) from news sources. For example, this edit [13] copying from [14] and this edit [15] copying from [16]. As Capankajsmilyo is citing the source, I would assume this is an issue of not understanding that one is expected to paraphrase from sources rather than copy them exactly (unless indicating the material is a direct quote). I don't have time to follow-up right now, but someone should at least talk to him about it. Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You neglected to inform Capankajsmilyo about this discussion so I posted a notice on their talk page, 68.104.31.142. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Will keep it in mind. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no apostrophe in "100s". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And will you do anything about all the ones you already added? I noticed e.g. Digambara, which you turned into a GA and nominated for DYK: this edit from a few days ago is a literal copy from this. Before continuing with new edits, please go through your older edits and make sure that they comply with our copyright policies. Fram (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try and resolve them. Digambara resoved. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That was only an example, not the full list of all problems with that article. Digambara is not resolved, and already asking for its GA status to be restored is severely disappointing. First go through all your edits (all articles), see which ones are problematic, and correct them, before thinking of GAs, DYK, ... Fram (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanx Fram Dragons flight and Liz and thanku ton's and ton's Lugnuts. so who is gonna remove all the text that has already copied into wikipedia? some random examples [17] [18] [19] [20] go through his contributions. he already received so many warnings for copyright violations [21] earlier so he was doing on purpose thinking noone will notice 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) and warning from Kusma [22] 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have issued Capankajsmilyo a final warning and will monitor his contribs. Any interested persons are welcome to participate in the clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been away for a while but Capankajsmilyo has been warned and educated about copyright problems many times since August of last year, for both copying from external sources and copying within Wikipedia. I had highlighted a lot of problems to him (including copying issues) before we topic banned him from the area for a while. I don't know if anything has changed since then, maybe Bishonen who was helping him out may have something else to add on this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

AN3 backlog

Hello all, the edit-warring noticeboard has quite the backlog. The oldest unhandled case hasn't seen any action in over a week. Also, is archiving maybe not working? There are quite a few old, closed cases taking up space. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK update delayed?

Greetings, all. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the DYK queue update seems to have been delayed by close to two hours right now; could somebody please take a look? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know/Queue/6 is empty, so there is no hooks for the bot to swap-in. Calidum ¤ 02:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Calidum, this is true, but there is a Prep area that has been filled, and also quite a few verified hooks at T:TDYK; so an admin could probably fix it with a little work. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction of comments

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

---

Hi I am Arman ad60. I have made some comments in some of the Iranian articles. I want to correct my comments. Don't worry I will not do anything that will change the meaning of the comments. I have given an example in my sandbox. Will my correction be accepted?Arman ad84 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it won't be accepted. Edits by block-evading sockpuppets are never acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 23 April 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.

Admin(?) Midom causing disruption on Occitan Wikipedia

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

---

Hi, I've nothing to do with any of this but passing through oc.wikipedia.org I have noticed someone who I presume to be some kind of admin, one Midom who seems to be rather lacking in social skills, judging by what's going on here: https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilizaire:Midom

I think I appreciate the technical issues being dealt with in there, but his behaviour is way out of line and clearly oversteps what is considered acceptable today in any functional online community.

Especially when this behaviour is directed towards a group who are small and lacking in resources, but very enthusiastic, such as the Occitan Wikipedia lot, this is just plain bullying.

He has, very much without discussion or consultation, decided on the deletion of a significant amount of data--while the reasons appear legitimate, the way in which this was approached by Midom is lamentable (and this is a different discussion, but one could argue that if the templates under discussion lend themselves to be misused in the way they allegedly were, that doesn't say much about the competence of the programmers involved so perhaps they, being a handsomely paid bunch these days, unlike the oc.wikipedia.org editors, should step in and find a solution to the problem. Just saying.)

So, for what little is left of Wikipedia's credibility, I urge you to take action and:

• Reprimand Midom for his reprehensible actions and attitude.
• Admonish him to present his apologies to the Occitan Wikipedia community for his rude, aggressive, and unhelpful behaviour.

As I said, I personally have no axe to grind here, but I do not condone bullying.

I might as well add, having made a note of the information volunteered by this user in his user page, I do reserve the right to contact his employer and make them aware of his highly irresponsible behaviour and questionable social and technical competence. Midom, it is up to you to take this as a learning experience and make amends with the users you have inconvenienced and offended. Providing some assistance to the OC guys in migrating their data into a form that doesn't clog up the servers wouldn't go amiss either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.182.89 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins on English Wikipedia have no standing to admonish users on Occitan (or any other) Wikipedia. Also, OP should (but won't) be blocked for the threat to contact a user's employer. 172.56.34.49 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just to get this straight, 83.47: you want us to punish a user who (with the exception of a single talk page post) hasn't been active for over a year, for something that happened on a different site four years ago in which everyone over there made mistakes? (Calling someone a troll for saying "nuking" as slang for "deleting" is an utter failure of WP:AGF). And you're saying you are the one opposed to bullying here, despite all this and despite threatening to contact his employer? If it wasn't for the off chance that you're sincere in this, I'd delete this thread under WP:DFTT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 23 April 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.

J.K.Simpson

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 added a BLP PROD deletion tag to J.K.Simpson seven days ago, and no sources still have been added. Please delete it. Peter Sam Fan 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait, it was just done. Peter Sam Fan 18:53, 21 April 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.

closing of discussions by involved party

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

---

I am not familiar with the details of administrative policy so if I am posting this in the wrong place I apologize.

My complaint is that users Jytdog and User:Zad68 have been closing and archiving contentious discussions to which they are involved parties.

Here are some diffs:

First User:Jytdog closed an RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716277234&oldid=716276606

Now, strictly speaking, he had not made comments in the closed region, but he was certainly a very involved party in discussions which were still ongoing which referenced and linked to this conversation

Then, he tried to archive the whole talk page, even though the discussion was so recent that, certainly, not all parties had seen everything that had taken place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716277714&oldid=716277459

Then User:Zad68 closed a very recent discussion in which he was involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716382936&oldid=716376878

I am not intimately familiar with conventions here, but my understanding is that the closing of these dicussions "should only be used by uninvolved editors" (quote from Template:Hidden_archive_top).

I have notified the users on their talkpage of the post here but they have both indicated a great disdain for productive engagement with me, so I have not "discussed" with them before posting here. Wpegden (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I had understood that Wpegden had withdrawn the question when they wrote this. I don't know if Wgpen is now un-withdrawing, or never meant to, or is just making drama. I don't care. I have self-reverted the close of the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So Jytdog you "understood that Wpegden had withdrawn the question" at 19:53 20-Apr-2016. That would have closed & pacified the topic, right? But half an hour after that (21:28+) you wrote this: no less than three administrators [sic] ... commented there, and no one agreed with you. You are just not listening nor learning. That is your choice, of course, but doing that will not lead you to a productive or happy time here in Wikipedia. Can you explain, Jytdog, how this fits with that pacification you 'understood'? How is this *not* a BF threat? It got worse: at 21:12 you wrote: You [Wpegden] are violating the foundational principle of Wikipedia by pushing and pushing and pushing [bold sic] and not listening to anyone else. You will end up leaving here very frustrated, or you will get indefinitely blocked [bold added, DP]. ... You can choose to keep going that direction, or you can change. It depends entirely, and only, on you [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)There is such a thing as a forgone conclusion. It was fairly clear the answer to the RFC was a resounding "no". Does it really matter who closed it if there was no room for interpretation on how it should be closed? HighInBC 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a bit of discussion would have sorted this out after all. Wpegden do you consider this an acceptable resolution? If so I think we can close this thread. HighInBC 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:HighInBC, I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not you are right, but User:Jytdog's behavior gives me the clear impression that he would not have reacted the same to a discussion as to a notice on this page. In any case, this issue remains unresolved even now.Wpegden (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You did have a way of knowing, it was talking to the person you were having a disagreement with. In the 8+ years I have been editing along side Jytdog we have had plenty of opportunity to agree and disagree. But one thing I know is that they will listen to reasonable concerns if you give them a chance. You complain about the attention the RFC got from this thread, but the whole thing could have been avoided if you tried to communicate. HighInBC 04:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC Past experiences do not guarantee future quality, apparently. In this issue, Jytdog clearly tried to shut down any discussion, did not respond to questions (just denying by reflex), and of course threatening with a block if an editor does not shut up. See also the diffs provided here (you ignored). No civility or consensus seeking in there. You still have not acknowledged that Jytdog was overstepping talkpage behaviour. Also, here you simply state that you support Jytdog just because you know him. As I said: admins don't do arguments, they are there for friends. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy Geez Louise Crackers and Cheese. I haven't said I have a "great disdain for productive engagement with me" (diff of me saying that?) but you are certainly turning out to be a difficult editor to work with. The item I {{hat}}ed was a clearly unproductive violation of WP:TALK, it's here. Ironically Wpegden titled the section Moving on but unfortunately they've been doing anything but. If you think the that subthread you started with the statement Ok, the opposition I'm encountering really seems to be driven by psychology rather than reason. You "win". I will focus wikipedia time in areas where discussions are more grounded in reason and less in reflexive "no"'s. after the RFC you started (after the DRN you started) drew eight Noes to your solitary Yes, including those from complete outsiders, is "reflexive 'no's", you're going to continue to find editing stressful. If you think the subthread I hat'ted was useful and productive and in line with WP:TPYES (selected quote: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"), please, unhat it and continue your conversation with whoever will engage with you. Zad68 15:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Zad68, let me apologize about the "great disdain" quote, in your case. Looking at the history, although there have been multiple[23] threats[24] to shun me, but it looks like they all came from User:Jytdog. On the substance of your decision to hat that thread: it wasn't even a discussion with me! It was a discussion with another (apparently experienced) editor, User:DePiep. Presumably what was problematic was that he was defending my conduct on the talk page. It makes it look like you are trying to control how things look to third parties, when you hide a discussion that was literally active 90 minutes previously. Certainly, you didn't do it because you thought that User:DePiep would agree it should be hidden? Wpegden (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, accepted, thanks. Unfortunately though you're making a presumption about motives that's not correct. I hatted the discussion for the reason plainly stated in the hat, and which I have expanded on here: The whole subthread was off the topic of improving that article. It was just editor-on-editor sniping and comments about behavior, all of which isn't in line with WP:TALK. If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, try addressing it with the editor directly at their User Talk. If it's an intractable problem you can raise it at a place like WP:ANI. Zad68 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A good way to avoid the appearance of bad motives would be to avoid closing same-day discussions to which you are a party over the objections of other participants. Wpegden (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I simply can't continue endless back-and-forth with you over this. I've said my piece, you've said yours, let's let others reading this thread come to their own conclusions and handle thins appropriately. Zad68 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How typical: when Wpegden gets to the point, you run away with a non-sequitur. Captures this issue in a nutshell. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• When is there ever a valid reason to archive discussion on the same day on which that discussion was still active: [25]?

Whatever the conclusion of such a discussion, there is still a need to communicate to other editors. Other people apart from Jytdog are still permitted to be part of this project. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wpegden is actually correct, an editor involved with a conversation should not be the one to close it, yes, IAR may be invoked on such a close and if consensus is with it, so be it, but that's fairly rare.

User:Andy Dingley gets at basic point here. Even if the discussion is over, it should be preserved for the near future so that everyone involved (not just those of us posting every day) will see how things went. Wpegden (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog commented above the RFC on the same subject the RFC was on, so that close should at least be looked at. As far as Zad68 closing a discussion he was part of, that's not such a big deal, it's not an RFC, it's a discussion, I'd give more leeway on that, assuming the close is accurate and not an attempt to stifle the discussion. KoshVorlon 15:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To me it always seems reasonable that closing a discussion that is less than a day old in which you participated may look like you were trying to stifle some discussion. Certainly, my impression is that they are trying to hide the parts of the discussion where they think they look bad. I am not a neutral party, of course, but closing of discussions should probably err on the side of not being unseemly to most people. Wpegden (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have re-closed the RFC, I hope the outcome is more palatable coming from someone uninvolved in the discussion. HighInBC 15:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am fine with that. The two closures later are more questionable to me, when they are still so fresh. It is especially problematic to me that they are hidden closures of a very recent discussion. Not all editors involved in the surrounding issues have seen them (and, I fear, this is presumably why the users hid them). Wpegden (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. And, in general, no one ever can redo a closing (forget singing!) after consequences. I reverted. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In particular, note that User:DePiep only barely made it to the discussion before they started hiding relevant parts. It gives the impression that a lack of visibility from other parties was one goal. Wpegden (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this thread you started with the comment Ok, the opposition I'm encountering really seems to be driven by psychology rather than reason. You "win". I will focus wikipedia time in areas where discussions are more grounded in reason and less in reflexive "no"'s., and if so, please explain how well you feel your comment complies with WP:TALK? Zad68 15:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• un-be-liev-able. here admin HighInBC changes the conclusion and the signing of a hatting that says in bold red: "Please do not modify it.". That's how admins roll? Of course I reverted.

I admire the courage by Wpegden to enter this topic here. Of course they can't win anything (trust me: 'admins won't correct admins ever', including those who say "but I'm not an admin, I'm only advising admins to block for no reason"), but the statement is here to stay.

When I want to respond here, I can choose to do so. But in general, I have little confidence in self-corrective powers of our adminship. So it would be pearls before swines. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See also my 21:08 re Jytdog post above. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I propose to unhat both discussions there. No need for admin involvement, just a talkpage handling issue. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You got it wrong @DePiep:, Jytdog reversed their own close based on complaints that they were too involved to close. I, an uninvolved admin, closed the RFC which other than the proposer was unanimously rejected. Perhaps things would be more be-lieve-able if you looked closer. I have restored my closure as the RFC has come to a clear conclusion. General discussion is welcome to continue. HighInBC 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Then did I revert a phantom diff??? (Jytdog should not edit either). Anyway, never ever can one change a discussion post when it has had consequences. eg, responses afterward or an AN talk as in this case. Your edit was not in the background, it is part of discussions about that closure. And interestingly you prove the my point here: admins don't give x about behaviour & self-criticism, they just self-righteously edit as they like. Covering admin-friends. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The diff you provided shows edits from more than one person. Look at the diffs one at a time. There is no conspiracy here. I am a bit confused as to your complaint, are you suggesting I am somehow involved in the RFC because I spoke in this ANI thread? I assure you that my involvement in this thread has been in an administrative capacity, and acting in an administrative capacity does not make one involved. As for protecting my fellow admins, I am not protecting anyone because I don't see any action that needs defence. What is your beef specifically? Because it just sounds like vague anti-admin rhetoric right now. HighInBC 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

wtf? Inacceptable edit you made re-rv my undoing. What Jytdog did is irrelevant (and illegal too). I reverteed it again. Quite simple: 'closed' means 'closed'. Any issue you thinkyou have should be solved differently. Glad to educate an admin. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No I did not write you are an involved editor and no I did not say so anywhere so. Is what you can read. (Weird that you don't know about your own involvement, or that you can read that suggestion from my post). Your inexcusable offense is that you edited a closed discussion. And you keep avoiding admittance. Somehow I get a feeling my AGF is tested. As for your other 'questions' (suggestive statements actually): I don't feel invitated to respond to things I did not say or do. What is this thread about, by the way? -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention to reality please. Look at my edit, and look at the edit before it. It was not closed when I edited it. You keep avoiding looking at the things you are talking about. HighInBC 04:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm thinking about the issue too simplistically, but regardless of what happened when, two hatted discussions remain, which both had very recent activity, activity, which surely has not been seen by all editors who were involved in the surrounding discussions, and which were hatted by users involved (either directly in the hatted region, or in related discussions pointing to the region). I think User:DePiep's proposal is to unhat these two regions. Or if its not, it is at least my proposal. Is there disagreement on this? Wpegden (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wpegden, you were x-ed all along. Admins and their friends cover each other whatever & whichever way, so they'll keep evading topics and pulling the talks off-track (such as this page; eg see my 21:19). Jytdog really did threaten you with a block for not shutting up. I admire your patience & eloquence, but others are abusing your civility because they can't admit their own wrongs. I find it bad approach when they force you into agreeing into some "excuse" (eg 'great accepted, thanks' at 16:50), without admitting any wrongdoing or reflection themselves. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• this discussion seems to be driven entirely by two editors who are not dealing with the reality of WP policies and guidelines. I self-reverted my close of the RfC immediately after the complaint above was made, and noted that above. That is entirely compliant with CLOSECHALLENGE (which both Depiep and Wpegden seem unaware of). The RfC was subsequently reclosed by an uninvolved admin. (which Depiep bizarrely reverted and see that edit note) The other discussion that was hatted does indeed have nothing to do with improving the article. The OP was fine and that matter is resolved.

The continuation (for example, the comments by Wpegden and depiep above) are approaching disruption/boomerang. This is the issue i have had with Wpegden - when they get their mind fixed on something, they do not know how to drop the stick. Almost the entirety of the very very long current Talk:SIDS page is driven by their WP:Civil POV pushing, including the RfC that was snow-closed. I did tell them that if they keep acting this way and refuse to learn to yield to consensus, that road leads to them leaving here frustrated or getting thrown out of here. (Depiep bizarrely interprets that diff as a "threat to block", above and elsewhere). This is your board, admins; you can leave this open and give these two enough ROPE to hang themselves, or you can close this. Or whatever else you want, of course. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Evasion. Nice try. You speedily closed a talk you were in. You threatened with an indef block, quoted above. Why not reply to questions (with diff and substance)? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid the hat. Hat's around contentious discussions are often counterproductive, as they merely act like giant neon signs saying Click here for drama!!! and make it more difficult for future reviewers to pursue the archives. Can we be done with this thread now? NE Ent 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is getting tiresome; DePiep reverted a valid close again. I've undone that and will block him if it happens again. NE Ent's unhatting was counterproductive too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DePiep you keep talking about "legal" and stuff, but it is really really simple. There was a discussion about a proposal, the overwhelming consensus was against the proposal, it was closed as such. If you are to continue complaining please reference the policy involved because the things you are saying don't seem to have basis in our policies or common practices. HighInBC 04:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other side of the coin this is ANI and my actions are getting plenty of attention. If I have indeed done wrong as you seem to think then I am sure the community will let me know. Until then I will just interpret consensus as I see it, and in this case you would have to be blind not to see it. HighInBC 04:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot edit a closed discussion. That you claim it is "our ... common practices" is just to say you admins don't give x for that rule, and then you keep covering each other. The Floquenbeam intervention (no arguments, no interest) proves this -- once more.

There was nor is any need at all to introduce admin involvement in either closing/hatting. -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 22 April 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 on Meta regarding Reguyla

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.

---

Hey,

Just to let you know that there is a new RfC regarding Reguyla on Meta. Please see this page.

--TJH2018 talk 22:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun, for the five minutes it lasted. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As the kids my age say, YOLO...--TJH2018 talk 01:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, read some of Reguyla's posts at Meta, particularly the one where he's promising to create new accounts, if he's blocked. The fellow's obviously the perfect example of a Wikipedia addict. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Now the people on Meta say I have an obsession...--TJH2018 talk 15:20, 21 April 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.

Extended protection and Anita Sarkeesian

I extended confirmed (30/500) protected Anita Sarkeesian earlier today since I was under understanding that articles related to the Gamergate controversy can be extended confirmed protected. At some point I was asked to provide a link explaining that the article is eligible for extended confirmed protection. I failed to find such link, but, as I repeatedly stated in the past, the arbitration enforcement system is informationwise very unfriendly even to experienced users. Could someone help me and either to point out to the page saying the article is eligible for extended confirmed protection, or to state that it is not eligible. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBGG did not authorise a blanket 30/500 restriction as in WP:ARBPIA. However 30/500 protection was implemented on Brianna Wu as a discretionary sanction (WP:AC/DSL/2016) so you should be able to do it on Anita Sarkeesian – just make sure you formally log it at that link. The committee is currently considering a motion formalising the use of 30/500 protection in discretionary sanctions and the motion is likely to pass. BethNaught (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I should have written WP:ARBPIA3. BethNaught (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to find out how it should be logged properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter for Weekly Shōnen Jump

With another massive delinking disruption this morning, can we create an edit filter for Weekly Shōnen Jump and any mentions of terrorism, terrorist organization/group, hate group, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and pornography? —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't really do edit filters for 1 article. I have added the new 30/500 protection to the article though. I reviewed the last 10 vandals and it would block all of them.--v/r - TP 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: please modify the protection. The 30/500 protection is currently authorised only in areas where it has been permitted by the Arbitration Committee. BethNaught (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom cannot make policy. Their policy doesn't give them that power.--v/r - TP 18:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the relevant discussion, I'm IAR here. There are accounts on that page that are sleepers. 30/500 is the only protection level that can handle it appropriately.--v/r - TP 18:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, we have no policy for administrators to be able to use the 30/500 protection anywhere. The user right was implemented for enforcing Arbitration, not -presently- for use any place an admin feels. Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then use full protection. This level of protection has not been authorized for everyday use. IAR does not mean you can go against the community consensus decided in the RfC. --Majora (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed would allow 2 of those socks to edit the article - how many other sleepers are out there. Full protection wouldn't allow anyone to edit the article. This is absolutely a case where the policy is going to cause more disruption to the encyclopedia. It is an appropriate use of WP:IAR. If another sysop feels strongly enough about it, feel free to do what you feel is neccessary. But, as far as I'm concerned, the rule is harmful to the encyclopedia in this instance.--v/r - TP 19:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, the one article is not really the problem - it's all the hundreds of other articles affected, which makes protection of any sort not effective, and a good candidate for an edit filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't see all the other articles. Regardless, having taken a closer look, 30/500 wouldn't of helped anyway. 1 of the two account I mentioned would've had extendedconfirmed anyway. I've put it back at autoconfirmed.--v/r - TP 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For those interested this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000/Archive. The edits are kinda wide-ranging for an edit filter, but there's probably something we can do about the types of edits seen recently, in one of the existing LTA filters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If it will work, I'm more in favor of IAR PC2 then ECP - with ECP being so new it may need a bit more development on the use cases. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the latest CC5K sock to base an edit filter around. Adam Durand 2 (talk · contribs), although these are mostly vandalism AFDs, the association of WSJ with terrorism is still there. —Farix (t | c) 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity anew

The user Finki2014 (talk · contribs), who was blocked some time ago for disruptive editing (please see here), has continued vandalising the article anew by removing well referenced content and making improper changes with poorly referenced content as per WP:QS ([26]). If you make a more thorough review of his contributions, it is evident that the majority of them is subject to a bias about Macedonian politics. I have also noticed that similar changes to the article were made by a user with the IP address 77.29.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([27]), which makes it very suspicious as a possible sock puppetry. That said, I strongly suspect that the user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a neutral way. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am off on a wikibreak, my builders are ready sooner than expected and we'll be breaking ground on a large project at home. I'll e doing a significant part of the work myself so am temporarily dropping all spare-time activities except singing (and scaling even that back). Any uninvolved admin is free to reverse any of my admin actions provided they drop a note for review on ANI. If in doubt, feel free to email me, I will be checking mail. See you in a couple of months. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created

Please see Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created to comment.

With thanks to everyone who provided input and insight, I would like to put forth a proposal to create the Wikipedia:Page mover permission. My suggestion is that page movers would receive

suppressredirect (The ability to move pages without leaving behind a redirect)

move-subpages (The ability to move subpages when moving their parent pages)

tboverride (The ability to override the title blacklist)

modified $wgRateLimits, allowing them to move pages more frequently than most users

This userright would be especially useful to editors who assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves. –xeno^talk 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Posting here because the proposal suggests having administrators assign the new userright. –xeno^talk 00:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange behavior by editor

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

---

I'm not sure this is allowed under policy but could an admin take a look at these (obvious) sockpuppets 1 and 2? Feinoha ^Talk 00:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by another admin. Next time, try WP:AIV for faster service. --Jayron32 01:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment/observation: Mwa, in this specific case, AIV was backlogged badly so it wouldn't have changed much. (They'd been reported there by a different user anyway, for the approximate same amount of time as they were here.) By the way, Feinoha: that's this sockpuppeteer, in case you wondered. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this dope again. Normally, I'd suggest this guy needs a hobby, but apparently this is it. HalfShadow 01:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about the same (puerile) level as the ceiling fan vandal. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 19 April 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.

Revert edit

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 Zyma reverts me with dubious reason. Please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.241 (talk)

Comparing your edit to this edit by an identified sock of Tirgil34, and that both IPs geolocats to the same place, its a pretty clear WP:DUCK case. —Farix (t | c) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Also compare with this edit. Do you still believe the unproven claim? So? At least now you shoul have understand whats really going on here: unfounded deletion of referenced material. --89.204.135.86 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 18 April 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.

Orphaned Talk page cleanups

Hello AN, A bot request (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 12) is proposed to tag orphaned article talk pages for speedy deletion. I think we would clean out the backlog first so as not to flood CAT:CSD all at once - please provide any feedback about this proposal at the bot request page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1228 pages. Wow! It would be best if we cleaned that up first. SQL^{Query me!} 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Commented on the BOTREQ. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New list: User:Josvebot/Orphaned talk pages/2016-04-19 (782 pages). (t) Josve05a (c) 11:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages used to be updated a long time ago. I would wear out my mouse button working on those. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. Note the large number of red links. I didn't count but there are hundreds. In addition the first handful I looked at were all false positives (I believe). I'll save more comments for the discussion at the bot request, although I'd like to ping @Aleenf1:. That editor has been nominating orphan talk pages at CSD every Monday morning for months, so I'd like to hear why that editors process is not picking these up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The format changed somewhat during later revisions. You would want redlinks because that means they all got deleted. Pinging Aleenf1 is a good idea. As they are effectively the bot. :-) I think I prefer the database/giant list style of dealing with these. It won't clutter up CAT:CSD and is easier to work with (at least for me). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yobot

However, not directly related to this BOTREQ, why does Magioladitis' Yobot add WP:WOMEN WikiProject tags to non-existing articles such as Talk:Adèle Haenelb? That article has never existed as far as I can see (no log entries) and these mistakes are sure to result in a lot more entries for Josvebot 12. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I followed User:Edgars2007/Women tag/Women so @Edgars2007:. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I supposed Talk:Adèle Haenelb was a typo for Talk:Adèle Haenel -- perhaps Magioladitis to avoid being misled by typos Yobot could at least check if an article exists before creating a talk page for a typo'ed title? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew, it wasn't my mistake :D BU Rob13 introduced that typo :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the typo. Based on the way I was designing a bot for this task, the typo would not have caused an error. I did not anticipate another bot operator working off the list, of course. ~ Rob^Talk 16:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It was impossible to avoid the non-existent pages because we tag all pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is good to know it was a single page problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

F5 and F8 CSD backlogs

I hate to hijack the thread, but speaking of CAT:CSD backlogs being flooded, we're already there. There are currently about 2,000 files in the F8 backlog and some 2,400 files in the F5 backlog. The F5 backlog is due to Theo's Little Bot which is necessary but really, really prolific.

The F8 queue takes a bit of time due to the closer evaluation, but if you install the script on the F5 page, that goes pretty quickly. Can everybody pitch in some every day until we get these things done? Katie^talk 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• File CSD queues are always backlogged, because a lot of admins stay away from the file namespace whenever possible (me included). :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim: In the almost half a year I have been working in the "File:" namespace, I have to say that seems to be quite true. I mean, check out WP:FFD's backlog: The only administrator who was closing discussions there during the past few months is currently on a long Wikibreak to take care of RL. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Old-version F5s (not totally orphaned ones, those are mostly straightforward and uncontentious) require more attention than you'd think. Too-large nonfree images, which form the bulk of these, tend to have other problems as well. You get lots of images that that are below the threshold of originality, which should be untagged; invalid non-free use claims, which should be either retagged or deleted outright, depending; slow-motion upload warring to replace already-reduced images with the old too-huge versions (a typical example I saw yesterday); you name it. Somewhere around 1 in 5 of these images needs more than a simple "Rescaled per F5" buttonclick.
  All that said, I'll start putting these in my daily routine again. —Cryptic 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I must learn more about the file namespace and lend a hand there from time to time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.

Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:

1. He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
2. He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
3. He is permitted to edit only the following:
   1. article talk pages
   2. user talk pages
   3. his own userspace
   4. project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him.
   The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
4. He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
5. He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors.

Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

extending all timed processes by an hour?

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 there a policy or a precedent that says we should put instructions on all RfCs, XfDs, and other timed processes like 31 hour blocks at Wikipedia to extend the time by 30 minutes or an hour due to upcoming scheduled maintenance? Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, as for actual technical issues like blocks - the system will evaluate (is it now later then the block time) - so nothing to do; as for discussions these aren't on any timer - it is just page edits - editors will get to them when ever they get to them. The only people that should be really bothered by this are bot operators that run something a specific times - but really those operators need to deal with their bots and have had plenty of notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems like as good a place as any other to add this reminder: Wiki-world ends (temporarily) at 14:00 UTC (about 15 hours from now). News at m:Tech/Server switch 2016 or on the blog. This happens again on Thursday, so when tomorrow's is over, I'll be looking at WP:VPT for problem reports and advice on what to do differently.

IRC regulars might want to make a point of changing the notices at the tops of channels, since outages often result in a spike in activity. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 18 April 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.

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.

Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:

1. He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
2. He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
3. He is permitted to edit only the following:
   1. article talk pages
   2. user talk pages
   3. his own userspace
   4. project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him.
   The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
4. He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
5. He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors.

Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

Another arbitration decision

Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:

1. Editing Lamia (poem), its talk page, and any future GA, FA, or peer review of this article
2. Drafting articles or edits to articles within his own userspace, which may be moved into the mainspace by other unrestricted editors
3. Editing his own user talk page, with the additional restriction that he may not use his talk page to discuss other editors

Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period (1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.

Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.

Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.

Support – Callanecc, Casliber, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano

Oppose – Courcelles

Not voting - DeltaQuad, Gamaliel, Kirill Lokshin

I've copied this from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, where it got posted; as far as I can tell, this got overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case (Ottava Rima unbanned)

Files for deletion backlog

It's been hinted at in a query farther up, but Wikipedia:Files for discussion has had a backlog going back a few months recently, up to early February. There are apparently only one or a few administrators working there and one of them (Explicit) has been less active lately due to real-world issues. The venue could use some more activity, especially since many issues are not complicated copyright issues or stuff like that.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Admitted promotional editor removes speedy tags and restore copyvios

Please look at Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT). The use writing the article has removed the speedy delete tags repeatedly. Also, it contains a copyright violation from [28] that the editor has restored after others removed it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes arbitration case amended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by two motions that:

(1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.

(2) With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Infoboxes arbitration case amended

New Opera browser may cause problems

See here: "After successfully launching a version of its browser that offered ad blocking, Opera just won’t quit. On Wednesday night, the company released a free VPN service with unlimited bandwidth, built right into its latest beta. The Opera release is developer edition version 38.0.2204.0 for the Mac and the PC". Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems they'll be using the existing SurfEasy networks, some of which are already blocked. It may speed up the process of blocking the others, which probably won't be a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Might be nice to develop an editnotice or something that will display for people coming from Opera's VPNs. "If you're using Opera and seeing this message, you can still edit if you follow these easy steps!" Something like that. People will probably turn this on and forget about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Supposedly they're only using three exit servers to begin, but maybe we haven't caught those yet. Regardless, an edit notice is a good idea. Katie^talk 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the two other ranges that are in use. (One was already blocked.) The VPN service is opt-in, so you'll know if it's enabled. Mike V • Talk 21:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be more and more common with embedded browsers in things. We should accept that in the near future this could affect such a large number of our users that a simply blocking it may be impractical. It may become the new normal, and it won't always be something the user can turn off(like on a kindle). HighInBC 14:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You learn something new every day

No urgency here, however I just learned something concerning (for me) regarding pending changes and I thought I would note it here in case any other admins were under the same mistaken impression as me. I protected the BLP Ayesha Omar (subsequently moved to Ayesha Omer) due to the addition of BLP violations (some rev-deleted) and chronic addition of unsourced material to the biography. When a recent unsourced edit regarding the receipt of an award was accepted, I asked the reviewer if they could include the source they used to verify the content to the article, but to my surprise I was told that there is no impetus at all for reviewers to make any determination as to whether the content is valid, they only need to ensure it's not outright vandalism or disruption in order to accept it. The guidelines for reviewing indeed support the reviewers comments. Lesson learned. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:REVIEWER says reviewers should check for fours things before accepting a revision: WP:BLP, WP:VANDALISM, obvious WP:COPYVIO and Legal threats/Personal attacks. WP:BLP says that any contentious/controversial content should be sourced or removed immediately (or non-accepted, in the case of pending revisions), but also says that any material "likely to be challenged" (say, an unsourced alleged award the subject may have received) must be directly sourced. WP:REVIEWER also says Furthermore, reviewers should take special consideration of the reason given for protection, and attempt to uphold it. Thus, I do not think that whoever this was can be said to have been correct in accepting a revision containing unsourced BLP material when the article was PCP'ed for that reason precisely (although I'm sure there was no bad faith). Whoever the reviewer was should be more careful in their use of the tool. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to the reviewer in this case, the move wiped the protection log. However there does appear to be a lot of ambiguity in the reviewer guidelines and I can see why an editor would think accepting unsourced changes to BLPs (outside of blatant BLP violations) would be perfectly ok given WP:REVIEWER states "Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader" and at WP:PC "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content...Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the correctness of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above." I've seen many pending changes accepted by reviewers that I believe should not have been, however I can see why they may be confused given the guideline doesn't overtly state that the edits need to be sourced or suggest verifying the accuracy of a BLP edit before accepting it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was the reviewer in question, for what it's worth. I'm happy to discuss it and I'm suitably thick-skinned :)

The context here is that the article already contained the information that this person was nominated for an award at a ceremony to be held on April 16th. The status of the award was shown as "pending". On the 17th, the day after the ceremony, an IP changed the status of the award to "won". This did not raise any major concerns to me as a reviewer - even in the context of a BLP, that is not a change that is obviously going to be contentious. Nor is it obviously disruptive, or obviously vandalism. It was a credible edit.

BLP is an important policy (mild understatement) but we shouldn't read things in to it that it doesn't say. For example, it doesn't say "no information may be added to a BLP article unless it is accompanied by a source that verifies it." It only modifies the normal expectations of WP:VERIFY with regard to contentious material. Is changing the status of an award, under completely credible circumstances, from "pending" to "won" a contentious edit? Actually, I don't know. But I do know that it is not obviously contentious, and as such, the expected default behavior of any pending changes reviewer should be to allow the edit - at least, if they are following the WP:REVIEWING guideline as written.

This edit did not breach WP:BLP, just as it would not have breached it if the identical edit was performed by an experienced logged-in user.

Having said all that, if the log for the page had been preserved it would have given more specific guidance from the protecting admin, which would probably have changed my reviewing decision. Unfortunately in this case that wasn't available.

I think Ponyo is right to identify a disconnect between what some administrators believe they are getting when the use pending changes protection, and what reviewers believe they are there to do. Perhaps some administrators believe they are getting WP:VERIFY checking on each edit, while reviewers believe they are executing a lightweight "does it seem basically credible?" test.

It may be that WP:REVIEWING actually doesn't say what it needs to say. Maybe it should say "deny all BLP edits that you can't personally verify from reliable sources". But the fact is that it doesn't impose anything like that kind of a serious duty on reviewers at present.

Thparkth (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You'll find there is a wide variety of Reviewers' approach to Reviewing. I suspect I'm one of the "hardliners" in Reviewing – for BLP's I'll reject pretty much anything that's unsourced, and will even often check that the newly added sourcing actually backs up new additions (and will occasionally check that current sourcing at the article does the same). I'm pretty sure many reviewers don't do that. I've also seen other Reviewers accept edits that are malformated. Etc. FTR, I generally agree that the current instructions for Reviewer on the Reviewer page are too "lax", and should be toughened up to shift the bias more towards rejecting edits that are even somewhat problematic, esp. at WP:BLP's. I'd also be in favor of "raising the qualifications" for being granted Pending Changes Reviewer status: for example, I think a "minimum editing time" (e.g. 6 months; or a minimum editing count) should be added to the qualifications – frankly, I think you can't be a proper PC Reviewer unless you've put a fair amount of time into editing the project and learning how to properly edit articles and add sourcing. PC Reviewer is less "vandal fighting" and more "article quality control", but I think it's being primarily "sold" as the former when it's really more important as the latter... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

IJBall sums up my concerns on all points. When I've come across accepted edits that should have been rejected in the past I've chalked it up to good faith reviewers with little experience dealing with problematic BLPs and socking and left them a note on their talk page asking them to not accept edits that introduce unsupported material in BLPs unless they've verified its accuracy. It turns out that the guidelines for the reviewers are quite lax (as are the requirements to become a reviewer), and there's no impetus at all for them to do so. Any potential changes will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, however it is important for admins to be aware that, in its current state, PC is not a very good tool for protecting BLPs other than for persistent vandalism.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Generally Speaking when I'm reviewing an article if its a BLP with issues that I find questionable I'll either reject/revert/decline (whatever word you'd like to use) the edit or leave it alone and let someone with more experience check the article. For example this edit, it was an obvious issue since the information could be defamatory and it didn't have a Reliable Source but that just me. The WP:Reviewer Policy is kind of clear on this in my opinion. It states "As a general rule, you should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find any of the following: It conflicts with the biographies of living persons policy... but then again its a should not not a shall not but that may be my legal background from work kicking in. I'm not trying to be nit picky with the policy... --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible improper RfC close

I would like to draw attention to a recent RfC at Paul Singer. This was the eighth discussion on this particular subject and all have eneded with the same result. The previous discussions can be found here: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34].

After an involved editor closed the last RfC, there have been multiple allegations which I don't intend to interpret on here in order to leave this post as neutral as possible so that an uninvolved moderator (also not involved in this related discussion) can examine the situation and determine what course of action (if any) is needed and how to proceed with the article. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand the closure of Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Vulture and what the conclusion is. It's not that the closure is controversial but it doesn't resolve anything. And it is highly unusual for the editor who set up the RfC to be the one who closes it and another editor or admin should have taken that role. I don't have much experience closing RfC but I'd recommend an admin well-versed in discussion closures to look it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

re "doesn't resolve anything" - Yeah. For realz.

What's nice about RfC's that don't resolve anything is that we get to continue to debate the subject........ there's always a silver lining..... NickCT (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: The RfC discussion had decided upon a series of copy edits that were then made to the article, so the closure was made uncontroversially in light of the proposals made. I encourage the reopening of said RfC if the parties involved believe it to have been inappropriate. I also encourage editors to read the discussion section thoroughly and understand we had all agreed to said proposals. If reopening the RfC is the way to move forward, I suggest it is promptly acknowledged and set forth. I also believe it inappropriate that I was not notified of an ANI discussion I was directly involved in. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As stated by many editors in many places it was very unwise to close your own RFC, and many contributors consider your closure statement to be an inaccurate and partisan summary of the discussion. There are simple and obvious reasons why closures of contested RFCs should always be made by uninvolved editors. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Let us have it reopened by an admin and coalesce around further discussion. We can request closure when the time's right. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Lydia O. Arefeva

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 I get a copy by email please? It was deleted. Moscowamerican (talk) 09:00, 28 April 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.

Copyright (?) RevDel request

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

---

Not sure if I'm at the best place for this -- lots of instruction pages to sort through -- so bear with me. This edit seems to be some weird game or something and the text is identical to here. Can/Should this be revdel'd (and the edit summary, too)? Rgrds. --64.85.217.243 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Something like this doesn't really need to be RevDel'd, however it appears the user reverted the edit right away. This would be more a case of a test edit or simple vandalism than anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 28 April 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.

Requesting mass deletion

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

---

As the author of these redirects (sorry), can I request they all be deleted, if this can be done with AWB? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Poof. —Cryptic 13:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Well, I can't argue with you, as you're clearly intellectually superior to everyone on here. Somebody block this troll. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

...Huh? —Cryptic 13:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Sorry, I thought you were calling me a poof. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. You wanted them gone, *poof* gone. —Cryptic 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Thanks for deleting them. I thought you were calling me a poof, as in the insult. Sorry again. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:02, 29 April 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.

Botched Page Move

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

---

Hi, earlier today, a newly formed pro sports team, Toronto RLFC, became Toronto Wolfpack. Unfortunately, instead of moving the page and all its history to the new title, a user created a new page and just redirected the old page to it. I tried to fix this by undoing the redirect at RLFC and speedy tagging Wolfpack but I was reverted by another user who seems to have ignored my rationale. I'm not here looking to get either user into trouble. I'm just bringing this to Sysop attention so the botched page move can be properly fixed. Many thanks 2.218.253.200 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the history. We should be all good now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) 2.218.253.200 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 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.

Edit summaries

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 there any good solution to deal with inappropriate edit summaries like this [35]? I mean where to report them and ask to delete them? Because I always post such reports on this board. --Zyma (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion, where it says what to do. Note that I, personally, don't handle anything with the word "Iranian" in it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the edit summary. You can just report them here. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 27 April 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.

Gemma Lacey

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 BLP Gemma Lacey has not been given any references for seven days. It should be deleted. Peter Sam Fan 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to point out expired BLPPRODs or other admin backlogs. We're aware and we'll get to them when we can. We're volunteers just like you. Katie^talk 18:18, 26 April 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.

Admin(?) Midom causing disruption on Occitan Wikipedia

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

---

Hi, I've nothing to do with any of this but passing through oc.wikipedia.org I have noticed someone who I presume to be some kind of admin, one Midom who seems to be rather lacking in social skills, judging by what's going on here: https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilizaire:Midom

I think I appreciate the technical issues being dealt with in there, but his behaviour is way out of line and clearly oversteps what is considered acceptable today in any functional online community.

Especially when this behaviour is directed towards a group who are small and lacking in resources, but very enthusiastic, such as the Occitan Wikipedia lot, this is just plain bullying.

He has, very much without discussion or consultation, decided on the deletion of a significant amount of data--while the reasons appear legitimate, the way in which this was approached by Midom is lamentable (and this is a different discussion, but one could argue that if the templates under discussion lend themselves to be misused in the way they allegedly were, that doesn't say much about the competence of the programmers involved so perhaps they, being a handsomely paid bunch these days, unlike the oc.wikipedia.org editors, should step in and find a solution to the problem. Just saying.)

So, for what little is left of Wikipedia's credibility, I urge you to take action and:

• Reprimand Midom for his reprehensible actions and attitude.
• Admonish him to present his apologies to the Occitan Wikipedia community for his rude, aggressive, and unhelpful behaviour.

As I said, I personally have no axe to grind here, but I do not condone bullying.

I might as well add, having made a note of the information volunteered by this user in his user page, I do reserve the right to contact his employer and make them aware of his highly irresponsible behaviour and questionable social and technical competence. Midom, it is up to you to take this as a learning experience and make amends with the users you have inconvenienced and offended. Providing some assistance to the OC guys in migrating their data into a form that doesn't clog up the servers wouldn't go amiss either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.182.89 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins on English Wikipedia have no standing to admonish users on Occitan (or any other) Wikipedia. Also, OP should (but won't) be blocked for the threat to contact a user's employer. 172.56.34.49 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just to get this straight, 83.47: you want us to punish a user who (with the exception of a single talk page post) hasn't been active for over a year, for something that happened on a different site four years ago in which everyone over there made mistakes? (Calling someone a troll for saying "nuking" as slang for "deleting" is an utter failure of WP:AGF). And you're saying you are the one opposed to bullying here, despite all this and despite threatening to contact his employer? If it wasn't for the off chance that you're sincere in this, I'd delete this thread under WP:DFTT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm coming from the Occitan Wikipedia, where I've sensed Midom edit on his personal space with a new link to this page. I do not know why that IP has posted that. From the Oc Wikipedia side, the damage had been done as Boulaur has stopped contributing (he was the one able to try to build bots...) But we keep on moving, so IMHO this request is just useless. Yours friendly. --— J. F. B. ^{(me´n parlar)} 10:12, 26 April 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 rev-del of edit summary

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 edit summary here is in beach of an injunction considered today at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Maybe some article protection would prevent this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not likely , Wikipedia is not governed by the UK. KoshVorlon 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If the identity of PJS/YMA has been, as the article claims, "widely reported on" in multiple non-UK countries, is there consensus that the article should avoid mentioning their names? Just curious. I understand BLP, of course, which would require an exceptional level of quality sourcing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen quite a bit of discussion about this and, yes, I think that is the consensus. Perhaps we should ask User:DanielJCooper, who created that article. I'm surprised there aren't perfectly good sources available from the land of the free press. Looks like it's open house over there for edit summaries, then. In fact it might make an interesting WP:DYK candidate, with names added, before befuddled old Lord Justice Cocklecarrot gets round to making a decision? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC

I am an English Wikipedia editor so I would be breaching the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and also incurring the wrath of the rather litigious Carter Ruck law firm. That is why while I created the article I have *avoided* mentioning names. Also as I edit under my real name I would be asking for a lawsuit! If anyone else wishes to include names it is completely up to them. Personally I think it is absurd an injunction is in place given how widely reported certain names now are. DanielJCooper (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

.. and I am a Welsh Wikipedia editor who can't avoid English law. So it feels doubly absurd. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As our servers aren't bound by Englishandwelsh law, we have no legal obligation to obey it. Courtesy deletions for the sake of editors who might be endangered by their edits are normally okay, but I see no reason (at least judging by the links presented here) to believe that such a situation has arisen. Protecting the page because of the actions of non-English and non-Welsh editors would be a bad idea, unless the actions would be seen as problematic anyway. It's comparable to the fr:Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute situation out of France a few years back (details), in which French individuals heeded the legal situation, but WMF and admins didn't place any restrictions on the actions of Swiss and Quebecois editors, because there weren't any internal policy problems, and neither the servers nor the Swiss-and-Quebecois editors were bound by French law. Finally, I don't understand your concerns for yourself in this specific edit (could you please explain?), because you haven't added any names. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost positive they're saying that they couldn't add the names themselves given the injunction and their legal status. It doesn't relate to the revdel request. ~ Rob^Talk 04:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've revdeled this edit summary - as it is unsourced information about a living person-this is 100% without prejudice for verifiable information later being added to the actual article. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, page protection is not currently warranted. And I left a talk message on the editor whose summary was redacted that they are free to edit the article with WP:Verifiable informaiton. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggested protection as I anticipated a huge tsunami of copycat pile-on name-and-shamers. It seems no one cares that much after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If after reviewing this another administrator disagrees and wants to overturn this, you may do so without further consultation - please log your overturn here, and notify the requester and the editor should they desire a wider review. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable action. Edit summaries are not the place for BLP claims that require strict sourcing. HighInBC 08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Is calling a law firm 'litigious' meant to be an insult, a compliment, or what? Surely that's their job? GoldenRing (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Depends if it's "Sue, Grabbitt and Runne" or not. Incidentally, we may now be starting to see some battling at PJS v News Group Newspapers. Does WP policy require the article to be protected to keep those names displayed? I'm not getting involved in reverting as the legal position for English and Welsh editors is still not clear to me. Sorry to burden you so. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 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.

Personal attacks by 24.205.178.119

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 IP address has made personal / threatening attacks on the user Popcornduff. See diff 1 and diff 2.

Widr just beat me to it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. ;-) Blocked for 48 hours. Widr (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have also blocked Popcornduff for edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 April 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.

Admin Dravecky's death

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.

---

RIP Dravecky

I am deeply saddened to be in the position of reporting to the community that Dravecky, a friend in real life since 1982, died Saturday, April 23. I am mindful of the guidelines set forth in WP:DWG, and I hesitated to post this news pending what I anticipate will be forthcoming "real newspaper" obituary confirmation from the Huntsville Times (Alabama) at minimum, but this blog apparently highly relevant to Dravecky's professional community has chronicled the events with considerable third-party corroboration, given that Ed was at a professional function at the time of his death. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian but I assure you all that this is, unfortunately, no hoax.

Given Eddy's—augh, excuse me, Dravecky's—tenure and status on WP, I thought there were probably many of you who would want to know about this sooner rather than later. I also think I did know him well enough to surmise that he would want somebody to make sure his admin tools were locked down, even if only temporarily pending further bureaucratic confirmation (which I will furnish as I become aware of same). My condolences to those of you who worked with him here. I hadn't seen him in person since 1986, but we reconnected after I became active on WP and stumbled across his name and knew it could only be him. He was one of the most interested people I ever knew, whether or not we shared the same hobby-horses, and I am grateful to this community for coincidentally allowing the opportunity to reconnect for a little while. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As a long-standing editor and friends with Ed (and his girlfriend) on Facebook, I can sadly confirm that Dravecky has indeed passed away. I posted a little message of my own on Dravecky's talk page.

I believe that Dravecky should be added to the WP:RIP page, but I am unsure how to do this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Just edit this page Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I did my best. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What awful news. When I fell into the radio station area here, Dravecky was the one who schooled me after my first major screwup, and encouraged me throughout cleaning up after myself afterward. He was a reliable sounding board, a solid teammate in defending unloved pages from deletion attempts, and a model for how to admin in an underserved area once I got the mop myself. More than all that, he was a content creator at a degree to which I've never dared aspire. A true colleague, and someone who it always felt like I would have gotten along with well out in the "real world". We didn't trip over each other as much over the last couple of years, but it always brought a smile to my face when we did. My deepest condolences to his friends, his family, and everyone else who's had the opportunity to interact with him here. Mlaffs (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You would have, Mlaffs. There wasn't a base pair in his DNA that wasn't inquisitive and kind and inclusive and smart. I may not have shared all of his interests, but I never doubted his genuine fascination with any of them or his camaraderie with anyone remotely inquisitive about them. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link to his obituary in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to his talk page. It's a "news" obit, not a normal paid obit. I knew him in person and can independently - and with great sadness - confirm his passing. From a Wikipedia perspective, this hits me extra hard since Pedro and I were the ones that nominated him for adminship back in 2008. He sailed through unopposed, 66-0-1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 26 April 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.

Declining CSDs

Hi all

A new admin here :) I just wanted to clarify the procedure for declining WP:CSD requests when they're placed on articles? It seems that removing the template is the first thing to do, but should the admin then notify either the page creator or the person who put the speedy template in the first place? (I've found {{Csddecline}} which seems to be aimed at the page creator, but not a template for the person who wanted the speedy). And is there any requirement to start an AfD discussion, or is that up to the person wanting to delete? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Usually an edit summary is enough. I only bring it up on the tagger's talk page if I notice a pattern of behavior, rather than one or two bad calls. (And I can't imagine a template being well-received.) There's no requirement for you to start an afd, and often the tagger will be in a better position than you to do so. On the other hand, just because an article doesn't strictly meet the speedy criteria doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be deleted, and it's especially irresponsible to decline speedy deletion on a technicality and then never follow up. I tend to keep borderline articles open in a browser tab, then prod after a couple days if there's no improvement and nobody beats me to it. —Cryptic 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSDH is a good script for this; you can choose to notify taggers of declines or change in rationale automatically or on a case by case basis and the template used isn't one of the scary ones. —SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for that - I'll check it out!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cryptic: thanks for your answer, that's really helpful. I wasn't really thinking of a "you've made a mistake, this is a warning" kind of template, just something like a notification that the CSD is declined and they may wish to proceed to AfD. But that's fine if edit summaries will do the trick. The one I've been looking at is Violet Benson, which has had a CSD put up a couple of times now. As far as I can tell she's the subject of articles in reliable sources though, hence why I declined it - I'm not sure if that's what you'd regard as a technicality. Seems like more of an AfD candidate than a speedy. I'm more familiar with WP:RMT, which is perhaps the equivalent to CSD for the requested moves space. When those are declined, the admin usually converts it to a full RM and pings anyone who's already expressed an interest in it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I rarely notify the tagger, because the NPPs are watching recent changes and will see the edit summary I leave and because most of them have a CSD log that will show the page hasn't been deleted. I'll say something like, 'decline A7 - asserts importance, PROD or AFD instead'. It's not your job as the admin to start a PROD or AFD because that takes you out of the admin role and can put you into INVOLVED. If you want to be involved, cool, but it's a line and I try not to cross it very often. :-) Katie^talk 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I also rarely notify the tagger on their talk page. I will usually, if the software allows it, undo or use twinkle to revert the edit with an edit summary. That will give the tagger a notification that a revert was done to their edit. -- GB fan 15:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As a frequent CSD tagger while working maintenance categories I really appreciate notification of a decline along with a reason. Often there can be multiple reasons to delete something, and of course interpretation of CSD criteria may vary. I tagged an old completely blank of content page as "blank page consisting only of the default article text" even though it did not even have that. It was also a declined AfC (for being a blank page) so could have been G13. If that was declined on the technicality that it did not have the default article text, I'd want the Admin to pick another reason or notify me. Watchlist is not enough when you have 800+ pages watchlists. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As admin, if a CSD is mistagged but obviously should be deleted for a different rationale, I just delete it for that proper rationale. I would hope most admin do the same, and don't just kick it out on the technicality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we do the editor a disservice if they tag articles inappropriately and we don't let them know there are problems. I'm not talking about one mistake but I've seen editors who have just been active for a few days start in on NPP and tag articles when they have practically no experience editing on Wikipedia. I don't see it as criticism but education.

The question I sometimes have if I remove a CSD tag, should I remove the notice from the article creator's talk page? Having a notice that your article is facing deletion can be stressful and if that is no longer the case, I think a notice can safely be removed unless the editor has responded to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The way I do it is 1/ if the CSD is fixable or another criterion applies, I fix it. If I choose another criterion, I sometimes let another admin decide on the deletion. 2/I generally do notify the user that the article has not been removed. I often say something like: As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article, because.... However, it needs improvement as follows .... 3/I try to notify the person submitting the declined request if it seems other than a random error, or a spa. (And I will usually check their contribution history for similar bad requests). If they are misunderstanding something, it should be cleared up before the problems accumulate. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Profile101

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101

Some of you may know the name. He is under the impression that he will be unblocked in 6 months. He socks dailyweekly to ask if it can be now. I don't think he will ever be unblocked due to CIR, socking, threats, and frankly, the worst quality lying I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Would it be reasonable to ask him to give up because his chances of ever being unblocked are near zero? Are they near zero? Would that have a chance of getting him to stop? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should never be unblocked, the way to go is propose a community ban discussion - which means that any return is subject to community consensus rather than the whim of a passing admin. In answer to your specific question, given recent Arbcom unblocks, and some admin unblocks of editors who no one thought would be unblocked ever, the chances are that he would be unblocked at some point. It costs him nothing to ask, and much like the carpet-bomb approach to dating, someone will eventually AGF and say yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's not been any activity on that SPI since March, and the most recent account in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Profile101 is a few weeks old. Why bring this up here and now, or am I missing something very obvious? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC).

Hi Lankiveil. He posts using IPs. We mostly stopped bothering to socktag the userpages. Examples:

• 120.50.40.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.7.127.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 118.200.220.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 118.200.73.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I know it's not "sexy", but it would be helpful if cases like this could be documented better with tagging. That way if an admin like myself comes in from outside, we'll be able to work out what's going on rather than having to spend precious time untangling everything. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

You are absolutely right, my friend. I promise to salt and pepper future posts with good diffs and links. I usually do, but did not this time because the editor has posted at so, so many admin talk pages. Anyhow, I will do better next time. Cheers! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone is socking every day then you don't need a community discussion to let them know they are not going to be unblocked. A formal ban is not always called for. If no admin is willing to unblock then there is a defacto ban. Unless there is an admin willing to unblock I would just document your evidence and decline any unblock request.

If there is disagreement with another admin about if they should be unblocked a community discussion may be called for. HighInBC 15:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi HighInBC. Is there anyone who would disagree? And if there were, I would have to respectfully disagree with their disagreement and seriously question their judgement. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I would think not, unless you know something I don't. My point is if no admin thinks they should be unblocked then we can just use everyday administrative discretion to deal with such people instead of spending the time and effort for an official ban. HighInBC 01:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, HighInBC. Next time I see his IP pop up, I will direct him to his original user talk, where I will now post a message saying that he ought to give up because there is almost no chance of him ever being unblocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Balkans Restrictions

[36] I just reverted this, would this fall under the editing restrictions related to the Balkans? WCM_email 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request Admin Attention at Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

This is a request for an administrator to watchlist and watch the template and template talk pages, Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template talk:Anarchism sidebar. There has been edit-warring and name-calling over the inclusion of Anarcho-capitalism in the template. One editor referred to the content position with which they disagree as "vandalism" in an edit summary (and the accusation of vandalism to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack). Another editor referred to an editor’s "hate-filled vendetta" (but denies that that was a personal attack). I am not naming the two editors here, but I am notifying them.

An attempt was made to resolve the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the moderator (in my opinion, reasonably) failed the discussion both because of the personal attacks and the non-existence of any compromise position. The moderator recommended that a Request for Comments be used. A Request for Comments has now been posted, and should be allowed to run for 30 days. I don’t think that any administrative action is needed as long as the RFC is able to run an orderly course, but I do think that administrative watching is the best way to ensure that the RFC runs an orderly course and that there is no further name-calling. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note Page protection has been applied to the template due to the edit warring. I pinged in admin User:Jackmcbarn that was previously involved to the conversation at Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar#Page_Protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So last time this was protected was November 2014 to March 2015. When I unprotected it then, I warned Knight of BAAWA, Eduen, and Stamboliyski that if the edit warring started up again and any of them were involved, it would be stopped with blocks rather than protection. In August 2015, Eduen and Knight of BAAWA started edit-warring there again, and true to my word, I blocked both of them. And now I see Knight of BAAWA is once again in the middle of an edit war on that same template. Facepalm . Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Lilith (Novel) Odd Heading

So, this is a really weird thing, and this might not even be the right place.

When I go to Wikipedia (just the initial page at wikipedia.org) and type in "Lilith (n" I get a hit for "Lilith (Novel)" which is all well and good. But rather than saying "Lilith (Novel) by George MacDonald 1895" or whatever, it says "Lilith (Novel) by George Trilirilarlin".

This is fairly ridiculous. Now, I realize this is a very small thing, but what the heck and why is that a thing at all?

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone doubts this, I encourage them to try it themselves, or send me a message and I will show a screenshot of it, but it's very much a consistent thing.

It doesn't happen for me. I just see "Lilith (novel)" showing up in the search, and when I select it I see an article with that exact title which starts "Lilith is a fantasy novel written by Scottish writer George MacDonald". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair, Boing! said Zebedee but here is a screenshot of what I see. Thanks, [edited, wasn't logged in apparently] PiousCorn (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And I reset my browser memory, etc etc, no, it's still there. (Weird that a random novel suggested by my brother would lead me down this path.) PiousCorn (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It was pulling bad data from please-vandalize-me.org. —Cryptic 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic Thanks so much, glad it's something that's known and can be (and has been) resolved. PiousCorn (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, now when I look it says "1895 novel by George MacDonald, 1895 novel by George MacDonald." (ie twice). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Nuts Entertainment

I bumped into Nuts Entertainment during vandalism patrol. There seems to be some extended, repeated edit warring between a registered user User:WayKurat and an IP user hopping on various IP addresses starting with 49.145.xxx.xxx. User:49.145.182.184 has already been blocked for edit warring, but he seems to not have gotten it. I have just warned WayKurat for edit warring, but I understand that his recent edits have not broken 3RR, although older edits have broken 3RR. Short of making a formal WP:ANEW report, I would like to ask for second opinion on the best action to be taken to prevent further edit warring on the page, especially since the IP user is hopping addresses. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: FYI, the IP hopping anon user you mentioned here that kept on reverting edits on the Nuts Entertainment article has been involved adding unnecessary and hoax information to the Kalyeserye and List of Kalyeserye episodes articles. Both articles were semi-protected because of this anon on different occasions. Since the anon cannot edit both articles anymore, he/she focused on other articles that are connected to Kalyeserye. For example: he/she edits the Nuts Entertainment article because one of the characters there (Mike "Pekto" Nacua) made an appearance to Kalyeserye. If his edits were reverted, he will revert it back. Here are some instances: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please take note that no matter how we explain to this anon his edits, he just reverts it back and ignores our notices. -WayKurat (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Create an unsubmitted article

IP 123.24.194.104 boasts, in his talk page under topic: 2016, being able to create and poste a new article named "Pleiku Campaign" without having to go through the process of submission and approval by just editing the #REDIRECT =>Battle of Ia Drang page like here .Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a stealth way of getting around the New Page Patrol. But, as for this page, it has been reverted back to a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything indicating he did that to circumvent patrolling. He certainly hasn't bragged about it on his talk page. Assume good faith. He could have just seen an article that he felt needed creating and created it. There is no submission/approval process to create articles. WP:AFC is optional. ~ Rob^Talk 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about a prolific, problematic IP

I'm not sure where else to ask this so figured I'd ask here. By chance I came across this IP address [37], and as far as I can see, few to none of the edits it has made have been beneficial. Historically, when it DOES make useful edits, they are interspersed with sneaky vandalism. It stops for a month or two, then starts up again. The talk page is basically a notice farm and the one existing archive is yet another, larger warning farm. In 2006, an administrator tagged it as a likely sock of someone who had apparently solicited child porn.

My question is: is there a process in place by which we can long-term block this IP? It appears static, likely a proxy server for a corporation. I see a ridiculously extensive history of vandalism and problems and little to indicate it is at all beneficial to let it go on editing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If, as you say, it makes useful edits once in a while, and it is likely a proxy server for a corporation, then blocking it would probably mean blocking a corporation with a good editor in it. This fact needs to be kept in mind. That having been said, admins are entitled to block any disruptive IP n sight, with escalating blocks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick

Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc, Guerillero

Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Requested moves backlogged

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:Requested moves heavily backlogged. Baking Soda (talk) 10:57, 1 May 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.

Please help

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 please paste importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js'); into (Redacted)/monobook.js. Thanks for your help! :-)-- ((Redacted)) 10:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In order for you to be able to utilize custom JavaScript code, you need to create an account and move the code into the .js page under your new account. IP users do not have an editable monobook codespace like accounts do, and even if they did... that area is not editable by any users or accounts other than yourself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an account, but I have found that I am unable to edit that page either though here. I do not want these images to be viewable though my IP. Please help! Thank you. --LL212W (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unregistered contributors cannot use scripts (I know, I tried). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is for security reasons. Imagine someone putting hostile javascript in the script page of a popular shared IP. HighInBC 18:13, 1 May 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.

BLP nightmare needs attention

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.

---

See Clinton donors in the Panama Papers and related pages. It's up for deletion but I really don't think this guilt by association attack page should be up and running for another two days (or even longer).--TMCk (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid closing it now for any admin would be suicidal.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the deletion discussion. I considered a snow close but I decided the discussion did not warrant it. Let it run for two more days; I think the result will be clear enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

With 5 kees and 15 deletes it is not a snow keep by my standards, given that the keep arguments have been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my conclusion also. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Always nice to see how BLP policy is not negotiable.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a SNOW by BLP standards. And there's really only 3 keep votes. The other two are WP:OTHERSTUFF (by an IP) and "me too!". And it's 17 deletes now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Need to wait for some admin who is not afraid to uphold BLP policy, one of the very reasons they've been trusted with the tools.--TMCk (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you found your suicidal BLP enforcer because I just closed it. Katie^talk 23:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You go, girl. We got you covert.--TMCk (talk) 23:27, 1 May 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.

Is this the right place to say there seems to be a gap in the archive for the page Talk:Heat?

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

---

There seems to be a big gap in the archives for the page Talk:Heat. Is this the right place to ask about that?Chjoaygame (talk)

Looking at the history of the talk page in this time gap, the only difference between the talk page at the end of December 2015 and the version at the beginning f April 206 is the removal of a single section; this corresponds to this edit, which is archiving that section. This would explain the gap. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this. When I look at the top parts of the page Talk:Heat I see only archives up to archive 15. I now see that you are right that looking on the archive pages one is guided to the later archives. Should the top of the main talk page show all those?Chjoaygame (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: You can edit Talk:Heat to include the new links, it is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 1 May 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.

Involved block and revdel

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.

---

Just a quick note for transparency that, despite considering myself WP:INVOLVED, I made an indefinite block and revision deletion for this edit as a serious BLP violation. CIreland (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good block, the edit has been suppressed also. -- GB fan 01:17, 2 May 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.

SPI is backlogged

Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open almost two weeks, and it's basically a WP:DUCK case. And, no, I didn't file it, but it's incredibly obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the registered account, but the IP is a little stale so it's simply tagged. Katie^talk 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both for this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can I hear it for the good folks working SPI? They have a complicated and ungrateful task, and deserves happy things like puppies and apple pie. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Do we need more CheckUsers? I'm seeing regular backlogs at SPI and on UTRS and I think I maybe might be able to contribute. Katie^talk 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can more people apply to SPI? It seems that a small fraction of the 38 CheckUsers are working on SPI. KgosarMyth (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very underserviced area of the site, sadly. But that's coming from a notorious SPI-stalker like me. There is no need to really apply; you can help there regardless of whether you are a Checkuser or Admin (I'm neither, heh), or you could consider becoming a trainee clerk in the future. GAB^Hello! 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't need more Checkusers, we need more willing admins and Clerks to review and act on the open reports. There are only three Checkuser-endorsed reports open at the moment, every single other entry is awaiting review from willing participants. Another option is to clone Vanjagenije, though I'm not sure he would be open to the suggestion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Better idea would be to divide me in two, that would also help me with my weight problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You could divide me in four to build a quartet of reasonably-healthy men, but they'd probably be slackers just like me. Sorry I'm not helping out more, Vanja. We love ya! <3 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long proposed splitting Bbb23. Even at 11.5 they'd be great. Ponyo, well, there's only one Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a clerk training in progress: December 2015 clerk training. It has been idle for some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Another that needs attention

If an administrator could review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, it would be appreciated. The length of the report isn't due to contention; it's because the master is continuing to move on to more and more socks. Having the existing ones blocked and tagged (all of which are very obvious) would be helpful. ~ Rob^Talk 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The named accounts have all been blocked and tagged, and I tagged the IPs as suspected socks. Nothing more to do. If/when it reoccurs, open a new one. :-) Katie^talk 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

3 editors edit warring on my talk page

Three editors are edit warring with me on my own talk page. User:Clubjustin4, User:JWNoctis and User:Curly_Turkey. I told Curley Turkey three times not to edit my talk page and an admin told them not to do so as well, yet here they are edit warring to restore their old comments.

Talk page.

I'm giving notice at their talk pages now. UPDATE: all three editors have been notified at their talk pages.

2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked. The only one 3rring is you. Throw in some block evasion for talk page access revoked please. Clubjustin (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a 48 hour block and it has expired. I'm not evading anything. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clubjustin4 has been notified of this report, responded here and has now intensified the edit warring. Somebody please put a stop to this. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, editing others' comments and warnings for purposes other than archiving just because you can is not good form, at the very least. You may also wish to get yourself an actual account, and may that hold your action more accountable. JWNoctis^talk 05:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you cite a policy? I'm not seeing one. Sounds like a bunch of unsolicited opinion. That's not a justification for editing my talk page. Nor edit warring once it's clear your edits are unwanted. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You delete messages on the reason 'trolling' yet you refer to 'trolling' as a personal attack. What? Clubjustin (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor edited their page with an alternate account after having thier talk page access blocked. The editor has actually used quite a few different IP accounts (both IPv4 and IPv6) to avoid the blocks they've been given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for 60 h per WP:NOTTHERE. If someone can apply a range block, this would be useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, we need to block both IPV4 &6 range of IP'S. Clubjustin (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 2602:301:C063:EDC0::/64 for 60 hours (reset Ymblanter's block) for block evasion. If you'll list the IPv4 addresses, I'll investigate. Katie^talk 16:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Template misused in Titles alert—patrol+Bot+Solution needed

Posting this here as the issue needs a long term solution, then bot cleanup to implement. re: This edit & action - Note the subtext comment explaining the problem. (Duplicated here for complete picture, emphasis added):

PROBLEM... ['script previewing links' hides 'template rendering', so just see: '(space+semi-colon+space Years-range)'...] Template NOT to be used in Lead... see {{IPAc-en/doc}} page, but needs be avoided in first paras of articles. {{IPAc-en|m|ə|n|ˈ|r|oʊ}}; NOTE, mouse-over hoover on List of Presidents of the United States showed most of the first ten also NOT having the template. Perhaps subst'ing the output will be acceptable, suspect the issue is noprint element or other incompatible generated script control element

• Template:IPAc-en(edit talk links history)

1. Suspect the problem is not to general reader
   1. but only affects those of us which have script assisted pre-peak over wikilinks enabled in our .CSS file, which is to say most computer savvy veteran editors
   2. but... at this point: that is only a hypothesis and guess!
2. That means the scope and exact nature of the problem needs be revealed before any general solution can be adopted... hence this body is best suited to resolve speedily.
3. Problem is use of a template in Lead para, which probably has little use outside leads: but for which the template usage /doc page WARNS PROMINENTLY to NOT use it in leads.
4. I saw the problem by hoovering over the link to President James Monroe. I saw similar malformed... Someone after Jackson.
   1. The hoover issue manifests on these two pages:
      1. James Buchanan
      2. Abraham Lincoln... skipping most back to Washington.
   2. Have to suspect, to believe even, given the format observed there are thousands of biographies and history articles that may be affected; these are likely to use the pronunciation-date range format as MOS preferences.
   3. obviously parsing the 'whatlinkshere' manually will show the same issue I observed.
5. The real issue is resolving how speedily a resolution of this problem is needed, how widespread and problematic, and how it's to be resolved.
   1. If, as I suspect the issue only appears to those of us hoovering a link, IMHO, we can all just learn to live with it, and it's use in the lead can be tolerated; hence the template warning should be altered a bit.
   2. If, as is possible, this also has issues in being printed, or Iphones or other page rendering issues to the general public, then the matter becomes far more urgent.

Need I say more! I leave the matter in your hands. // FrankB 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a technical problem. Kaldari added that notice in the doc only recently, without explanation, so it is best to ask him. For me, I can see no fault in its rendering on the page itself. The only problem I see is that the IPA rendering is left blank in Popups. It affects any language, and IPA pronounciations are regularly, if not mostly, used in the lead. If anything, the issue should be brought up there. But it is no reason to remove any IPA template from the lead in any articles. Therefor, I will put it back and remove the notice. Popups is not a core part of the software, threfor never a reason to remove any templates from articles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter and Fabartus: The notice I added in the docs says "Per WP:LEAD, do not use this template in the lead section for common English words." In other words, don't add a pronunciation for words like Monday, pub, bean, rose, pencil, mind, bus, Earth, etc. (all of which until recently included pronunciations). My note had nothing to do with technical issues, only MOS guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe all parenthetical phrases are stripped from pop-ups and search snippets, but that should not affect use of the IPAc-en template. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, dude! Want to explain how date ranges in the two president examples I linked above ARE NOT parenthetical expressions?
In any case, if this is only an editor popup, I have no beef with it. Otherwise the two leading whitespaces and semicolon left dangling after the '(' are nearly as objectionable as a hanging chad to a die-hard Democrat. // FrankB 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Article redirected without consensus

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

---

The article on Spy-Fi was nominated for deletion despite having up to ten refs. The result of the discussion was no consensus and now user:Betty Logan redirected without discussion. There are a number of editors still working on the article and an elaboration weather to split sections. I don't know how to bring it back, but it was not done without proper discussion. I don't know how to undo this move. It seems only an admin can do it. Please help undo it. That article is still being worked on by multiple editors and it was moved without any explanation.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the article because the term "spy-fi" has two distinct definitions: for many years it has denoted "spy fiction" in the publishing industry, but in the last decade the term has been coined to denote a sub-genre of spy-fiction and science-fiction. With this edit Taeyebaar made it clear that he intends the article to focus exclusively on the sub-genre so I disambiguated the article to make it clear which definition the article covers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 2 May 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.

Conflict of interest

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.

---

Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Wikipedia. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You should recommend as well, the deleted post be strickend from this page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 May 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.

Review of ANI close

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

---

Discussion

I am asking for a review of the ANI close here. The main issue is a specific reading of the rev-del policy by the closer: that the views of the non-admins are irrelevant in considering whether there is a consensus for a rev-del, even when the rev-deled text is available for all to read. This is in contrast to clear direction in WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Clearly the views of non-admins can indicate dissent, at the very least. It seems to me that the reading is contrary to the spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the policy.

Discussion with the closer here (permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Overturn close: Per my statement above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs) is intentionally cherry picking the policy. I've pointed it out twice that the policy says:
  • "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
  • "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."
• I can only suspect that the omission of these quotes by Kingindian, after being pointed to those lines twice, is an intentional omission to mislead. I agree that when the material is available on the internet, that review should be possible by editors as well and that an RFC be started. BU_Rob13 (talk · contribs) was kind enough to start one here. At this point, I think Kingsindian needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close this as WP:FORUMSHOP. I started an RfC to address the questions surrounding this closure. I heavily disagree with the close because I believe the section of the policy quoted by Kingsindian above implies that no consensus should default to "don't delete", but it's improper to have two discussions running at the same time on the same question. It's much better to address this question more generally with an RfC, because I can absolutely see where TParis is coming from. The policy is not at all clear on this issue. ~ Rob^Talk 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: There is no forum shopping. The RfC you opened is whether the RevDel policy should be changed. This is whether the RevDel policy, as written, was correctly applied. I pointed out this on TParis' talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:18, 4 May 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:Brianpeppers123456

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

---

I'm trying to post warnings to Brianpeppers123456 but it's coming up as a permission error/blacklisted page. Need an admin to assist, though given this user's early edits, I suspect their time here may be limited. Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username and vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:51, 4 May 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.

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original discussion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I really can't make heads or tails of this announcement. I have absolutely no idea what this means and it seems absurdly bureaucratic. New England Cop (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  If a block is designated as an Oversight block in the block message, it is only appealable to the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, as circumstances permit, an Oversight team member may designate a block as only appealable to the Arbitration Committee. Nakon 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion 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.

---

Wasickta has filed a COI complaint against Alansohn on COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Wikipedia: Conflict Of Interest. I looked into some of the evidence and found nothing there to support the claims. Whatever the merits of that complaint are, Wasickta is, I think, taking my statements as a reason to start disrupting some stuff; within an hour of my first post they thought it a good idea to post some sort of protest statement on the talk page of a VOA account I blocked. This is highly unbecoming and disruptive and I would like a second, third, etc. opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is a disruptive edit and inappropriate. This is a newish user; per their edit count their account has been open less than 1 year and they have about 200 edits. Their filings at AN and then at COIN were... ineptly done - too much drama and not nearly enough evidence. The false accusations of OUTING confused things. When they finally came back and presented evidence it was again overly dramatic and weak, and was reacted to negatively. W's reactions to that went from kind of sarcasm here to explicit sarcasm that started to personalize this here; which was followed in time by the wierd edit Drmies brings above, followed by this which really does make it personal.

COI is hard to deal with and there are lots of ways to go wrong. W has gone wrong in almost all of them (no real evidence, too much emotion, too personalized, threatening to go the papers, some personal attack, and doing more of the same in reaction to the negative reactions they received, including the posting at Benjamin02's page that is the specific subject of this posting). That is not terrible if they were to handle it gracefully and learn. So let's see what happens.

Wasickta, do you see that you have handled this badly and that whatever you were doing at Benjamin02's was a bad thing? Please think carefully before responding. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was upset and it was very irrational/incorrect thing to do. I have retracted the comment since. Wasickta (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasickta adding an apology to Drmies wouldn't hurt (Drmies is one of the best here, actually. Saucy which can be confusing, but on the money). But don't apologize if you don't mean it. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies are you satisfied? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I'm only in it for the money, and a $100 bill (or "Benny") will go a long way. What I care about is that Wasickta knows this was out of line and won't do it again--and that Wasickta will ponder the COI accusations they made and the evidence they presented. I don't need an apology, I just want a more positive, productive colleague on Wikipedia. And a nap, which went totally by the wayside today. (BTW, that editor I blocked, the rev/deleted edits had nothing to do with anything here--just vandalism and someone saying disgusting things about a classmate or so.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 May 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.

Curious about pending changes on talk pages

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 know it's not for talk pages, and I don't plan on using it there. I was just wondering if it is technically possible for an admin to do so. PC isn't one of the options on the protection screen for talk pages, just edit and move protection. I'd think that a dev would be able to do this without much trouble, but is there any sort of workaround that would allow an admin to add pending changes to a talk page? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Our current configuration does not support this, see Special:StablePages for the combinations that are supported. I don't see a reason it could not be enabled project wide for other namespaces if we had community consensus for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#Basic_settings shows that $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces could be updated to include other namespaces, this would be project-wide. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 3 May 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.

Topic ban appeal

section originally titled "Standard offer request", retitled by Salvidrim! on 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

I typically spend about 1,000 hours a year working on Wikipedia. I started out mostly working on energy related topics, but then got interested in becoming an admin and created this alternate username for that purpose, plus for other reasons. While I apparently disagreed with some on some issues that is no way to resolve disputes, but while blocked I simply looked for something else to do and found a home in creating and translating SVGs, which occupies most of my time now (so far I have created over 1000 images, with one that has over 7500 translations). I qualify for the standard offer because I meet all the criteria - over six months, active in another project, never violated the block. In the meantime I made a list of over 250 edits I found that needed to be made, and have worked my way through about 1/3 of them and will get to the rest as soon as I can, but the standard offer will help greatly because there are some edits that the restrictions on my account prevent me from doing. I will actually only be making a few edits each week here (after the backlog is cleared), as there is a backlog of over 6000 SVGs to create and over 6000 that need translations. Each restriction means only one thing - an edit does not get done that would help the project. Apteva (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are not actually blocked? Or is this an appeal of a restriction you are under? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do you mean you want your other account unblocked and/or that you want to be allowed to edit from other accounts? "Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on." That restriction was placed in Jan 2013. Why should it be lifted? Fences&Windows 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Current restrictions (per WP:EDR):

1. Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles
2. Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that.

They are currently appealable. Technically only the first once is relevant (as the second one becomes inapplicable if there are no existing sanctions). This isn't really a "WP:STANDARDOFFER" both more a simple topic ban appeal. I've (boldly) retitled this section as such. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva, can you give one or more example of "edits that the restrictions on {your} account prevent {you} from doing"? Can you provide specific examples of constructive work on other projects in the topic of dashes/hyphens/etc.? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the one that I came across the other day is I was updating the SEGS page, and I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added. Another example is if I take a photograph of a location that would identify me, I can not use or add it to a page without revealing my real world location. As such I need to be able to use other account names. We are not talking about a lot of edits, maybe a few a year I would guess. The standard offer removes all restrictions. While I am unblocked, which is hugely beneficial, what I really need is a removal of all restrictions, so that I can contribute fully to the project, without having one hand tied behind my back for reasons that no longer exist. This was a fun file[38] that I fixed. It used both commas and periods for a decimal place and two hyphens and two endashes. Or something. I did not check to see if they were really hyphens (they are). I have seen a file named using a minus sign for a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have a clue now. Katie^talk 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added." So, the reason for lifting the topic ban on modifying dashes is so he can modify dashes he thinks are incorrect? I singularly fail to see how lifting a topic ban from someone, that was *specifically* put in place to restrict their editing in an area, to allow them to edit in that area, is a good thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason is so that errors do not stay in articles. Sure someone else might notice it but how long has that been there before I noticed it (over two years[39]), and what is the reason for insisting that I can not fix it? I am not going by what I think it should be I am going by what the MOS says it should be. That is why we have a MOS, so that punctuation is not all over the place like that but follows a standard. Whenever I do not know what to use I refer to the MOS to find out. What is the reason for wanting it to stay wrong? Saying I cannot fix errors when I see them is not a good idea. But I want to remind you that two years ago I did have an opinion on what it should be and tried to get the MOS changed to address that. But as that failed I moved on and I ask everyone to allow me to simply edit using that MOS. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Mdrnpndr

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.

---

Mdrnpndr (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

• I am handling an unblock request and this user wishes to request the standard offer. I am deferring this to the community to decide. The message below was originally posted on their talk page and reposted here by me[40]. At this point I am going to withhold my opinion, but I may express it later. HighInBC 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have waited 6 months since I was originally blocked to make this standard offer request to give myself sufficient time to come to terms with the situation. I think that insufficient time away from Wikipedia may have been a factor in my previous relapses into edit warring. As for the matter at hand, I agree with the original declining administrator that my efforts in terms of dispute resolution and discussion in general were quite weak. If unblocked, my number one priority will be consensus building. I will focus a tremendous amount of effort on reaching out to all community members whom I have editing disputes with, even if their opinions are radically different from mine. I will not avoid discussion and will make sure that my voice is heard in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but I will respect community consensus once it exists. In either case, edit warring is a definite no-go zone, period.

I would now like to address some issues that an administrator brought up on my talk page. First of all, I am not under any sanctions other than the block itself. Second, I admit that my previous unblock (which, it stands to mention, happened about two years ago now) was as a second chance, but it was for a very specific issue that was only indirectly connected to my edit warring behaviour. More importantly, I followed through on the terms of my unblock that time, as I have taken great care since then to respect the desires of other users with regard to their talk pages. I plan to do the same here for edit warring in general, by respecting the desires of the community in regard to articles and similar pages. Finally, I would like to point out that, even though I have been indefinitely blocked before, I had never made a standard offer request until now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So I'm the blocking admin, but I have no opinion, because I don't remember the situation (or your username, for that matter) even one bit. Just saying this lest people wonder what I think about the situation. For future reference, the most recent block entry had a rationale of Persistent tendentious editing; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681944624. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have pinged you. I will remember next time. HighInBC 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I only learnt this by accident: since "I have been indefinitely blocked before", I was curious to see the block log, so I went to it and was surprised to see my own username as the blocking admin. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the thread/situation that resulted in the indef block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not expressing my opinion on whether this user should be unblocked, but if the user is unblocked, I strongly suggest placing a WP:1RR restriction on them for a period of time, with a swift return to an indefinite block if it is broken. I'm not opposed to giving another chance to someone with a long history of blocks for edit-warring, but only if such a restriction prevents wasted editor time down the road in the event that edit-warring persists. ~ Rob^Talk 02:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Mdrnpndr has made a response here: [41]. HighInBC 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support conditional on an indefinite 1RR restriction that can be appealed here after six months. Katie^talk 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on 1RR acceptance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support subject to 1RR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• After thinking about this a while I have decided to support subject to 1RR. HighInBC 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support support with the following caveats: (1) 1RR restriction; (2) General civility restriction ; restrictions to be indefinite but available for appeal here at WP:AN after 6 months. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 1 May 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.

Wiktionary should be changed

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.

---

One of the most irritating thing about using Wiktionary as a multilingual dictionary, which is one of its purposes, is its capitalization of German nouns. Capitalization is a style issue and should not affect sorting in a dictionary, yet they insist on having a separate page for each German noun with the capital. I don't like case-sensitivity in the first place, but that is absurd. You get entries for a common borrowing in every other language on one page, then the German one on another. If you're searching for a German noun, you are sent to the wrong page if there happens to be a word of that spelling in any other language. I don't know who decided this but it's ludicrous.

I can't post this at Wiktionary (not that there's anyone listening there) because I am blocked there, by a guy that obviously has it in for me. All I did is write 'cunt' in the sandbox, which I referenced in this edit summary which someone was confused by whoever gave me a warning for it.

Please clean up Wiktionary. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Wiktionary - we have no jurisdiction over the other sites in the Wikimedia project. There is nothing we can do for you. ansh666 11:07, 8 May 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.

Article splitting - whose responsibility is it to fix incoming links?

When an article is split resulting in two articles whose responsibility is it to fix the incoming links? The issue is fully explained at at Talk:World_Open_(snooker)#RfC:_Proposal_to_split_World_Grand_Prix_results_to_World_Grand_Prix_.28snooker.29.3F. Some of the events at World Open (snooker) have been split out to a new article, meaning that the World Open entry in the player performance tables needs to be converted to two entries. The result of the split is that many of the links are now broken, but the editor who undertook the split is refusing to do the cleanup job claiming it is an "absolutely another problem". While the article obviously needed to be split at some point I think the other editor did have a duty of care here i.e. the other article could have been set up, the links then should have been fixed and then the content content could have been deleted from the existing article. WP:CORRECTSPLIT seems to indicate that checking the link integrity is part of the process. Is the editor who undertook the split permitted to refuse to do any of the cleanup? Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You do remember we're all fucking volunteers, right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I only fuck paid editors. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do recall that. But if I volunteer at an old folks home and take them on a day trip to the seaside do I have an obligation to bring them home? Or am I justified in just leaving them there and telling them all I'm only a "fucking volunteer"? Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As BD2412 points out below, the ability to revert to the status quo ante changes the moral calculus here. If the editor won't clear up the mess then you're entitled to revert to the pre-mess situation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't conflate "editing an online encyclopedia" and "life-endangering criminal negligence". You're more intelligent than that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Even if the split is needed, if it makes a mess that no one wants to clean up (including the editor who split the articles), then I would revert and wait until someone comes along who can do the split properly (i.e., including cleanup). bd2412 T 15:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I prefer to recruit a couple of friends ahead of time. Often I will forget something, and one of them will remember as well. As long as it is cleaned up within a day, that is fine. Projects are a good place to recruit help, as is the article talk page. Many hands make for light work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up page moves

Hogie75 (talk · contribs) made hundreds of undiscussed page moves earlier today. They include moving pages like December 17–22, 2012 North American blizzard to 2012 December 17–22 North American blizzard without an explanation. I've moved maybe a dozen or so back so far, but I don't have the time to correct all of them. I'm not looking to have the user sanctioned, but the moves should be undone. Calidium ¤ 16:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You I do understand the reason for this as I should have brought it up for discussion as I am noticing, however I was noticing several other articles prior to moving the articles for my reasoning of doing what I did including 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire and 2011 Slave Lake wildfire, and 1991 Halloween blizzard several of which I had no contributions towards. The purpose of which would make Category:Blizzards_in_the_United_States organized and user friendly to view, and give some reason to naming in general which is quite confusing as per several discussions on Talk:Winter_storm_naming_in_the_United_States. I would gladly go back and revert my edits if deemed inappropriate. Again, the redirects were still in place. Thank you.16:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hogie75, there are guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Tornado and tornado outbreaks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style which you should have consulted before making dozens and dozens of page moves. I suggest reviewing each move, bringing the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather and other relevant talk pages in order to see if your style of naming is in line with standard practices. In general, if there is a stylistic debate that is unresolved, it is unwise to choose to bring order to what you see as confusion by substituting your own opinion for consensus.

I should say that I did this exact same thing years ago when I saw the use of U.S. in some titles while in others, United States is used. Luckily, I only did a few page moves before a more experienced editor brought my mistake to my attention and I reverted those changes. It's a mistake to assume that a subject that is inconsistent hasn't already been the subject of discussion and the differences might exist because there isn't a clear consensus yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And because I haven't used enough initials, see WP:TITLECHANGES, specifically, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok well I will ensure my edits are all reverted, again sorry everyone for the confusion, I never thought it would be this big a deal. I will refrain from any further edits.18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I just moved back about 4 articles that were involved in this mess, so you can thank me for that, however the 2006-07 Colorado blizzards one I cannot move, so I appreciate if an admin can move that one. --MarioProtIV (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help, if you could just link to the page in question. The one above is a red link. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins disagreeing on unblock

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

---

And I'm one of them, kind-of.

Some days ago, I blocked Hijiri88 with a rationale of WP:BATTLEGROUND (no link, but a link was present in his previous block, so presumably he was familiar with it) because of this edit. It's a two-week block. Hijiri proceeded to request unblock, but his request was declined by HighInBC with statements such as Since you don't seem to realize how this was inappropriate I don't think an unblock would make sense. Yesterday, TParis asked me to unblock, a request that I was inclined to grant (I don't want to reject this kind of request from another admin) until I saw the unblock request and its rejection, but I hesitate unilaterally to unblock someone after learning that another admin is so firmly opposed to unblock.

So basically, you have HighInBC strongly opposed to unblock, TParis requesting unblock, and me in the middle, not quite sure what to do. Sounds like a perfect "ask the community" situation. Unblock? Modify the block? Leave the block unchanged? Your opinions would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Call a compromise and reduce it to a one week block including time served. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I would say since after your block an unblock was rejected by another admin, you can not unilaterally unblock them. I would just leave the matter to the fourth admin (possibly by asking the user to file another unblock request).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• If this is a request for feedback on how to handle things in general, I'd say a reasonable approach is (a) if blocking admin is in favor of unblock, they break the tie, and (b) if blocking admin is unsure or against unblock, then seek consensus here.

If this is actually a request for such a consensus here, then my opinion hinges on whether Hijiri has been part of the feuding that recently led to my blocking MaranoFan and Calvin999 for 1 month. If so, then I strongly favor leaving it in place, as it is already half of the duration I'd have used. If it is not, then I have no opinion. I know it involves Calvin999, but I don't know if it's related to the wider conflct. I don't have time to research, so I'll hope/assume that someone will know and interpret this accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, the edit I linked above as the basis for the block (another copy of that link) was a comment at one user's talk page, which created a new section with the title of [[Special:Contributions/Calvin999|This guy]] is blocked for battleground behaviour. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection if another admin comes to another conclusion regarding the unblock request. I have no strong feelings on the matter. My unblock review was part of me going through the unblock queue and was based on my analysis of the quality of the block and its ongoing preventative nature. If Nyttend or TParis(or anyone else) feels that the block has served its purpose then I have no intention of standing in their way. Thank you for consulting me. HighInBC 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no doubt the block was warranted. Grave dancing is just going to sour the situation worse when Calvin999 returns. But this comment pretty much puts the preventative issue to rest. Hijiri88 seems to appear to agree that it's only going to sully the situation and will not engage in further grave dancing.--v/r - TP 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Hijiri88's participation but both Calvin and MF are asking for an IBan but I know that admins are leery of imposing them because they can be gamed. When these editors get unblocked or their blocks expire, they will all have to increase their level of restraint. For some reason, it seems like a herculean task for some editors to just ignore each other. I hope this situation has a more positive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note This block has since been reversed. Everyone involved with the block and reviews seems to be in agreement. Unless anyone has other concerns about this I think it can be closed. HighInBC 16:26, 3 May 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.

Neve-selbert.

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

---

I'm requesting that Neve-selbert's indef block be reduced to a 1-month block. The individual hadn't vandalized articles or used sock-puppets & has promised to stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles & the Israel/Palestine topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence here Having interacted with Neve-selbert somewhat, I can only say they have a great deal of heart in contributing to the project, which is commendable and with all the good faith in the world, I'd be supportive of the reduction. However, their condition also leads to tricky situations, such as the one that got them blocked. There's nothing to say that the same situation that occurred on the List of State Leaders won't happen somewhere else, simply because there is no way of telling what their compulsion would latch on to. The biggest question would be how those situations would be dealt with? They obviously can't be article banned one at a time whenever their compulsiveness kicks in. Blackmane (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping he could be unblocked on May 17 (2016), which would mark a month being blocked. We should be helping him, instead of throwing him away. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

All the good faith in the world cannot assist those who have medical conditions. No editor should be expected to do that. I'm not averse to an unblock, just playing devils advocate here. Blackmane (talk)\

• Oppose Neve-selbert is currently unable to abide by community required standards of conduct and editing behaviour. That this may be the result of a medical condition is irrelevant. They have been given many many many chances. They have had (probably as a result of their condition) a far more understanding tolerance of their behaviour than most editors would receive. If I or many others had done a lot of the stuff Neve has, we found be facing community bans rather than just indef blocks. Offenses such as; edit-warring, personal attacks, editing against consensus etc. Repeated talkpage promises to change their behaviour have been broken - probably due to their condition making Neve *unable* to keep their promises, not out of malice but compulsion. At this point they have zero credibility with any statement they are going to be able to change their behaviour or live up to the community required standards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Neve-selbert are unable to drop sticks, and unable to back down when proven wrong, and unable to listen to anyone. This is the problem, and the reason why he has been blocked. He simply does not listen to anyone, not even himself. This has not changed in the least. He has by multiple editors repeatedly been told to take a wiki-break, but his talk page since the block is full of him repeatedly pleading to get unblocked or get a time limit. He still doesn't listen, but essentially keeps repeating the same arguments and asking the same questions no matter how many times they are answered. Neve-selberts problems remain, and if he gets unblocked, even with a topic ban, he will just do the same again on another topic. He should take a 6-month wiki-break as per the standard offer, and then see. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was pinged from the editor's talk page, and will note that the statement about my view is itself a gaming of the system. I did recommend that User:Neve-selbert voluntarily agree to a one-month block. However, I should have said that he should agree to a one-month "silent block", that is, in which he accepted the block and stayed out of Wikipedia, rather than raging on his talk page. Maybe I should have been even more detailed, but it is the community that will decide anyway. He is continuing to protest the block, and thus doesn't really get it. I will comment that other editors have commented that a diagnostic condition is not an excuse for failure to comply with the norms of Wikipedia, but that maybe Wikipedia is excessively tolerant of editors who have diagnostic conditions. My own thought is that the English Wikipedia is in general too tolerant of editors who make positive contributions but are net negatives, even if they have no excuses other than stubbornness. All that doesn't matter. This editor has shown himself to be a net negative and needs to take a long silent deep breath before requesting unblock again. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose comment - In response to this request, Neve is clearly repeating the very same behavior (at their talk page) that led to their block in the first place. Maybe this well meant request by GoodDay wasn't such a good idea as it only listed things Neve didn't do instead of addressing the problematic behavior that actually led to the block and, most importantly, how and why they felt this behavior has changed and won't be repeated in the future.--TMCk (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If Neve-selbert were to restrain from even commenting at his talkpage for a specified length of time. Could that be an acceptable unblock condition? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Six months sounds like a start to me. --Tarage (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the standard offer, yes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my point. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh hold on, that's not quite the question. Let me answer it: no, it's not an acceptable unblock condition. There is no condition whereby an indefinitely blocked user will automatically be unblocked. That's sort of what indefinite means. I guess I did address that below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If he can stop editing for at least six months, MAYBE he can be unblocked. I'm not saying automatic, I'm saying if he can't even stop editing for six months, he shouldn't be unblocked. I'm saying we need to stop this nonsense and apply the standard offer, and stop letting him lead people around on his talk page. --Tarage (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - this isn't a six-month block, it's an indefinite one. That means there is no time limit. It's not going to be automatically lifted after six months pass and so there is no possible justification for shortening it to one month. It'll be lifted when Neve-selbert demonstrates that he understands the reasons for his block, and explains how he plans to avoid the behaviour which led to the block. He can try to do that any time by, as several users have asked him to do, using the {{unblock}} template and making a proper unblock request. He still hasn't done it, and if he keeps using his talk page to harangue users who are trying to help, he'll have his access to that cut off too. He has an uphill battle: he's acknowledged having a medical condition which hinders his ability to collaborate rationally and constructively, and as gently as I can put it, the ability to do so is required. He is the one who best understands his own limitations and only he can come up with an honest plan for how he will avoid this situation here in the future. None of us can make that plan for him, and as long as we don't see an honest attempt from him, our only option to prevent his disruption is to prevent him from editing entirely. The ball's in his court. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

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.

Standard offer for Technophant

Closing per Technophant's request in Diff of User talk:Technophant. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

---

• Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL^{Query me!} 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note See below in the Relisted section for my updated opinion. HighInBC 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• But HighInBC, it was closed merely for lack of activity, with the possibility of reopening when Technophant was able to participate, and that's now the case. Why should that be relevant? You don't provide new information when you're merely resuming a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• This does not change the fact that they have still not responded to concerns brought up weeks ago. Even now they are back they have not addressed those concerns. We are not looking for new information, we are still looking for information asked for last month. Dennis brought up some good points and I have been swayed by them combined with the failure to address those points by Techno. HighInBC 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• ?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:HighInBC User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jusdafax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL^{Query me!} 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support We should show forgiveness when a banned editor has shown that they want to move on from their previous behavior. If recidivism is an issue, blocks are cheap. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Blocks are cheap" is a hoary Wikipedia cliche, but it's not actually true. When an editor goes off the rails, it often takes considerable time and effort from the community to convince an admin that a block is needed. That's time and effort which could be used to improve the encyclopedia, so it does have a definite cost. BMK (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are 500 cheap blocks for every one that takes more than a 10 paragraph discussion on ANI.--v/r - TP 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Probably so, if you're talking about run-of-the-mill blocks among the general editing population, but we're talking here about blocks based on noticeboard discussions, and that is a different animal entirely, where the ratio -- if not actually reversed -- would most probably be much, much lower. On blocks (or actually unblocks, since it's the unblock discussion which makes up the cost) which are discussed on noticeboard, you're always guaranteed to have a percentage of comments pushing WP:ROPE, WP:AGF, or other supposedly mitigating factors, and it takes time to overcome these and build up a consensus.
  In any event, I'm simply pointing out that "Blocks are cheap" is a cliche, and not a reasoned argument. BMK (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. At least until Technophant provides a better unblock request than what we have now. I asked him to amend his bare-bones request for unblocking here, but apart from attributing his block to administrator incompetence, he has thus far fallen short of actually providing a satisfactory request. I should note that while his block, as recorded in the block log, was for sockpuppetry, his behavior since then is the main reason for why he is still blocked to this day. He has thus far steadfastly refused to address anything other than the sockpuppetry. I don't think it's too much to ask for some recognition that his behavior was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

touch (so the discussion is not archived just yet) -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless @Technophant: responds on his/her talkpage within the next 24 hours, I would recommend closing this discussion until they have time to participate. SQL^{Query me!} 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now Per Atlan's commentary, I want to see a WP:GAB compliant unblock request that takes responsibility for their being blocked and how they intend to prevent this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted

I have relisted this thread from the archive, per Technophant's request. He has returned and is willing to address concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Something seems not right. User requested unblock on 29 March and then promptly disappeared from 3 April to 6 May, seemingly only to return when the unblock request was fianlly declined. Anyway I will advise the user to make a statement which can then be copied here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I am concerned their previous request failed did not succeed due to their lack of participation and this is another request. I have amended my opinion accordingly. There have been some very reasonable concerns raised here and Techno has not addressed them. HighInBC 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Technophant:, what is going to be different this time? What do you think you were blocked for? In the absence of any good evidence of learning or change, I would default to maintaining the block. Reblocks are not necessarily cheap, as they require time, discussion, and energy. Although I give my time here free of charge, that does not mean I think it is worthless. --John (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leaning towards oppose - even after asking to have this conversation reopened, the comments indicate that Technophant wants to use a different venue to discuss this (UTRS)?? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with asking to have it reopened; immediately before dearchival, the closer (unsigned) gave a rationale of As Technophant hasn't responded to any of us - I can only assume that he/she is too busy, or cannot access Wikipedia to do so at this time. I'm closing this without prejudice, until such time that the user has sufficient time to participate in the process. This isn't a situation in which there's consensus against unblock, and requesting reopening is a demonstration that Technophant is ready/able to participate in the process. I have no yes or no opinion, but this issue ought not be addressed differently from a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• I forgot to sign - thanks for the reminder. SQL^{Query me!} 03:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• My concern is the lack of response to the concerns raised in this thread. If they were away that is fine, but now they are back and have still not responded. The closer was very generous to close without prejudice, and I accept that closure without prejudice. The fact remains that they are not responding to concerns raised here. In summary we are not addressing this issue differently than a month ago, the same questions are still outstanding. HighInBC 14:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, High. Technophant seems to feel that 18 months of being blocked is in itself enough to entitle them to a free pass. The lack of response tells me there is No willingness to face the community squarely. Jusdafax 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This IS a separate request, so feel free to ping previous participants, but the circumstances have changed and it would be wrong to count their votes now. My opinion is that only votes below RELISTED matter. I could write a few paragraphs but it is pointless. In the end, I see the risk as too high at this time, and the potential benefit as too meager to go down this road. Our first responsibility is to the encyclopedia as a whole, not any single person who has shown to be problematic and irresponsible without taking the time to explain why that has all changed. We don't have time for more drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Technophant has not addressed the concerns here. They come back and ask for this to be restored but I cannot see any new information provided. This is convincing me that the arguments made below by Dennis and others need to be addressed first. HighInBC 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Dennis and High. Jusdafax 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on their statement their socking wasn't recent because they were blocked in 2014, I asked for confirmation that this meant they hadn't socked since they were blocked. Instead of either a simple confirmation they hadn't or a simple (or detailed) explaination of their socking history after being blocked, I got a long rant with little relevance to what I said about how I wasn't AGF etc even though as I pointed out if I wasn't willing to AGF they would tell the truth, it's unlikely I would have asked. There was some comment about single IP edit, and a suggestion they hadn't created accounts, which sort of implies there was only a single socking edit since blocked, but not what I consider a clear cut statement confirming this. So given their response to a simple and IMO resonable question to an unblock request, I must oppose at the current time. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Devlet Giray

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

---

Hi, please look at this, there is an information in the article Ottoman empire. I think that should be removed. It is mentioned here that General Devlet Giray conquered Moscow when the Christians started to colonize. I think this is a very dangerous information for the Western civilization. I think no Muslim has ever heard of this Devlet Giray who fought back against the Russians. I myself have never heard of Devlet Giray who put up resistence against the Russians. This may encourage the Muslims to fight back against the Christians. This may also encourage them to join IS. So don't you think this information should be removed?David Yalon (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting censorship to prevent the growth of ISIS? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The only mention there is " In 1571, the Crimean khan Devlet I Giray, supported by the Ottomans, burned Moscow." Devlet I Giray has no sources and Russo-Crimean_Wars#1571 leave much to be desired but that section itself sources a seemingly legitimate book so I'd say no, it's fine. If someone take a one-sentence statement about actions in 1571 and acts upon them, WP:NOTTHERAPY is relevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 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.

A concerning username

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 note that an account with the concerning name Random person that wants to die (talk · contribs) has been created. As of the time of writing, it hasn't made any edits. What to do? Ignore it, block it, report it to the WMF as a suicide threat, or something else? -- The Anome (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: I'd report it to WMF and let them decide what to do with it. It was created 2 days ago, no benefit to blocking that I can see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. It was created on 10 May 2016, with no edits. Still, we're supposed to take all claims seriously and err on the side of caution. Thank you for the report, I've notified the Foundation as per the usual process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 12 May 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.

.NET My Services

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.

---

Pleas can someone restore the history of .NET My Services, following a cut'n'paste move from Microsoft HailStorm in May last year? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pigsonthewing - I see that the history of .NET My Services goes back to 2005, and the history of Microsoft HailStorm originates to 2012; it looks like it's Special:MergeHistory time ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I might be mistaken actually. The newest revision on the older page is not older than the oldest revision on the target page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorted, Andy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 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.

Important close needed

I know it's a bit out-of-process to post here instead of letting the request languish at WP:AN/RFC, but Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring and Wikipedia talk:User pages#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? very much needs a careful, nuanced closure.

The debate over the handling of userspace drafts has been going strong for about 5-6 months now, with multiple appearances at ANI among other forums. Several editors have expressed the belief that if comprehensive RfCs are unable to resolve the issue, it will likely end up at ArbCom. Accordingly, the RfCs are in desperate need of a careful, nuanced close to put an end to the issue. A full reading or two of the RfCs are definitely needed before closure, since the commenters often interpret the questions (many of which are redundant or overlapping) in different ways. It's a real mess, and the RfCs could have been formulated better, but I believe we have the comments we need for a skillful closer to disentangle it and properly assess consensus. I hope someone here can step up to the plate. A2soup (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at that yesterday, thinking it needed to be closed but also that it might need a couple of us to do it. I'd be willing to help close it. Katie^talk 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed by more than 1 admin, 3 admins is a number that sounds good to me. However since I participated I must recuse myself. HighInBC 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other, so I can help with the close. Would one more person be willing to volunteer as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can be the third one if it is OK that I am on European time. Otherwise, I would be happy to give this place to an admin from the Western hemisphere.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly won't be a problem for me, so unless that's a dealbreaker for KrakatoaKatie, I think we'll figure on us as the closers. I'll send both of you an email and we can start a planning thread to tackle this thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor apparently not here to contribute constructively

It's come to my attention that there is an editor who is apparently not here to contribute constructively to the project. So far, no real damage has been done, but there are clear indications that the account has not been created for constructive editing. I'd prefer that this issue could be discussed here without the editor in question (and any possible related usernames) being informed. Can we invoke WP:IAR in this case? Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• No. We arnt ARBCOM, we dont disappear people without notifying them first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• We only block users if one of the following is the case:
  1. The user was warned that their action is going to lead to a block, and the user continues it.
  2. The user is registered under a highly inappropriate name.
  3. The user is causing significant, high-speed damage.
  4. The user appears to be a sockpuppet.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• • The reason I ask is because I've got a feeling that there is more to the situation than is evident at first sight. This may include sockpuppetry, but I'm not sure. It may be germane to state that the editor in question doesn't want any admins to communicate with them either, which is not to say that we can't get a friendly Burocrat to drop any messages necessary as there is no message for them to keep off their user space. I wasn't looking for an immediate block in any case. Should I see evidence that a block is necessary, I can block the editor in question myself. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Their wants in that regard are largely irrelevant. If an admin is taking an admin action in relation to an editor, they are required to notify the editor (even if its an after the fact block notice) so a 'All admins keep off my talkpage' notice is pointless. User talkpage banning does not supersede required notifications. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Typo in banner ad

There is a banner add about traslating Ibero-America. I think the banner should be about translating.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot figure out where this banner is; I'd assumed Mediawiki:Sitenotice, but no. "Message names" doesn't help, either, nor does "what links here" when you go to the project page. Is this banner on en.wiki, or is it done somewhere else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

meta:CentralNotice - meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/Iberocoop Translating Ibero America - NQ (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Czar took care of it. meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Iberocoop Translating Ibero America. - NQ (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It says " Banners: 10min server" cache. So I'm assuming it'll be purged automatically soon. - NQ (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it took a while but the first typo is fixed. Thanks for the pointer to the right place. Of course, there's still a second typo, which I've reported here: [42]. But why is meta deciding what banners are displayed on en.wiki? -Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: meta:CentralNotice is designed to display these kinds of banners across all wmf wikis simultaneously. There is a very handy "Suppress display of CentralNotices" gadget in preferences which I use. - NQ (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A better, copy-edited version is proposed at the project talk page. Is there a review process for these things? That was embarrassing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those AN/ANI conversations where, when I see other people doing it, I say "they should just let it go". But... last night, it looks like en.wiki was the only wiki this was on. Seems like if they're only going to advertise on en.wiki, they should get agreement here. But maybe only having it on en.wiki was another mix-up... --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is only on enwiki, so why was this pushed from meta? Can someone with the necessary rights there please just remove it, and let them know that if they want to push an enwiki-only banner, they can propose and add it on enwiki and not elsewhere. Fram (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Doncram amendment motion

The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:

• Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
• Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
• The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
• The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Doncram amendment motion

CSD backlog

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a massive backlog right now. In particular, Are You with Me (Easton Corbin song) has been sitting in G6 for nearly two days now because no one can be bothered. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've just gone and delete 60 pages - but somehow the backlog is higher than when I started.--v/r - TP 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a lot of cleanup going on it seems. Good. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If a page is in CAT:CSD for more than a day, it usually means that several admins looked at it and did not make a decision. Most of the time this indicates the issue is too complicated for the page to be speedily deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no? If a page can't be speedied, I remove the tag and explain why in the edit summary like I did 4-5 times last night. And admin should have the confidence to determine whether CSD applies, and remove it if it doesn't.--v/r - TP 16:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ideally yes, but if you look at the lists of speedy candidates by tagging time, the oldest ones are never clear-cut cases, and I also often end up untagging them or sending them to AFD when I go through them. —Kusma (t·c) 05:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I just don't get it. If it's not clear cut, then it's not meant for CSD. So, if random admin/editor hits a CSD tagged page and says "we'll, I'm just not sure" then that's enough reason itself to remove the tag.--v/r - TP 20:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Request review of NAC

Closed by an editor with known strong opinions on keeping things in userspace. [43] An admin may find a different result when weighing the strength of the agruments rather then nose counting. Legacypac (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose overturn, although this is a subtle case. I would have !voted Delete if I had looked at it, but the grounds for overturn should be that the closer didn't use proper judgment. The conclusion, based either on nose count or on strength of argument, could have gone either way. The filing party is known to have even stronger opinions about getting crud out of userspace, and appears to be using this, first, to advance a cause about getting crud out of userspace, and, second, to advance a crusade against the closer. Both parties are causing trouble, and that isn't reason for overturn. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose overturn. Also BOOMERANG. Filer is a known problem user with a grudge against the user who performed the NAC. 172.56.20.9 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Legacypac enough already. You've been here at least twice before, and you have a | hit page about Godsy hidden in your sandbox. Come on , drop the stick! KoshVorlon 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Last time I suggested that they be blocked, and I stand by that opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Ymblanter if you mean LegacyPac, yes, I agree! KoshVorlon 17:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I mean them. They do not know how to stop and need to be helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is wrong. I suggest you let an Admin without a personal ventetta against me reclose this one. Only in Death is quite correct below. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter is an admin.KoshVorlon 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I would have closed it as delete as the policy backed arguments for delete were stronger. Except I cant close it as delete as I am not an admin. Generally NAC's should not be done in close calls like this because non-admins lack the tools necessary for a delete. NAC's are fine for anything not requiring tools, or those discussions where it is *clear* that it is not going to be deleted. That wasnt the case here. There is also that Godsy (rightly or wrongly) has repeatedly stated a preference on this issue. Likewise Legacypac. If Legacypac had closed a discussion in this area that he had not personally opined in, you can bet someone would bring up his POV pretty fast. Its basically a bad close even if the outcome was not clear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• WP:NACD states, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This would appear to fit the definition of a close call. An admin should close the discussion in question. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: I don't have time to respond right now, just wanted to point out that I was not notified of this discussion. My response to an inquiry by Legacypac on this matter can be found at User talk:Godsy#Close of User:SE19991/Move Management MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close (Oppose overturn) - The recent disagreement I've had with the filer of this request is about process. (i.e. Content should not be moved from the userspace of others to the mainspace unless it is suitable for the mainspace. If content unsuitable for the mainspace is moved from the userspace of someone else to the mainspace, then subsequently deleted by standards that do not apply to userspace content, the content should be restored to the userspace.) Proper process was followed in this case. Because of that, and the fact that my close was consensus based and neutral, the claim that a bias is at play here doesn't really hold water. It is rather clear that there is no consensus at the discussion in question in my discernment. There is a sizable backlog at MfD. The discussion had been open for a month and a half, with no new comments for almost a month. Any uninvolved administrator may reopen a non-administrator closure in their individual capacity as an administrator giving their reasons in full (NACD). If an administrator believes the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, or that it would have a substantially different result if closed by another user, I encourage them to do so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - the filer and the closer are known to be in a prolonged dispute with each other. It will not hurt anything if this is relisted, but there is a cloud over the close if it is left as is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Ivanvector has it exactly right. NACs are often fine, but not in very close calls, and especially not when there is so much baggage. It may end up the same, but it will be cleaner if relisted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per Ivanvector. As a side note, I understand this is supposed to be at WP:DRV, but given the absolute sh*tstorm that's become recently, I understand why LP would want to avoid that. ansh666 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: Actually WP:NACD and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE conflict on which forum should be used to request a review. If the guidelines didn't conflict, this request for review would be a violation of process. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but per WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR, we don't really close down a discussion that's seen plenty of participation just because it's in the wrong venue, we don't punish people who bring discussions to the wrong place (unless they do it for obviously bad faith reasons or repetitively show a lack of competence), and to be honest WP:AN brings a lot more neutral eyes than WP:DRV anyways. ansh666 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought DRV is to review Deletions - which this is not. I don't go there very often. I'm just asking for a neutral admin to close, not my current stalker. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, DRV is to review the outcome of all deletion discussions, which may or may not end in a delete outcome. ansh666 00:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at it when this thread started and I felt that Godsy closed it correctly. However, if it'll set the issue aside, I've gone ahead and reclosed it.--v/r - TP 00:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Seanerenstoft

This new editor, who registered on April 12 and has made solely two promotional edits in mainspace, is using his user page as a faux Wikipedia article and violating the prohibition against using Wikipedia to host your personal web page: User pages "should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia."

He was politely alerted to this [44], yet made revisions to his user page afterward that ignored the notice. In the month he has been here, aside from those two promotional edits, his only "contributions" to Wikipedia have been to promote himself with a user page designed to look like a WP:BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen more than a few new users try to game the system by using their own page to get around the "no self-promotion" rule. It never works, but it doesn't stop them from trying. Only thing one can really do is keep an eye on him: if he continues, tag an' bag 'im. HalfShadow 00:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, he added a link on his official website to his (now deleted) user page, misleadingly describing it as "Visit my Wikipedia page at: www.wiki/seanerenstoft.com" [45]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Bonneville

Could someone lose this edit and apply semi-protection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted that edit but the article is already protected with pending changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There are too many BLP violations lingering about to make pending changes feasible. I've upped in to semi-protection.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahem probably needs to be nuked too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Nuked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This and this probably need to go too. While not particulary bad they contain the name of a non-notable person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

UAA Backlog

Large backlog Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned out what feels like thirty, but it looks like I've barely made a dent. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc (open channel) 23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Somebody owes me a beer. That DQBot owes me a couple of beers. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• More beer. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

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

1. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of WP:MEDRS, broadly construed.
2. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.
3. Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
4. The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.
5. The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

Question about locks on pages.

I was wondering about something. I noticed that when an admin protects a page, he/she has to manually add a lock template to it. Should the addition of the lock be automatically added when a page is protected? It seems tedious for the admin to do that. Etimena (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Most admins use Twinkle, which automated the adding of said lock template when applying protection settings to a page. Plus there are bots that clean up after us if we forget. Thanks for worrying about us though! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I often forget to do it (I have to remember to use TW or other tools instead of standard interfaces, especially if I'm using several different Wikipedia sites simultaneously). At least there are some bot(-like editor)s who seem to clean up behind me pretty promptly. DMacks (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey rangeblockers

Got 49.148.94.128 and 49.148.19.197 for you, both now blocked--they seem persistent. Please see what you can do; I appreciate your time. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

49.144.0.0 - 49.151.255.255 is 'Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company' - a pretty large reseller, hopefully it will be more narrow if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The range required (/17) is too large and too busy, I think, but if they pop up with more addresses, we can have another look at it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

...unless User:Drmies is wearing his CU hat while asking this, in which case he would already know if it's too busy and/or collateral-damage-inducing:) DMacks (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, Drmies was indeed wearing a CU hat, but still doesn't know much about ranges. Drmies has never made a rangeblock, and is unlikely to ever make one--which, I suspect, is why they're here asking for advice from the experts... Pity, by the way, but thanks for looking into it, Xaosflux. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1. On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.

Users

• No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify.
• The extendedconfirmed user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.

Current uses

• As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas:
  • The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page.
  • The Brianna Wu article.
  • The Anita Sarkeesian article.
  • Selected articles pertaining to Indian castes and their talk pages.
  • Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected.

Expectations

• See proposals below (to be added as dot points).

Notes

2. Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

Arbitration motions regarding extendedconfirmed users

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1. Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.
2. Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motions regarding extendedconfirmed users

Would a Topic Ban be necessary?

Could somebody investigate an ongoing dispute involving Boaxy (talk)? This user is once again engaging in tendentious editing and edit warring to include something that other editors have disagreed upon; this time, involving adding genres to Pizzicato Five and adding sources that originate from fansites and do not have any verifiable content at all. The user in question was previously involved in tendentious editing/edit warring on Sailor Moon (where a topic ban is in effect) and Unfinished Business (2015 film), and apparently has not learned from the initial topic ban from editing Sailor Moon-related articles. Would another Topic Ban (or extension to his currently existing topic ban) be appropriate?--Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Chris

• They were blocked for edit warring and then for personal attacks. They claim to be done with Wikipedia. Either way, I'll just go with support topic ban on Pizzicato Five since they've been disrupting that for long enough, even though this discussion never made much progress. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DeFacto unban request

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

---

Please take the time to consider before deciding offhand. User:DeFacto was blocked on 13 March 2012 for "tendentious editing surrounding Metrication in the United Kingdom including edit-warring, refusal to accept consensus, and wild accusations" by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). That block was soon after increased to no talk page access after abusive edits. On 20 Mar 2012, DeFacto requested a chance to appeal on their user talk page via UTRS. They couldn't accept the community's response and went on another abusive rant which resulted in talk page access being revoked again. On 6 April 2012, DeFacto's block was converted to a community ban. While banned, DeFacto engaged in several years worth of sock puppetry and refused to acknowledge the reason for the ban or his own culpability.

Since that time, DeFacto has participated on Wikimedia Commons where he has contributed 300 images of which 187 have been voted as "valued". If unblocked, he'd like to participate on British motor vehicles, British historic buildings and engineering history and build articles related to those, including the use of some of his own images, a collection of which he is currently building on Commons. Regarding his block, he has this to say

Because I do now realise what an idiot I was, and have learned the lesson that disruption, especially that rooted in unfounded self-righteousness, will rightly be stamped-on by the community....I was blocked for disruptive behaviour, and I made my situation worse by refusing to graciously accept that I was in the wrong. I stubbornly rebelled and behaved inappropriately, so deserved everything I got.... I know and understand that being allowed to edit Wikipedia is a privilege, but hope it will be seen that unblocking me will be a risk worth taking because I promise to do my best to make nothing but a positive contribution - in line with what I have done on Commons.

— User:DeFacto

I have spoken with a checkuser who has verified there has been no socking in the last 6 months. I'd like the community to consider unbanning and unblocking User:DeFacto based on Wikipedia:Standard offer and WP:ROPE. A topic ban from measurements may be in order, something to do effect of "DeFacto may not change measurements on any article or participate in any discussions regarding the use of measurements in articles or the manual of style. He may add measurements to articles he creates."--v/r - TP 05:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hesitant I am always hesitant to unblock users who have lashed out at people in an abusive way, particularly if they did it because they community did not unblock them last time. That being said time has passed so I am not going to oppose. I may feel differently later. HighInBC 14:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, oppose. The amount of the trouble cause by DeFacto was extraordinary, and I'm not minded to take his statement as truthful on the basis of the type deception he conducted for years. However, I'm not opposed to unblocking on the basis of WP:ROPE if and only if DeFacto is given an indefinite topic ban from units of measurement as an unblocking condition in line with the "Conditional unblock" section of the blocking policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support on the condition of a measurement topic ban - which can be appealed after six months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Counter proposal - I spent too much time tracking down his socks at SPI to just gloss over this one. Honestly, I'm not thrilled but I have a counter proposal which I think is fair. The only way I could support would be a total and absolute topic ban on anything regarding "metrification and/or units of measure", broadly construed, all countries, all pages on Wikipedia including talk. Because of his past edit warring (and block log demonstrating this fact), I would also require a 1RR restriction on all areas of Wikipedia. Each independent restriction could be appealed here, individually, in ONE year. I would only support with these conditions, and I oppose without the full package. I really think all this is necessary, even for his own good. These restrictions are only a tiny portion of Wikipedia, and should not hinder him from coming in and making a positive difference, thus giving us a reason to lift restrictions in a year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DeFacto's measurement problem was not limited to metrication or the metric system, but also included fervent advocacy for use of imperial measurements outside of the context of metrication. As above, I think a topic ban from anything regarding units of measurement is absolutely necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, and I updated the above as "units of measure", which should cover all discussions on one vs. another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with Dennis Brown, I would endorse his conditions, and I agree that it should be units of measurement generally. I would assume that the topic ban would include adjustment and addition of measurements to any article. Those are areas in which gaming is possible and should thus be counted within "broadly construed". If we really have to allow him to add measurements on any new articles he creates we should require that they be strictly in line with WP:MOSNUM (which is itself obviously already included), but that does make it harder to enforce and I'd rather keep it simple. We'd also probably immediately notify him of WP:GS/UKU as he and his socks were among the major players in the disputes that led to those sanctions.

I think it would also be fair, given his history of socking, to require that he edit from only one account.

We should be aware that there are a lot of articles out there with units of measurement that he could disrupt - this would be a difficult topic ban to enforce if people aren't watching him like a hawk - and for that reason and for the reasons others have outlined I am very hesitant to support an unblock. But as he appears to meet the standard of the WP:Standard offer we shouldn't discount an unblock out of hand. I guess the topic ban and other restrictions - and the knowledge that when considering what to do about any future misbehaviour his past ban will be taken into account - are there to let him prove himself and if he starts pushing the boundaries we can fairly easily reimpose the block. Kahastok talk 22:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear before, I'd like to note that I endorse the proposal by Mr Brown, now that the scope of the topic ban has been clarified. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Dennis Brown's proposal, otherwise oppose based on the amount of time used up by this person. HighInBC 22:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse with conditions outlined by Dennis Brown. I want it made absolutely clear that edits about fuel tank capacity and speed and anything that has to do with measuring anything anywhere at any time are absolutely off limits to DeFacto. Any use of {{convert}} is off limits. If I never hear another word about imperial vs metric measurements, it will be too soon. Katie^talk 23:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  To clarify, I would consider monkeying around with the convert templates very much a part of the restriction, just as you do. That fits under "broadly construed". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse Dennis's proposal. If we construe it broadly and enforce it strictly. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support with Dennis's conditions. Blackmane (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse Dennis Brown's proposal, otherwise oppose, per Dennis's rationale with which I agree. Keri (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse proposal by D. Brown' BMK (talk) 00:55, 17 May 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.

SPI is not functioning at all

Among the admins with CheckUser permissions, only Bbb23 is working hard on the SPI and There is no closing admins at all, so the backlog is piling up. I have another case, however I hesitate to start a new case. Are there any solutions?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(Another editor posted the sockpuppet request). However this request will not be handled soon.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI isn't a fun place to work. I did it for a long time, gave up in frustration. I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and post it, nothing will happen with it otherwise. There's not really a shortage of admins pushing buttons at SPI when necessary, but clerking and CU are a bit overloaded. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that the OP did post the case and some blocks have been handed out. I don't think CU was involved. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that the backlog at SPI is due to a lack of Checkusers. Bbb23 certainly does handle a monstrous load of cases, however there are other CUs active there (myself included). The majority of times when I pop into SPI (daily other than weekends) there are only a couple of cases endorsed for Checkuser attention. Even as we speak there is only a single endorsed case awaiting review and one CU request pending review from Clerks. All of the remaining cases are for admin and clerk review. I disagree with Ivanvector that there are enough admins, in fact it is the lack of admin participation at SPI that leads to the backlog, and I post here every couple of months trying to entice admins to review some of the non-Checkuser open cases in order to chip away at the backlog. It's a tireless and thankless job that exposes some of the darker side of Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised that admins find other tasks more enticing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Naive question perhaps, but is it necessary for an admin to endorse for CU before a CU dives in? Can't a CU (as an admin) endorse it for their own action? BMK (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's really a Clerk function as they're trained to evaluate the evidence and make the call as to whether the case meets the criteria for Checkuser. Any Checkuser can also review the evidence themselves and run the check if warranted, though it can be a huge time-saver to have the Clerks separate the wheat from the chaff up front. As of now there are no CU endorsements or requests; it's the long line of cases in "open" and "CU completed" status where checkuser isn't requested or has already been completed that is really begging for admin attention.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If I can chime in with Ponyo, yes, what SPI needs is admins who review cases and make decisions based on behavioral evidence. The CU part is an important part, but CU is not pixie dust and in a lot of cases it's simply not relevant or conclusive. I remember one case where Coffee spent hours and hours pouring over a ton of evidence. In the end Coffee got my thanks, of course, but it is indeed a rather tedious and thankless job. It is, however, really the kind of thing that should attract some admins, since it requires a thorough knowledge of this place and the ability to see patterns and idiosyncrasies. That part can really be fun, though "success" is typically negative--you end up blocking someone. We have 1400 or 1500 admins here; surely some of them want to be sleuths. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it takes a particular type of admin/editor to participate in sockhunts. For example, I would think that success would be in finding that a sock charge wasn't valid and the editors are in the clear. I know several editors in good standing (myself included) who were accused of being socks and was happy that the charge was seen as not justified and not born out by evidence. So, it probably makes me more skeptical of the process than those who relish rooting out sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• The last big case I worked, I blocked over 300 socks in a few days and the CU who was working with me on the case handed in his bits (Crat/CU/Admin), left Wikipedia and never came back. I removed my name from the clerk's list. You have no idea how frustrating being a clerk can be until you deal with the limitations of the system. My observation is that it is very hard to keep clerks once you get them. It is thankless, it is frustrating, the training is basically zero, you just figure it out and catch hell when you do it wrong. It is not a professional way to do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the importance of SPI, at least in the view of the wider community, surely clerking should receive the same level of instruction that Arbcom clerks receive? Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Premature archiving of collapsed ANI discussions

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:Sir Joseph, who recently came off a one-week block and is under a six-month topic ban, has decided that the ANI archive bot isn't doing a good enough job and has started manually archiving closed discussions.[46][47][48][49][50][51] The latest[52] was only five hours old. In my opinion, there is a good reason why we collapse discussions on ANI and leave them in place until the bot archives them. First, it allows interested admins to see which other admins are taking care of various issues posted at ANI, Second, it makes it easy for anyone to review the admin's actions. Third, it allows the person who posted the report to see that action was taken. When a discussion is manually archived hours after being posted, the OP comes back later in the day and doesn't see his discussion anywhere. In my opinion, Sir Joseph should be thanked for what appears to be a good-faith attempt to help but also told that such help is not needed. That being said, if the consensus is that this is acceptable behavior, that's fine with me as well.

Extended content
Question posted 12:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[53], Answered 12:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC),[54] Closed 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC),[55] Archived by Sir Joseph 17:40, 16 May 2016[56] Total time from question asked to archiving: five hours and fifteen minutes.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• What does my recent block and topic ban have to do with archiving discussions? And I see nothing wrong with archiving a "Kill the Jews" section five hours later, when the outcome was a block from an obvious vandal. Other sections are archived a day or so later. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph, the block and topic ban have nothing to do with this. That said, I also don't think that it's necessary for you to archive them. If it had been decided that it was desirable to archive them quicker, the bot would be programmed to do so. Also, this should've been posted at ANI. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason I, and others, archive sooner is that the page gets way too large to load and edit so closed threads are routinely archived. I don't go willy-nilly and archive, but some threads no longer need to be up at the AN/I page, for example the Kill the Jews section, and other non controversial sections that are a day or so behind. It is very hard for me to see AGF in this notice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with archiving a thread closed 24+ hours ago where nobody has added additional commentary after the closure. It does indeed help keep page size from getting ridiculously large. Less than 10 hours after closure and/or with additional commentary outside of closure on the other hand should be kept in place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph isn't the only editor who is quick to archive closed cases. If we could have an approved practice of archiving no earlier than 24 hours after a complaint was closed, I'd be happy. Some editors archive cases as soon as they are closed and then the people who participated in the discussion have to go looking in the archives to see how a dispute was settled.

But this guidelines would have to come from a consensus of admins or admins and editors because last year, when I challenged one editor for archiving cases too quickly, well, the request was not received very well at all and it had no effect on the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

FTR, I haven't "clerked" ANI in ages now, but there shouldn't be a blanket "leave all closed threads" up for 24 hours before archiving. Some reports are about a single IP user (not even a sock) getting quickly blocked, and don't need to stay up for 24 hours. ANI also sometimes get "XX noticeboard is backlogged!!" messages (though they're more common here), and once those backlogs are cleared, they don't need to stay up for 24 hours either. That said, there are definitely a number of case "types" which are more complex, and require more "complex" closes, and there is no reason not to leave those ones up for 24 hours, even after closing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• This was discussed on ANI 2.0 also. I don't mind manual archiving, and the particular thread under discussion, that didn't seem like a big deal to me. But others, including Iridescent, (may) feel differently. I'm interested in hearing from some admins here. That someone wants to archive a section called "Kill the Jews", by the way, I can understand that (and I revdeleted the "original" edit that gave rise to all this). Drmies (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• My feeling is that purely technical "requested/actioned" threads can be archived early, but archiving anything else is pure disruption; if anything, the bot's 72 hour cutoff ought to be extended. Closed threads are part of the public record, and an important mechanism by which people can monitor how admins are doing their job. Unless a thread is so huge it becomes disruptive to keep it on the page (in which case it should be moved to an WP:AN/B-style subpage and a prominent notification left in its place), there are never legitimate grounds to archive something early. It also makes the archives a PITA to search, as early archiving takes the threads out of date order. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Iridescent, and this has bothered me for some time. I am assuming good faith here and I don't think you understand the problem this causes. Many of us don't look at the noticeboards every day or even every other day, and if someone takes it upon themselves to archive threads, we miss things we maybe shouldn't miss. This is a noticeboard and it gets long. So what? If an issue or problem is important enough to someone to bring to us here, we need to see it. Period. Even if I simply skim an archived thread or old discussion, it can put something in the back of my brain to remember when I'm dealing with something elsewhere. There's a reason the bots are set to archive after a certain period of time. Let them do their archiving and go edit the encyclopedia. Katie^talk 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• We had a discussion here a couple of years ago which pointed elsewhere--that indeed there was too much that stayed on here for too long, though one of the focal points of the discussion that things stayed open for too long. As for me, with a not so high speed connection and a not so top of the line PC, the length of this noticeboard is sometimes a serious impediment. But "never legitimate grounds"? And what about that revolting title? (Debresser, neutral subject headings please.) No, I can't really fault Sir Joseph this time. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I archive things periodically that are actioned, closed, and do not require further discussion. Sometimes that can happen fast. I don't think there is any benefit to keeping those sort of threads around. SQL^{Query me!} 02:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm curious to hear what the block, and topic ban have to do with archiving the AN's as an aside. SQL^{Query me!} 02:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Sir Joseph is editing in good faith, but meaning well only goes so far when your every interaction with other editors ends up with them telling you that you appear to not be reading what they write to you. Just read what Bishonen wrote[57] at User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 5#May 2016 ("You read some of my post, I guess — maybe every other word — did you read the ANI in question at all? — because you answered with stunning irrelevance") and Sir Joseph's failure to show any indication that he read and understood why he was blocked.[58] If that isn't enough, read the multiple administrator warnings and the three unblock requests and ask yourself whether SJ is hearing what the warning and reviewing admins are saying to him. This isn't me bringing up now-resolved issues. This is me pointing to an ongoing pattern of behavior. In my opinion, Things like this legal threat[59] and this talk page comment[60] are relevent. Past behavior is a good indicator of probable future behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Again, what does actions in editing a page, like Clinton, etc. have to do with archving AN/I, the need to dig things up? I find your actions bordering on harassment and I ask an admin to do something about this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there's a certain irony on having a ongoing discussion to reduce the page-length of ANI that's adding to the page-length of ANI. I can't be the only one chuckling at that. And the thought of Drmies dial up modem puffing out plumes of black smoke as it struggles to download these extra KBs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly not the only one. I used to periodically use the OCA to archive threads that had been open for more than 4 days but had not been caught by the archiver for one reason or another. Some obvious ones like requesting sock/vandal/troll/harasser/stalker/attacker blocks which are basically one to three line affairs could probably be archived early, but only if the noticeboard is really cluttered. As a rule of thumb, for me anyway, anything that requires more then one scroll of the mousewheel that has been closed is worth leaving up for a while so admins who stop by can have a browse. At the end of the day, editors should be trusted to apply some common sense when manually archiving. If editors raise issues about it, then the editor should take on board the critique. Blackmane (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, most of the archiving is quickies, like sock reports or obvious vandals, or in the case above, "Is Kill the Jews enough to get banned?" type of cases. There are times when my browser crashes when trying to edit AN/I, and three days of no archiving is way too long for most of these threads. As I said to the policeman, I don't just archive willy-nilly, most of the threads I archive are those like the one above. Sir Joseph, who is topic banned and just came off a block, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, if you're going to tell lies you might want to tell lies that take more than two mouse-clicks to check. You're clearly archiving substantive threads, not "quickies, like sock reports or obvious vandals". ‑ Iridescent 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I said most of the archiving is quickies, that doesn't need a time delay. The other threads I don't archive right away and usually give a day or so. I find your attitude and tone extremely unbecoming an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The tone was not necessary. You could've pointed out they were substantial without assuming bad faith. As far as the actual issue is concerned, I continue to agree that substantial threads should be left to be archived by the bot. Small, unimportant things can probably be done manually, provided you pay close attention and use good judgement. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good judgement would seem to include giving the other administrators a day or two to read the section and review the action taken in case it was too lenient, too harsh, or (rarely) got the facts wrong or was applied to the wrong target. Sir Joseph has shown horrifically bad judgement in several areas lately, and is simply the wrong person to be a self-appointed ANI clerk. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just adding my voice to the point made about manual archiving by Iridescent. Perhaps a note can be added to the top of the ANI page saying this explicitly. An RfC can be opened to formalize this, or if consensus is clear, simply this discussion can be linked to. There is no need to take any action against Sir Joseph; this discussion is probably better suited for WP:VPP rather than WP:AN. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely no action against Sir Joseph. He clearly was making good-faith edits thinking he was helping. In fact, I think that this should be made explicit by a closing administrator. Sir Joseph (like many people) tends to see any attempt to get him to modify his behavior as an attack. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 17 May 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.

Concerns about Ymblanter

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 take a moment to investigate the matter concerning the said editor/admin who "privatized" the page with his outright slanderous resentment full of discriminatory attitude and all sorts of unabashed bigotry towards anything that is Soviet or Russian by maliciously labeling anything that depicts remembering and commemorating the millions of fallen Soviet liberators of World Word II via the display of the ribbon in question with heavily biased and nothing short of libelous terms that purposefully denigrates and obliterates its significance - all in a sheer attempt to sway the unsuspecting reader into receiving deliberate misinformation on the matter by obliterating the real purpose of the ribbon. His sole intent is to tarnish and mar the facts by substituting them with quotes from bogus articles, invented qualifiers (aka Kremlin Regime), as well as openly pro-Nazi sympathies that he clearly personally harbors and promotes. People in 39 countries marched in May of 2016 and wore the ribbon to commemorate the fallen Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe. These millions of people worldwide could care less about "Kremlin Regime" or any other nonsense of the like. It's a shame that such activity gets carte blanche in a totally blindsided fashion on Wikipedia. (I'm the 99.135... editor who's done 2 edits on the page: at the end of 7th and at the beginning of the 8th of May.) Your assistance in the matter is much appreciated. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs for these accusations. Ymblanter has been notified by me as required. HighInBC 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please look at his edits on the page, most notably in early May. This is in regards to Ymblanter's malicious editing on Ribbon_of_Saint_George page, his persistent violation of NPOV by replacing the content with pro-Nazi sentiments, his flagrant abuse of administrative privileges. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar how to post on here "diffs". 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note The IP seems to be talking about the Ribbon of Saint George page. HighInBC 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  The opening statement clearly shows that the user is WP:NOTTHERE to build encyclopedia but rather to push theor POV. I protected an article after it was vandalized yesterday by an IP, and before it was vandalized, another IP was involved in POV pushing distorting sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only edit I am seeing by Ym is this which is entirely correct for our project. It was reversing the removal of sourced content with... non-neutral unsourced something. HighInBC 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's some serious POV pushing, no subtlety to it. Yowza. Katie^talk 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not his only edit. He keeps the overall thrust of the article in a deliberately negative tone by being keen to inject bogus terms or otherwise inherently repelling terms (aka, Kremlin Regime, Russian Government) in lieu of the actual ones, such as to commemorate the legacy of the fallen liberators. His continued clinging onto "sources" (aka, non-reputable, self-proclaiming articles) is very evident, for that's what his actions hinge on. And please, no need to cite his least pronounced edit, while ignoring all others. I don't mean to put any special importance to them, but just have a look at his two reverts of my edits, rather than get fixated on lack of relevance. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Kremlin regime" is literally what the source says, but despite your POV pushing and attempts to change it to the opposite meaning citing the same source I am fine with the "Government of Russia".--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The display of the ribbon has nothing to do with the said government. When the Pope wore the ribbon early this month, he was not supporting "Russian government", he was commemorating the fallen. Please stop that nonsense. The source in question is very biased and clearly unprofessional. If you nevertheless choose to use it, balance it out, so as not to make your personal grudge as obvious. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion, but this is not what sources say.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for putting on a poor act here, but try incorporating the "sources" that are not as pro-Nazi biased as the one to tend to swear by. In fact, since you are "the keeper" of the article, as far as the references go, find something more credible to have the article fall back on. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, HighInBC and I are saying that Ymblanter is in the right here. Not the IPs. There's a long and distinguished history of POV pushing and arguing about Russian nationalism and this ribbon. Ymblanter has acted in an administrative capacity by protecting an article that repeatedly has had sourced content removed from it. I have no problem with his actions here. Katie^talk 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing his call to protect it. It is the form of it which he protected. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean the wrong version? HighInBC 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the protection happened just after this revert [61]. From what I can tell even 99 agrees that content was inappropriate. (If they don't then I guess there's no point continuing this discussion.) And the article was only semiprotected anyway. This means plenty of people can still edit if they edit in a resonable fashion. So to calling Ymblanter the keeper of the article is misleading. If you can't you're free to provide these better sources on the talk page which remains unprotected. Or better yet, propose a good edit and make an edit request. If you feel the disputes mean this isn't suitable, you're free to use normal means of WP:Dispute resolution. However you may find if you get other parties involved, they'll have little time for you if you go around saying people express pro-Nazi sentiment without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IP asks us to "take a moment to consider Ymblanter's actions". So that's what I've just done, and the clear conclusion is that Ymblanter is doing a great job. I also conclude there are POV-pushing IPs trying to distort articles, and that it would be beneficial if we all gave Ymblanter more help and support. I thank the IP for bringing this to our attention. Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed. This IP should be thanked. Had he not brought this up, User:Ymblanter would probably not be recognized for the good job he his doing. Being an admin is a thankless job, so I thank Ymblanter for having the patience and nerve to continue being a fine admin.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks Ymblanter. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah pro-Nazi sentiment? This is quite a strong accusation which IMO definitely needs diffs. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

99.135.170.109, you have repeatedly made strong accusations while providing no evidence, and per our personal attacks policy, un-backed-up accusations are considered personal attacks. Any more attacks, and a block will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 9 May 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.

Information regarding generation of WP:Backlog categories.

I have recently joined Wikimedia Foundation as an intern as part of Google Summer of Code 2016.

My project aims to build an accuracy review bot for Wikipedia[T129536]. The idea is to build a bot that detects outdated or inaccurate content and flags them and sends them for review to the reviewers. In order to define important areas to start off with, I browsed through the Wikipedia:Backlog categories. I am keen on knowing which categories are the most urgent, the easiest to do, the hardest (and why). Also, how are these backlog lists generated? How much of it is automated and how many entries are manually entered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnkmp28 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Once you determine "how" you propose your bot to operate, please be sure to file a bot approval request prior writing, outside of limited testing in userspace. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, unless you are limiting this to administrative backlogs, I suggest you move this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (if your plan is more developed) for a broader audience. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I am from article Social work, reason for coming here: persistent disruption from registered editors Jim1138 and Softlavender. The issues could be seen in the talk page of the article and respective involved editors talk pages. The current issue is reverting an another editors edit by one of the registered editor Jim1138, see: [62]. Why have I come here: I fear if further encouraged by citing the editors actions in their talk page and reverting it myself will only bring a series of inappropriate actions, blocks and confusing talks as done in the past. I plead to the experienced editors to resolve this wiki-project disruption once and for all. Both this editors are involved in active WP:HA, to see the act of embellishing their shrine [adding any ip editor was a practice...now it has stopped from warnings, but continuous embellishment is there(the added content is already cited in the talk page discussion)] see:[63]. Both of them are experienced editors but their actions on this article is beyond considerations. I consider Jim1138 actions as libelous, but considering Softlavender's skills as an arbitrator that could be influenced for better in future, an indefinite topic ban for these two on social work projects articles might ease the current situation. Reasoning for this: Neither these editors have any interest in the welfare of the article nor the training for insight on how to manage the particular page. I guess they wouldn't mind this, if it has to do with the article. 59.88.209.117 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article has been repeatedly protected because of your editing. Stop trying to reintroduce that content and use dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 21:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fences. No editor is allowed to modify or delete other editors comments on talk page, this is what I understand:[64] ,this is also what Malcolmxl5 concurs: [65]. From your comment may I assume that you agree with this actions from the editor and their related actions in the article. Reading the issue from both sides might provide you with additional data for judgement, to clarify them some comments might require diff checks within the article and that of the involved editors pages. Thank you for your interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.60.34 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"this is what I understand" except that your understanding is not correct. (Actually from the sound of it probably about a lot of things.) Removing sufficiently inappropriate comments is acceptable. Sufficiently inappropriate isn't always easy to define, but for example clear cut BLP vios, highly offtopic commentary in an active talk page (even if the activity is these comments), comments from banned (defacto or established) sockpuppets are some examples. Signed comments generally shouldn't be edited (as opposed to deleted wholesale), but there are also exceptions. E.g. it's common to remove phone numbers or email addresses both because it's common that posters haven't considered the implications and these details are often not useful since we're not going to be emailing or phoning people. And while this should be done with great care, sometimes redacting a personal attack or whatever is better than deleting the comment wholesale or waiting for an editor to respond to a request. Note that these are general comments not directed at any edit in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Nil Einne: for being kind with words, do you agree if I say the nutshell of your comment is that deletions and redaction's are appropriate methods and the same wouldn't be considered as vandalism, within the range of accusal policies or as a deceptive tact to mislead or hide evidence against the implicated editor (one of the main point raised in this ANI). If possible also provide specific citations about this from the resources, to avoid any future confusion while explaining it to others.117.215.193.76 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you mean by the later part of your first sentence. However evidence can't be hidden. You apparently already know what a diff is, you used one right here to make a complaint so you already know evidence can easily be provided where necessary. The exception would be revdeletion which is used very rarely and only for significant problems and can be reviewed by any admin anyway. Suppression (oversight) is harder to review but requires an even more serious problem. Note that I'm not sure what ANI you're referring to but in any case as I made clear my comments were general and not directed at a specific issue raised in this AN let alone any unlinked to now ANI. I'm on a mobile device so not going to link anything but you should reread whatever misinformed you that comments can't be deleted or edited like the talk page guidelines, remember you were the one who first raised the issue I was simply correcting your misinterpretation. It sounds like you need to read other policies and guidelines more carefully too probably starting with the dispute resolution one which has already been linked 2 times and moving on to WP:RS and other such cornerstone policies. They key point is that as long as you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of policy such as a suggestion deletion of comments is forbidden, there's a fair chance many of your conclusions deriving from it will be flawed. And in any case, people may not pay much attention to any complaint since there's a reasonable chance it's without merit, if not because of this misunderstanding if for another. Note that I wrote most of my earlier comment without checking any of your diff's it was only fairly late I did so and only needed minor clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you check the article and the rev content you may see evident reliable sources. Evident reliable sources isnt the problem. As said dispute resolution is a problem with the article, when other rv warriors don't collaborate with it and are only interested in disruptions it brews dispute, this why the non-intrested editors should be banned from editing the topic is mentioned.(This is not a claim evidence is scattered across talk pages) The current problem we are discussing is the trail of disruptive history from the mentioned editors: You say deletions of other comments is a good practice and it doesn't call for vandalism. Because that is the one of the case raised in this ANI. If so providing specific policy that says it under which heading would help to identify with your statement more clearly.(A simple direct quote and the policy will enable to check the specific clause) Even if diffs are possible to check that is not the case when issues are notified and frowned by other editors (even you said you only checked the diffs later). With the exception of some, overseeing editors mostly look what the registered editors have to say and how the case is formulated and this is an unfortunate trend. Using this loophole the above mentioned editors have abused the article and its talk page using suppression of evidence in the past, when it come to diffs not many ip editors may be familiar when asked to show evidence and the whole matter could be derailed with burden. Note that one thing i know is wikipedia operates in a democratic manner every issues raised are of importance other wise ANI existence will come into question, and the ANI activities show every raised problems are discussed and not sidelined. You can help an invalid to cross a road but considering him as invalid (or an ip editor-someone new with the process) and shoving moldy bread into his mouth is a big no-no, so passive aggressive assumptions of "flawed" should be kept away from these discussions. Once again provide the specific policy or essay with the sub-heading that cites what you said otherwise it would be misinformation and state whether you support the mentioned editor's action in relation to the policy.-this simply solves the issue and its direct. Thank you.61.1.200.191 (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why i say either topic block or block the editor completely. Disruptive actions from Jim1138 that resulted in: [66] .After closing the discussion disruptive posting of libelous content:[67] when no one takes action I chose to revert them and this action will probably asked for block through ANI or other methods. An other manner this will go on is with game of reversions and that would be cited for blocks by hiding or manipulating facts. Any editor can call this as edit-warring, but so far the causative factor is pinned back on the ip editors. I would say again a topic block for Softlavendar and indefinite block for Jim1138 is the most appropriate action that could be taken. If overseeing editors feel inclined to Jim1138 topic ban would be enough for the troubles created.61.1.217.7 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

An attempt to solve issues in social work page is asked from an editor citing vandalism that doesn't relate in any manner:[68]. This is happening while active talk is happening in: [69] and the same could be considered as an attempt to gain privileges using good faith and would most probably misused.59.89.239.32 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

The consensus in this discussion has been assessed here by an uninvolved admin. Cunard (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

At 28 april 2016, Robertinventor (signing as "Robert Walker") requested a citation in the lead of Four Noble Truths. Since then, eleven (!) citations have been given (note 2 in the lead); nevertheless, Robert Walker has filled Talk:Four Noble Truths with walls of texts "arguing" that the four truths are not about ending rebirth. It's a repetition of 2015. When pinged, Drmies adviced to bring this issue here, which Robert McClenon endorsed, so here we are: I'd like to propose a topic-ban for Robert Walker on Four Noble Truths, for WP:DISRUPTIVE by posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT and WP:DONTGETIT by ignoring the honouring of his request for citations. Pinging John Carter and User:Ms Sarah Welch, since they supported "to keep this editor just away from this page" (bottom of the list with differences). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

More precise, in response to Hijiri88: a pageban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Please, admins, when evaluating this, note that
  1. When I do longer posts I collapse parts of them so readers can skip easily.
  2. Please don't judge the number of posts I do from the talk page edit history. I tend to repeat myself and make mistakes, typing quickly. Also not good at spotting those mistakes when the words first appear on the page. Most of the edits in the history are to do with fixing these issues. Please instead look at the talk page itself.
  3. I am not editing the page itself (except for one edit to add a citation needed tag some time back - when the tag was removed I never tried again). This action would silence my voice in debates on the talk page.
  
  All my posts are to the point, respectful and done with the intention of improving wikipedia.
  
  Please also note the context - this action was brought the day after I got a second Oppose vote in the RfC on use of redeath in the article. See RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths. Also notice that yesterday he collapsed the entire section of supplementary material for my oppose vote, mid conversation. [70] He hasn't explained why he did this.Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was so kind not to mention WP:TENDENTIOUS, but the post above illustrates that point as well: I was about to close that RfC on "redeath" after I removed this word from the lead, and consolidated the refs & notes, in response to user RD64. Surprisingly, user RD64 concluded he preferred to keep the word, after having read my comments. So, I reinserted the term one time, and kept the RfC open. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here and my username is AD64 not RD64. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case also - I was the one who opened it, and you were going to close it as a result of the first comment response by a disinterested party in the RfC. I was asleep at the time and could have woken up to find my RfC closed already.

Please don't assume that I'm a "disinterested party". In fact, I'm very interested. The number of comments I've made has nothing to do with my level of interest. AD64 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to hear the full spectrum of views on the matter. We haven't yet had any comments by experts in the early Buddhist texts. The RfC is not just to achieve a "yes / no answer"; it is to further understanding and help guide future edits of the article. I don't want to discuss the debate itself here, just user behaviour so won't go into intricacies of our discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't close it, did I, so what's the problem here? And I was about to remove all the uses of the word "redeath" in the lead, as you begged for - and you still find fault with it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for a "win", but for understanding :). It is just luck that you didn't close it. And your behaviour on the article is erratic. First arguing strongly for this term, then you remove this term from the article, then add it back again a short while later, all based on responses of the first disinterested person to enter the debate on the first day of the RfC. I'd think we need to find out more on this topic for the article, hence the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, conditionally. Freedom to express is a precious thing. It is at the foundation of wikipedia policies and admin-triggered corrective measures. I hesitate on indef, complete topic ban on @Robert Walker. Yet, something ought to be done, given @Robert Walker has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM / WP:TPNO guideline on how to use article's talk page. He has posted hundreds of edits, with walls of post, within a few days on Talk:Four Noble Truths. The posts mostly keep recycling the same non-RS sourced stuff. This is not productive, it is counter-productive. Imagine a hotline for medical services or fire service, which receives 50 calls a day, 7 days a week from the same caller, repeating the same call, in different words, not stopping, despite no fire nor emergency. Such a caller will invite admin/disciplinary action. @Robert Walker has done the same, and continues. We can ignore the walls of post, just like a fire station can ignore all phone rings. But is that proper? The 4NT article has many watchers, is a high traffic article, and has the kind of participation from all sides that will likely keep the article in good shape. Further wikipedia is not a fire station, and there are no emergencies here. So here is what I propose: [1] Limited ban: limit 3 edits per day for @Robert Walker on the talk page; or [2] one month topic ban, or [3] whatever keeps the larger interest of the project, but helps reduce or stop @Robert Walker's behavior, which is to ignore WP:RS and wikipedia's content policies, and keep repeating what is in the non-WP:RS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and redeath for my comment on this idea that all WP:RS sources use this term. Harvey uses the word redeath once, and death 161 times in a 552 page book. The other WP:RS sources I list there never use it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Updating my vote to Support. After this post by @Robert Walker in "Reliable sources" section on an article talk page, at 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC), where his WP:Forum-y lecture on "Jesus" and "fundamentalist Christians" is irrelevant to the Four Noble Truths article and how to improve the article. I now support a one year restraint on @Robert Walker in all Religions-related wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please understand it in context. @Joshua Jonathan: said the article shouldn't cite certain WP:RS,partly on the grounds that they are religious, by which I think he means, because they are bikkhus (Buddhist monks). He has in the past said that a famous Buddhist translator Bhikkhu Bodhi, a reknownd American Buddhist scholar monk, frequently cited, is not a suitable source in the article on Anatta, saying "PS: Bikkhu Bodhi is not an academic source; you can use him as an additional source, but academic sources are preferred." (in this section [71]) and reply by @ScientificQuest: doing a Masters in Buddhist studies [72]. In this current conversation, I was replying that these bikkhus he objected to as sources were not fundamentalist Buddhists like fundamentalist Christians, but rather are scientifically minded monk scholars - then summarized their reasons for thinking the Pali Canon could be the original preachings of Buddha and his disciples, memorized after the event, then transmitted word for word accurately after that, similarly to the way the Vedas were memorized and transmitted for thousands of years in a pre-literate society. I don't see why saying this on a wikipedia talk page is a banning offence. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• If Robert Walker would only be more sparing with words and combine edits...but then still, it's a complete overdose of posts, well past, in my opinion, the point of disruption. So yes, I support this narrow topic ban too. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just edited those posts above to remove repetition, sorry for being wordy in my replies. I do work very very hard on this, to reduce the word count. Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ms Sarah Welch's conditions as a compromise in the right direction, since the status quo is untenable. Miniapolis 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Since I keep getting pinged about these Buddhist controversies, I will comment. The timing of this request is unfortunate, since the subject editor has now filed a real RFC, which is more constructive than his previous conduct in continuing to go on and one. However, looking over the recent history, he is still going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The subject editor says that one of the reasons that he makes so many posts is that he has to go back and correct. I see that is true. At the same time, I see that he never marks those corrections as minor edits, but I also see that he never uses edit summaries. I understand that very lengthy posts may not be perfect on first entry, but I would suggest that he could try composing his lengthy posts in a text window, which would permit him to view and correct before committing. However, if I only make one suggestion, it is that he at least occasionally use edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am a somewhat infrequent poster to wikipedia talk pages, and for the few posts I usually do on minor matters, this is not an issue. I will collapse the rest of this comment for those who wish to skip it as for discusions on facebook etc.

Extended content

I'm just the same in my posts on quora, facebook, my Science20 blog comments threads, emails also. The difference in all those places is just that they are set up in ways which mean that this is not an issue. Even if there is a history, it is just tied to an individual comment or post, and doesn't matter to editors of other comments. Many of them also let you save your posts as drafts too before you post for real. I have never had complaints about this habit anywhere else. Also in most of those situations, long posts are not an issue either because of the format, only the first two or three lines of long posts are displayed to the user, and many people do write very long posts in our discussions there, which are easy to skip if you are not interested to read them to the end. Last time I was commenting on this topic, I took to writing my posts in drafts in my user space first before posting here. The thing is, that this just came very suddenly. There were a few posts about walls of text, but nothing about edit history. So I was focusing on fixing the walls of text by collapsing, by removing repetition etc which of course meant even more edits. If other editors in the discussion had complained about the edit history I'd have focused on that issue as well, but nobody mentioned this as an issue until this ANI. And there was no prior warning that I would be taken to ANI, at least as far as I remember. We were in the middle of discussing redeath, then suddenly, soon after I get the Oppose vote from John Carter, Joshua Jonathan takes me to ANI. I can do this in future. It does help to post to drafts in my user space as I found last time.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a long-term topic-ban. Oppose a one-month topic ban. Support a restriction on the number of posts per day, for which 3 has been suggested, which could provide him an incentive to compose his walls of text in a text window. It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary. Restrictions on talk page posting should not become a rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - it's not only the length; at the first place it's about WP:DONTGETIT. Robertinventor asked for a reference ont he link between the four truths and rebirth (his one edit to the article); thereafter, altogether eleven references and an extensive explanation have been provided, and the "reference needed"-tag has righfully been removed; yet, he still goes on and on about this point. It's endless. The RfC on the use of the word "redeath" was a good move, but Robert has already announced future RfC's, including on the link between the four truths and rebirth, despite the fact that this point has been settled by reliable sources and approved by multiple editors with a good grip on the topic. What more does he want? Waiting 'till one editor pops-up who also wants to bypass those eleven sources? Does he want twenty sources? Thirty? Hundred? "Discussion" 'till we've all died from old age, and can't discuss anymore? Continued discussion in our next lifes? When does this end? And that's the whole point: Robert doesn't know when his questions have been answered and his requests and "discussions" become distracting, so I want us, the rest, to stop him. That's why I requested a topic-ban. A limit of three posts a day won't stop him from dragging on endless "discussions." And get me clear on this one: I don't doubt his good intentions, and we might get along quite well if we got to know each other personally (I love his photograph! It makes me smile with a broad grin). But he's driving me nuts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the list of future RfCs. The editors that remain in this topic tend to be ones that are in general agreement with Joshua Jonathan as others get all their edits reversed and eventually give up contributing. See for instance @Dharmalion76: who was opposed to the use of the term redeath, who talks about the frequent bullying in the Buddhism project[73], and says it makes him want to walk away from the project, which I've also witnessed of other editors such as @Dorje108:, previous main editor of the Four Noble Truths until Joshua Jonathan took over with a massive rewrite in October 2014 (see how in this history page there is an abrupt transition between edits mainly by Dorje108 and edits mainly by Joshua Jonathan in October 2014 [74]). Joshua ignored Dorje's request to discuss[75] - after that Dorje just left the project (after a long and unsuccessful attempt to deal with the issues by RfCs etc along with me).

Then there's ScientificQuest - a student with an MS in Electrical Engineering and Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit, and a newbie wikipedia editor doing his first ever edits of the encyclopedia, who had every single contribution to the closely related Anatta article reverted by Joshua Jonathan on the basis that they were not based on WP:RS with JJ lecturing him on what counts as WP:RS in his area of expertise, saying that Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society is not WP:RS. He answered politely [76], but eventually just gave up, with none of his contributions to the article accepted. I think this must happen to many more in this topic area. I have tried to attract the attention of experts in early Buddhist texts from elsewhere in Wikipedia for this redeath RfC, but so far with not much luck. Robert Walker (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to leave discussion of whether the third truth should be expressed as usually done as a path to cessation of suffering (as in the original wheel turning sutra), or as a path to end rebirth, to the RfC, and this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss details of our long debate on this. I just wanted to make this point, that I do understand that he is using WP:RS sources. But I think these sources do not demonstrate what he claims they do demonstrate and I think there is an element of WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on minority academic views. Details are for future discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also to say that Joshua Jonathan often does 14 posts a day in these debates[77]. So limiting me to 3 a day, even if I do that via drafts in my user space to reduce edits in the edit history would mean he would be able to do more than four posts to any discussion for every one of my posts. Robert Walker (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm a very new editor and still learning the ropes here. I don't know all the history, etc. What I do know is that my own attempts to participate in my first RfC on a topic about which I have some basic knowledge (so I could focus on learning the way things are done at Wikipedia more than worry about if I understand the content) got very sidetracked by all of this. I felt like a participant and was following along, until the moment when Joshua Jonathan proposed closing the RfC early. I stepped back once all this began. My suggestion, for this current RfC, is that we figure out how to make space for other editors to offer comments (this could be via some of the bans mentioned above; there could be other ways that I don't know about). Both Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker have the best of intentions and I appreciate how much they care about this article, but it may have gone too far. The discussions, and the WAY it's being discussed, have created an atmosphere where this new editor just backed up and went to work on other Buddhist articles on the margins. I now have this feeling that the more mainstream articles, even when they need editing, and even when I have knowledge to contribute, and editing skills, are somehow off limits unless I am willing to get in the middle of something like this. This doesn't feel encouraging to this new editor, nor does it contribute to the culture of Wikipedia in a useful way. And for all this conversation, I think the article is still lower quality than it could be. I hope my comments are useful to the process and to getting a better version of the Four Noble Truths article published. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)AD64

p.s. Please don't just assume that I am a he without asking first.

p.p.s., as I understand it, it's polite to ping a user when they are being mentioned. I see that I was referenced in this discussion without being pinged. To discover this conversation in another way without being pinged isn't good form. Please be more careful about this going forward. I've been quiet, but I'm reading, watching, learning, and waiting. I'm here. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: First, sorry to hear about this, I wanted the RfC to be welcoming to anyone who wants to participate! The RfC started on 16:44, 3 May 2016 , and by the same time the following day, it had 18 responses in the discussion threads or other edits by Joshua Jonathan [78] and probably an equal number by me (mine are hard to count because of all the editing) as well as a few by other editors. So that would be probably more than 36 new posts to read in a 24 hour period which is overwhelming for anyone. It does seem a significant issue, I agree.

I wonder, maybe we need an overall limit, not just to me, but to all participants in the debates, to, say, at most than three posts per RfC per day could help here? I'm willing to do that myself for sure. But it would be hard to stay silent if I come back to see a lot of posts by Joshua Jonathan putting forward his arguments and seeing responses in the RfC swayed by his remarks when I think that the opposite case has not been made to them. But if we both had the same limit of three posts, we'd have to choose our words carefully and it would be more equitable. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thought - how about each of the original participants in the discussion that lead to the RfC has one section to present their own arguments in the RfC? Then they step back, voluntarily, for the first few days of the RfC, to let the newbies to the article vote and discuss the topic, just don't enter the discussion at all, so they can discuss the ideas from scratch. Not permitted even to edit your own section of the RfC in response to what the RfC newbies say.

Then can enter the discussion, say after day 7 when the newbies have had time to discuss it if they want to? Something like that, could set down the rules in the statement of the RfC. Again just a thought. We could restart the RfC on redeath using these rules perhaps. Just mark the existing one as closed, start a copy, myself, and Joshua Jonathan present our case in separate sections below it as supplementary material, and then just wait and see what anyone says. And neither I nor JJ can comment on their responses for 7 days. There is no hurry about any of this. Robert Walker (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: Also, sorry for mentioning your name without pinging you. And sorry for calling you "disinterested" as that was a bad choice of words. What I meant was someone who hasn't been involved in all the previous debates on the topic, so comes to it new. It was the wrong word for that Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement, @Robertinventor and Robert Walker:. That helps. I like the idea that you are proposing here for a variety of reasons. A fresh start with clear rules. Yet, I don't want to lose track of relevant material that was brought in in the current RfC. Maybe a neutral third party (not me, please), could summarize the major topics that have arisen in the RfC (not arguments, topics), and have those available in a summary form for us to review, etc. In order for us to get to consensus, I would suggest that brevity is helpful (at least for now, it creates space for others to respond), kindness, and civility. Using Edit Summary boxes are important too (as I'm learning as a new editor). I don't mind disagreeing; I do mind the lack of good will as we disagree. Best, AD64 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: I think the idea of a list of topics, rather than arguments for or against, is a great way to do a new beginning, if we close it and start again. I think it will be hard to find a neutral editor to do this, but can make a stab at it myself. I've prepared a draft of a list here: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#List_of_topics_for_the_redeath_RfC List of topics for the redeath RfC. Thanks :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, are you seriously proposing that I should be limited to three responses a day because you can't limit yourself and WP:DONTGETIT? You requested a citation, you got 10+ of them, and look what an endless list of comments you're posting now here too. If it wasn't for your endless laments and noncomprehension, my number of edits would have been dramatically lower. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we both limit ourselves to help newbies to the RfC. Rather than a limit to 3 posts a day, it might be easier to just step back and not comment on the RfC at all for seven days, then we don't need to worry about whether the other person has done a response that we should respond to. So that was the reason for the second suggestion. To encourage new viewpoints on the discussion. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change Wiki-policies, start a proposal at the relevant policy talkpage. But please, stop sharing your endless stream of thoughts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Doug Weller, Bbb23, Nyttend, Liz, Floquenbeam, and HighInBC: could you please weight in here (sorry, pinging the admins I'm in touch with most, plus the ones at "Admins disagreeing on unblock")? Take a scroll through Talk:Four Noble Truths, and tell me if you can follow what's going on there. Let someone please stop this nightmare! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Four Noble Truths and its talkpage. Overwhelming and owning the talkpage by force of wordiness is untenable. I want to emphasize that I take Robert Walker to be a good faith editor, but everybody here is a volunteer and he's making unreasonable demands on other editors' time and energy. I'll support any of the narrow topic bans suggested above, including the 3 edit a day limit, the one month ban, and also actually a longer ban, such as 3 months — whatever people can agree on. It's obvious that something must be done. Also, Robert, you say above that you have edited your own posts to remove repetition, both here and on the article talkpage. "Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this." Well, please stop doing that. It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered. See WP:REDACT. I understand you do it to try to oblige the users who complain of your long posts, but that's not the way. Please make more of an effort to write concisely and coherently before you click save. PS, I have removed the header "Comment" and formatted it like the other comments. There are many comments here, and making a header for one of them makes it harder for others to know where to post, as it implies that anything below yours is a comment on your comment. I hope you don't mind, AD64. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen, the removal of the header and reformatting is fine; it is accurate, appropriate, and helpful. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I put a request on the article talk page asking that there be no new edits on the article until this is all sorted out. Is this an appropriate request? Could this be done as well? Thank you for weighing in here. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: I have already answered that question at the talkpage, but I'll repeat it here: ":I understand your request, but Robert's conversations never end. It would mean that WP:FILIBUSTER is effectively rewarded, and allowed to paralyze the editorial process. That is not how Wikipedia works." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here too Joshua Jonathan. That's very helpful. It's just almost impossible to keep up with your editing speed, and the talk page, and this admin page. In addition, right now there is no breathing room to consider the edits you are making and then discuss them. My preference is that all edits would be discussed beforehand especially given what is happening. So along with all the long conversations about previous things, now there is a whole new list of things to discuss as the editing goes on and on. I feel that is this not in the spirit of collaboration, nor in in the spirit of working this all out. New edits, without space for collaborative editor discussion, just creates more of a quagmire. I appreciate your intentions and your efforts on all this. Please, would you consider taking an editing break from this article for a bit, so we can sort this all out? With regards and thanks and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I am trying another approach to reducing my impact on the talk page.

First I understand the issue of many edits. As I said nobody had complained about it this time around before this ANC, so I was focusing on reducing the lengths of posts. Since this ANC started I am now doing both. I'm reducing numbers of edits. I'm also marking minor edits as such. (I sometimes forget, it's a bit hard to remember to do an edit summary when you come to wikipedia from other places like quora or facebook that don't have this requirement).

And I am also trying something new. I go on wikipedia for just a short time in the morning, type my posts, and then I log out of wikipedia, so I can visit it during research for my work and other conversations without notification. I then log back in in the evening and do a few more posts then log out. This is something I did before and it works, just forgot about it.

Do note that this ANI was brought suddenly, when we were in the middle of an RfC, with no warning immediately before. And no attempt has been made at all to help me, no suggestions about how I could reduce impact on the talk page, no encouragement on all the work I did to reduce the word count of my posts. Just a littany of wikipedia tags such as WP:DONTGETIT, WP:GREENCHEESE, WP:FILLIBUSTER, etc etc about my posts on the talk page. @Joshua Jonathan: also keeps saying he thinks I'm a nice chap - I don't care whether other people think I'm nice or not. I just want to be treated with respect and consideration. Please help me to become a better wikipedian, not just fight me every step of the way as I try to learn how to behave better on wikipedia talk pages. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert has indicated elsewhere that he is more active on quora than here, and it is possible that his behavior is skewed here as a result of habits of editing developed there. But that is his problem, no one else's. I would agree that, if he is unable to adjust his conduct to meet the standards here, his current style of editing is sufficiently problematic to merit some form of editing limitation. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true. It's only here that I have these issues. I can adjust my conduct. But the people here have just been extremely unfriendly, no attempt to help me. Just wham bam, off to ANI. When it was obvious I was working really hard to shorten my posts,to collapse them etc. No warning about the minor edits, until this ANI started. I had been warned about those over a year ago, but who remembers what you were asked to do over a year ago, after many things in between? And when I look at WP:TALK now, it doesn't say that you can't edit your comments either. It says

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

"But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or best practice even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, you should indicate your changes.

It says you can improve your commment so long as it is not replied to. And that once replied to, you should indicate your changes. Since nearly all my edits after replying were to do with removing repetition, collapsing comments, and providing summaries of collapsed comments, then it did not deprive replies of their original context either.

Why couldn't all this have been discussed in a friendly way, either on the talk page, or if that was thought to be too disruptive, why didn't someone give me some friendly words of advice on my own talk page? Note that nobody posted to my talk page until Joshua Jonathan posted a notice that he had taken me to ANI. Which remains the only comment on my talk page about it. This is just really really unfriendly! Robert Walker (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

One reason you might find the editors here unfriendly, maybe, is that your extremely irritating habit of constant revision of statements already made on talk pages, particularly when there are no immediately obvious real benefits from such changes, can, I think reasonably, be found to be extremely irritating, and it is hard to be friendly to one person who seems to perhaps place his own goals, which may not be particularly in line with wikipedia's own, over the friendlier option of trying to get it right the first time.

Also, while in the case of some other editors who work in broad fields, or who have lots of editing, it can be excused if things have to be repeated to them, particularly after time, we tend to assume that, if something has been made clear to a less active editor once, he will actually remember it and try to adjust his questionable conduct accordingly. If editors do not see that indication of friendly cooperation from others, they may, not unreasonably, think that it isn't a priority to that other, and feel more inclined to take external remedial action which the individual him or herself may not be willing, able, or inclined to do otherwise. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but that's only because you can see that I act this way on wikipedia. I'm just the same on Quora comments or facebook comments. I've just been writing some replies in a facebook thread just now, doing the same, lots of corrections. It doesn't bother anyone because it doesn't change the sense of what I'm saying, just makes it easier to read. While here it does bother people, mainly I think because they can see the edit histories. After all there is nothing else different. And remember that for you this is all familiar stuff, but for me, it's a case of coming back after a year spent mostly in other situations.

And if it is true you were all irritated by this, before this ANI started, why on Earth didn't you say something! It would just need one person to say "do you realize you are adding lots of edits to the edit history" and I'd have stopped it right away. It only took one comment on the 8th May by [79] by @Ms Sarah Welch: to tell me to stop editing comments after others have replied to them, and I haven't done it since. Now if I need to edit a comment that someone replies to, I'll mark the changes with strike through etc. We aren't talking about repeating something day after day. We are talking here about repeating something that had only been said previously a year earlier. Robert Walker (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, please try to understand this. For our purpose, how you comment elsewhere is irrelevant. If you are editing here, you are supposed to follow the guidelines and policies here. I neither know nor care about how you comment elsewhere, that is irrelevant here. If you are incapable of understanding that the responsibility to behave according to the rules of different sites falls on the person who seeks to comment there, that might be a serious problem.

And, frankly, I find these apparently repeated attempts on your part to try to pass the burden of your problematic conduct onto others, as you did in the last paragraph above, nothing less than appalling. Also, as can be seen from your user page, you are apparently already aware that there are, and have been, serious concerns about your conduct before. Knowing that, why on Earth are you not doing what would be expected of anyone else, and recognizing that different rules apply in different places, and that the responsibility of adhering to those rules lies on the shoulders of the individual themselves, in this case, you.

You are free to comment elsewhere however you like. But if you comment here, you are expected to follow the rules here. If you have difficulty understanding that, or applying it to yourself, or, apparently, remembering when you may have been told that before, that problem is yours and yours alone. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Yes I do understand this. On your part, can you please also understand that none of this is intentional. I didn't do all those edits in order to irritate other editors. I did them to try to make things easier for other editors by reducing the lengths of my posts. I was responding as best I could to the comments about my long posts in the discussion. Then when the issue of too many edits was brought up, which only happened after this ANI was started, I immediately addressed that by marking them all as minor edits if minor, and by using edit summaries and by reducing the numbers of edits. And when the issue of editing comments that had already been replied to was brought up, I stopped that too, and now use strike through if anything is changed after it is commented on by anyone else. I only needed to be told once, and anyone could have done this at any stage, and if it was too disruptive to say so in the conversation on the talk page for the article, any of you could have said those things on my own personal talk page. It would be reasonable to be upset that I didn't remember if you'd told me a day or even a week ago. But after a year? Many of you spend a long time on wikipedia, day after day, week after week, and I can understand it might seem strange to you that I'd forget about such a thing, which to you is so familiar and part of your life. But I don't. I spend months at a time hardly doing anything here except an occasional minor edit when I happen to spot an article with a mistake in it when browsing the web. I do numerous minor edits of my posts everywhere else on the web with no problem ever. Never even a comment about it by anyone. So here, all my attention was on reducing the lengths of the posts, and I just didn't think to monitor the minor edits I was creating as a result, or mark them as minor, or to provide edit summaries for them. Probably the thought to monitor my minor edits crossed my mind at some point - but if so, my attention was with the lengths of the posts, and I just wasn't paying attention to this. If I'd been reminded I'd have done something about it right away. Please WP:AGF on this. Indeed I wonder what you could imagine would be my motive for intentionally doing lots of minor edits without summaries, why would I want to irritate other editors by doing this? Robert Walker (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support limited topic ban from the area of the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed. I also note that a topic ban of this sort is by definition indefinite, and can be revoked later if it is found that the problematic behavior which led to the block no longer is a problem. I strongly suggest Robert perhaps seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR and/or engage in occasional dicussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse regarding any questions he may have in the future of perhaps a similar type. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Random line break for convenience

• Narrow oppose. WP:3RR counts a series of edits as one edit for determining the number of reversions, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Couldn't we use the same standard here? There's no reason to object that someone takes four or eight edits to write a statement, rather than one; policy doesn't prohibit editing your own new comments at talk pages (nobody's responded to your new comment, so it won't cause confusion), and unlike extra trivial edits by bots, a few extra edits by a human user won't clog up RecentChanges or cause problems with server performance. And the "wall of text" problem, to a significant extent, is caused by Robert's excessive use of line breaks; if those lines were all together in one or two paragraphs, they'd be a bit less daunting. Look at these two chunks of text, the first copied straight from the talk page, and the second with line breaks removed:

Extended content

I'm going to leave the RfC on "redeath" open until it closes by itself. Maybe it will attract the attention of knowledgeable experts in early Pali sutras or others with a new perspective on the debate. This experience has shown me that even an attempt at a focused discussion on a single word doesn't seem to work. So, I think there's no chance of a discussion that is somewhat larger in scope than that. @AD64:, thanks so much for your suggestions for the RfC and I think they were good ones, but can't see a way forward to implementing them. Unless someone new comes to this page who can help. The main larger question was, whether the third truth should be phrased as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness as Buddha himself expressed it according to the Pali canon, or expressed as a "way to end this cycle" - and I also touched on whether the historical section should mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto, etc etc according to which most of the Pali Canon expresses the teachings of a single teacher, the Buddha. I think the answers to both those is obvious as is the answer to this one about redeath, that it's a WP:TECHNICAL word that most readers won't know, that it has too many associations with the Vedas which Buddhists don't accept as sacred texts, and that it should just be replaced by an ordinary English phrase such as "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death" or the like, so that there is no ambiguity and the ordinary non technical reader can understand what it means. I understand that the other editors here don't see it that way. And they seem to think that there is no future in debating such questions. I am glad to see one improvement since the start of the discussion. The fourth truth is now expressed much better than it was before. However generally, I think the way the four truths are expressed in the old lede is still far far better than this new version. I am still here, and if anyone else wants to take this up any further, I'll be happy to join in and help as best I can. When I asked @Robert McClenon: what my options were, purely as a matter of wikipedia policy (not asking him to join in the debate) he said I could try very focused RfCs, or I could try mediation. I've tried very focused RfCs and they don't seem to work, or at least I'm not the one to do them. I could try mediation but I don't have the time to set aside for this. It's my experience from the past that if you try to go through wikipedia due process, it can take weeks of work, and may well still fail because you haven't understood something significant about wikipedia policies and procedures. And that approach also tends to generate a fair bit of ill will from people opposed to you doing it. At least when I do it. So I don't want to do that again right now. I have too many other things to do, and I also don't want to generate ill will in others in that way. One parting thought, wikipedia editors' views are impermanent like everything else. Perhaps some day there will be a change of heart? Or perhaps I might change in a way that makes this all much easier?

Extended content

I'm going to leave the RfC on "redeath" open until it closes by itself. Maybe it will attract the attention of knowledgeable experts in early Pali sutras or others with a new perspective on the debate. This experience has shown me that even an attempt at a focused discussion on a single word doesn't seem to work. So, I think there's no chance of a discussion that is somewhat larger in scope than that. @AD64:, thanks so much for your suggestions for the RfC and I think they were good ones, but can't see a way forward to implementing them. Unless someone new comes to this page who can help. The main larger question was, whether the third truth should be phrased as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness as Buddha himself expressed it according to the Pali canon, or expressed as a "way to end this cycle" - and I also touched on whether the historical section should mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto, etc etc according to which most of the Pali Canon expresses the teachings of a single teacher, the Buddha. I think the answers to both those is obvious as is the answer to this one about redeath, that it's a WP:TECHNICAL word that most readers won't know, that it has too many associations with the Vedas which Buddhists don't accept as sacred texts, and that it should just be replaced by an ordinary English phrase such as "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death" or the like, so that there is no ambiguity and the ordinary non technical reader can understand what it means. I understand that the other editors here don't see it that way. And they seem to think that there is no future in debating such questions. I am glad to see one improvement since the start of the discussion. The fourth truth is now expressed much better than it was before. However generally, I think the way the four truths are expressed in the old lede is still far far better than this new version. I am still here, and if anyone else wants to take this up any further, I'll be happy to join in and help as best I can. When I asked @Robert McClenon: what my options were, purely as a matter of wikipedia policy (not asking him to join in the debate) he said I could try very focused RfCs, or I could try mediation. I've tried very focused RfCs and they don't seem to work, or at least I'm not the one to do them. I could try mediation but I don't have the time to set aside for this. It's my experience from the past that if you try to go through wikipedia due process, it can take weeks of work, and may well still fail because you haven't understood something significant about wikipedia policies and procedures. And that approach also tends to generate a fair bit of ill will from people opposed to you doing it. At least when I do it. So I don't want to do that again right now. I have too many other things to do, and I also don't want to generate ill will in others in that way. One parting thought, wikipedia editors' views are impermanent like everything else. Perhaps some day there will be a change of heart? Or perhaps I might change in a way that makes this all much easier?

• No opinion on other issues; I'm not familiar enough with the situation to offer an informed opinion. If the ban-or-don't-ban hinges on other issues, the closing admin should ignore my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've rewritten that comment as you suggested, as three paragraphs. Note that I developed these habits in other forums like Quora comments and facebook comments where nobody minds at all how long your comment is physically on the page indeed don't worry about word count either, because they just see the first three or four lines of it plus a "show more" button. Please note that nearly all of the edits of the talk page are minor edits, but until recently I forgot about marking them as such. And note that I never edit war - neither on the article page where all I've ever done is to insert a citations needed tag which was immediately reverted - nor on the talk page. If someone else edits one of my comments, as @Ms Sarah Welch: did recently without first asking me if it is okay to do this [80], I don't try to revert it back (she had a reason for doing so, that it was a comment that I had edited to collapse and then summarize after she replied to it, but still, I think it would have been common courtesy to ask me). Robert Walker (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Either topic ban or some sort of gagging. Wall'o'text where nothing is actually useful is a form of disruptive editing as it prevents meaningful discussion and collaboration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Additional Comment: @Robert Walker has been inserting sentences and changing his old posts after someone has responded. See this version I responded to, and compare it to the current version. He did this back editing after May 7, after being requested to review WP:Talk on May 2. Such back editing conduct by @Robert Walker has deprived the replies their original context, and made the article's talk page even more difficult to understand. If such misconduct continues, there is no sense in replying to anything. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I stopped doing this immediately when you requested. Please note that these edits were mainly to reduce the word count in response to the complaints about writing posts that were too long. Sometimes I collapsed an entire post and then put a summary in front of it. If you look at my comment which @Ms Sarah Welch: edited, she just did a partial revert to remove some of my summary of the longer collapsed comment when I say that no misrepresentation was intended [81]. In the collapsed comment which she originally responded to, I write "And it doesn't help to use the word "misrepresentation"which implies that it is willful. I am trying to understand as best as I can. Please help also from your side. " which in the summary I rewrote to "Also please note, that I am trying to understand what you are saying but it doesn't yet make sense to me. There is no intentional misrepresentation - what I wrote was my best understanding of what has been said." in a sequence of edits. Yes it is differently phrased but it does not change the essential meaning of the comment she replied to originally and I don't see why it had to be removed. 08:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: I was using wiki's mobile editor app over the last few days, and it appears to overwrite edit conflicts. This was inadvertent, not intentional. I requested two editors to fix my mobile edit overwrites (and thank them for fixing what they found, my apologies for any inconvenience). As far as misrepresentation go, you are misrepresenting the sources and @Joshua Jonathan. For example, your allegation of May 9 2016 about "a citations needed tag which was removed without discussion" is a misrepresentation, because [1] you did not provide a diff when you made that allegation, [2] your allegation can imply that 'a citations needed tag was removed without cite being added', when in fact @Joshua Jonathan did provide numerous cites. We don't need a forum-y discussion to replace a "cn" tag with scholarly citations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay first, thanks for explaining that your edit that removed part of my comment was not intentional but an app bug. On your point [1], I've now added a link to the diff, also to "edits by user" which shows that this is the only edit I've ever made to the article. I have indicated this as an addition to the comment using underlines, as recommended in the wikipedia guidelines. On your [2] then I can understand now, that if he felt he had answered the need for the cn tag it would indeed be okay to remove it. Though I don't think he did do this, as his cites don't express the truths themselves as he does, only present those views in later commentary. The difference is that the lede presents it as a path to an effect, while Buddha presented it as a path to realize a truth of cessation, what's more, a truth you can realize in this very life, not just at death. I've responded in a little more detail in a comment above, also in my talk page Walpola Rahula quote. Robert Walker (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose although I acknowledge I generally feel very bad in disagreeing with Joshua, who tends to know these things better than I do. I also note that I have generally agreed with those who disagree with Robert. But, so far as I can tell, there seems to be a bit of a tendency on the part of others to examine only some of the most recent reference sources regarding this topic to determine usage of a term, and I see some possible problems with WP:JARGON and WP:TECHNICAL in this regard. "Rebirth" is a term fairly widely used and understandable to most, "redeath" is less so. The fact that there seems to at least my eyes to be little if any interest in discussion beyond "will we use the term or not," and no apparent effort to possibly even consider other options, makes this proposal, at least to my eyes, maybe a bit premature.John Carter (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - this request is about the endless posts of Robert in general, not the use of the word "redeath." But the fact that this side-issue has become a main-issue, while I'd already removed that word from the lead, is symptomatic. The Real issue is that Robert Never stops, as is show by his opposition against explaining that the four truths are about the cor of Buddhism, namely ending rebirth. What term we use is a side-issue. Basic fact is that 11 reliable sources have been provider, and that he still intends to open a RfC on this. That's not about gaining concessies, that's about bypassing concencus. And that's what I'm fed-up with: the lack of basic knowledge, the lack of use of relevant sources, the lack of understanding proper arguments, and yet the totale conviction that his personal understanding of Buddhism is the standard in this regard. That's why I asked for a topic-ban, not for a side-issue on the use of the word "redeath." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Struck my opposition based on the response immediately above. I do agree that Robert has rather regularly displayed what might charitably be called a weak grasp of conduct guidelines. WP:MENTOR might help, and possibly be acceptable, if he were to agree to it. I don't know if that has been proposed and/or rejected before however. If such measures have been discussed before, or, possibly, if it is thought that maybe some lesser sanction, like maybe WP:1RR or a topic ban or similar, might have a reasonable chance of success, I guess I would offer weak to moderate support of the proposed sanction. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter:The only edit I've done of this article is to insert a citations needed tag [82] to the statement ""the truths of the Noble Ones," which express the basic orientation of Buddhism: this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence." @Joshua Jonathan: removed it 21 minutes later. I have not tried to reinsert it. I don't do edit warring. Robert Walker (talk)

I didn't say you did. You do, however, have a very obvious history of making extremely long, and sometimes dubiously useful, comments on the talk pages, and have done so again here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to your suggestion of WP:1RR which is used aa a remedy for edit warring, wanted to make clear that I don't edit war. I didn't even try to reinsert a citations needed tag which was removed without discussion. Here is the diff [83], and this is my only ever edit of the article, see search for edits by user here: [84] Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As I note above, @Joshua Jonathan did provide numerous cites to address the tags. We don't need a forum-y discussion to replace a "cn" tag with scholarly citations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The cites do not in my view support the rewrite of the four noble truths as a "way to end this cycle" as he has not yet presented a WP:RS that presents them in this way. They present it as a path to the Truth of Nirvana and a path to cessation of suffering, and say in later commentary that realizing cessation leads to an end to the cycle of rebirth. But don't present it as a path to end rebirth, unless I missed something. The difference may seem subtle but Buddha chose his words carefully and precisely. The problems arise when the path is presented as a path to try to cause an effect, rather than as a path to realize something. If you could cause an end to rebirth as an effect, rather than realize cessation as a truth, then it would mean that whatever state resulted would be compounded and subject to change so still in Samsara, at least following Buddha's teachings See also the new section I added here: Walpola Rahula quote. It would also focus the practitioners on their future, and what happens when they die, and such questions as "Shall I exist in future? Shall I not exist in the future? What shall I be in future?" which Buddha warned against as an unwise reflections leading to attachment to views relating to a self, in the Sabbasava-Sutta. I think there are numerous reasons for supposing Buddha chose his words with care, and presented it as a path to cessation of dukkha and realizing the truth of Cessation / Nirvana. Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or any other restriction that might help to prevent Robert Walker from disrupting the consensus building process on the talk page of four noble truths. It seems to be impossible for him to follow WP:TALK . He continues to post his walls of text, changes his posts endlessly, uses the talk page as a forum and misrepresents the words of fellow editors. All attempts to convince him to stop this were futile. I am sorry Robert Walker, but I see no alternative to some kind of restriction. JimRenge (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very weak support Per my comments below, I actually have serious doubts about the enforcibility of a TBAN on a specialized topic area that very few members of the admin corps can accurately distinguish from other areas of "Buddhism", especially in this case where anyone who wants to report or block Robertinventor for a violation would have to wade through his massive walls of text to see if he has violated it. Obviously this TBAN proposal was named because the recent disruption has all taken place on Talk:Four Noble Truths and any edit to that one page could automatically be taken as a TBAN-violation, but if what we are trying to do is ban him from a particular page, that is called a PAGEBAN. That said, of course I think any restriction that can potentially halt this disruption is better than nothing, and my more tailor-made proposal doesn't seem to be getting much traction, so the present (obviously problematic) proposal might just have to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - @Hijiri88: a pageban? Of course, you're right! That's what I meant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus a final warning; if the same happens again at other pages, Buddhist or otherwise, exit. It has happened before at the Four Noble Truths page, at Talk:Karma, at Talk:Karma in Buddhism, and at Mars-related articles. See this post at his talkpage:

"This will be my only reply to your pseudo-scientific trolling behavior. Physics, and radiation in particular, have NOT changed in THIS universe since your trolling shenanigans last year. Unlike you, I do not express my hopes and desires in Wikipedia pages, and here, to finalize this matter, I now quote data collected in situ by the Curiosity rover and the conclusion of the 400+ Team Members of the MSL mission."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Four Noble Truths (or, better, Buddhism broadly construed); weakly support Talk page limitations. (Non-administrator comment) We've been here before. Although Robertinventor gave suggestions for changing his Talk page behaviour, after skimming through Talk:Four Noble Truths, it's clear to me that Robert W. has returned to his endless walls of text. He escaped sanctions for this behaviour in the previous ANI but this situation cannot continue. Such long, unfocused posts disrespect other editors, who have to wade through them, and are disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Another break #2 - discussion on the four truths

This material below, collapsed just now by @Joshua Jonathan: has my reply to his allegation above that my RfCs are about bypassing consensus. I explain why they are genuine RfCs. I don't edit war so will leave it collapsed. But please take a look at it if you want my perspective on it, and not just to read his. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Also would like to briefly comment on the reasons for the RfCs. The reason for doing a focused RfC on "redeath" was precisely to avoid getting drawn into wider issues, which is why I have resisted all attempts to tie it to discussion of the third truth. It was quite simply just an RfC on whether this word can be used in the article, and on what it means for a Buddhist, if it is a Buddhist term. During this RfC, they refused to answer simple questions such as to explain which pal word or phrase it corresponds to. I've attempted dialog with @Ms Sarah Welch: to clarify her statement that it occurs in the Pali sutras and she just says I have to WP:AGF citing a book that I can't access. She won't say which Pali word or phrase it is a translation of, or say what it means, or quote from the WP:RS translation that she says uses this word, claiming this is a WP:FORUM-Y question [85]. As for the more general question, then I'd like to explain why it is a reasonable question to ask about the article. Buddha taught the four noble truths as a path to cessation of Dukkha = Suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and this is how it is normally presented. Even in Harvey, which @Joshua Jonathan: gives as one of the WP:RS for his rewrite, his original statement of the four noble truths on page 52 is in this form. ""The four True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled form the structural framework for all higher teachings of early Buddhism. They are: (i) dukkha, ‘the painful’, encompassing the various forms of ‘pain’, gross or subtle, physical or mental, that we are all subject to, along with painful things that engender these; (ii) the origination (samudaya, i.e. cause) of dukkha, namely craving (tanhā, Skt trsnā); (iii) the cessation (nirodha) of dukkha by the cessation of craving (this cessation being equivalent to Nirvāna); and (iv) the path (magga, Skt mārga) that leads to this cessation." Also this article presented it in this way before October 2014. And the BBC website which is now the preferred google summary for "four noble truths" does too. It's quite simply, the way it is normally presented in WP:RS. Assuming that Buddha chose his words carefully in the wheel turning sermon, I think there is a good case for presenting the four truths in the same way in the lede here. I think it is good enough to need an RfC on whether it is right to express it as a path aimed at ending rebirth as the main aim. I won't however be attempting this RfC since it has proved so controversial to just attempt an RfC on a single word. Robert Walker (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC) The "citations needed" tag was not simply removed without discussion, it was replaced with eleven citations.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC) The "historicity" of that specific "sermon" is disputed, on good ground, yet you seem to ignore this. And both Harvey and the BBC-website mention very clear that the four truths are about ending rebirth. Why do we have to repeated this over and over again? This illustrates again why I ask for a topic-ban: because Robert simply WP:DONTGETIT, not even when it's spelled out word by word. It is as if those words and explanations simply don'T exist for him. I might as well respond in Dutch; the netto understanding at his side would be the same. See also WP:COMPETENCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) The historicity is only disputed by some scholars, Anderson being an example. And she also makes it clear that she does not mean her argument to be used to revise the way the four truths are presented. In her book "Basic Buddhism" she presents the four truths as ""The Four Noble Truths deal specifically with the existence of suffering and they are the root from which all teachings arise. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths in the very first teaching he gave after he attained enlightenment and he further clarified their meaning in many subsequent teachings throughout his life. These four truths are: A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering. B. Samudaya: Suffering is caused by attachment and desire. C. Nirodha: Suffering can be stopped. D: Magga: The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path" - exactly as is normal for WP:RS. There is a difference from the point of view of the practitioner whether they are presented as a path to end suffering or a path to end rebirth. Whether they end rebirth as well is a separate question. In Therevadhan teachings I think you are right that they always do. In the Tibetan Buddhist teachings, at the other extreme, it is clear that they don't as they talk about fully enlightened Tulkus that take rebirth over and over again, often multiple rebirths at the same time. They refer to these as incarnations. Among these Tulkus there may be many who are truly qualified Incarnate Emanation Bodies of the Buddhas, but this does not necessarily apply to all of them' - article on reincarnation on the Dalai Lama's website. And there are thousands of books and articles on the Four Noble Truths. It would not be hard to find a few cites supporting some recent some controversial view, and what's more your cites don't back it up anyway - your Harvey cite is to a discussion of one of the twelve niddhanas, and he presents the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness like everyone else. I'm not trying to argue the RfC here, just to point out that it does not mark me as quixotic or a trouble maker to suggest this RfC. All the way through the opposing argument has been largely of the type "we read the scholarly literature so we know what to write in the article and you have to accept what we say". When I point out that there is only 1 use of "redeath" in Harvey 's 512 page book, 1 use of "re-death" and 923 uses of "rebirth", and that most WP:RS on Buddhism don't use the word, or when I ask which word or phrase in the Pali canon corresponds to "redeath", all this is just brushed off by saying, basically, that I can't understand their reasoning, that I should read the whole of Harvey first before commenting on word frequency in it, should get hold of scholarly works on the Pali canon before I can ask questions about the translation of it, and if not able to do that, I should stop talking about it, even when they don't answer simple direct questions. Robert Walker (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Some scholars"? Bareau, Ui, Hirakawa,Norman,Schmithausen,Vetter,Gombrich, and,indeed, Anderson. That's not "some," that's the crème de la crème making the same point,which is missing from popular sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Hope you don't mind, I've moved your reply up here as it got misplaced somehow. On the historicity I totally agree that there are quite a few scholars who say that most of the Pali Canon is a later development. But there are also many scholars who say that it is largely the work of the Buddha. Including Gombrich, Winne, Payutto, I've collected some of the cites here with quotes: WP:RS who assert that the Pali Canon are largely the work of a single teacher', and the Origins section of the Pali Canon presents a wide range of views, that it's the work of the Buddha, that it's work of presectarian Buddhism but after the Buddha, and agnosticism - with highly regarded WP:RS for each view. In my view it violates WP:NPOV to present only one end of this spectrum in the article. Robert Walker (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Off-topic. You're drawing your own conclusions on a specific issue from the POV of some scholars on another topic. If there are sources which respond on Ui, Vetter, Bronkhorst, Anderson etc regarding the historical development of the four truths, fine. But not a general discussion on positions regarding the SuttaPitaka, to draw your own conclusies regarding Anderson etc, when thoe 'faithfull' authors are not responding to that specific point. That's OR.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Another break - Robert's "new method"

Are admins doing this collapsing? If not, please note that my comments and replies in this action taken against me are being collapsed, and that they answer points that are raised by the others in this discussion. Am I permitted to summarize what I say in the collapsed material?

In this section I say that I am using a new method to reduce numbers of posts. I post for a short period at a time, usually once in the morning and once in the evening (in between I usually log out). I also point out that of all the issues mentioned in this ANI, only the length of my posts was mentioned in the discussion before the ANI started. And I also say in response to @Joshua Jonathan:'s WP:DONTGETIT that the feeling is mutual, that I often don't feel he understands what I said. And that I've been asking @Ms Sarah Welch: for an answer that she could have answered with a single post, asking for a quote from a source I couldn't access, which became a long conversation of numerous posts during which she repeatedly refused to answer. And saying it would greatly help mutual understanding if they would answer simple questions. Robert Walker (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment I'd just like to say again - that I am using a new method. I now only comment here for a short time in the morning, and in the evening. I think this could by itself deal with most of the issues. And please note that this came very suddenly, in the middle of an RfC while talking about other things. Nearly all the things mentioned in this discussion were not raised until after this ANI action started. Only the length of my posts was mentioned in the discussion. And there was no attempt at all to help me. No encouragement or comment on all my work to reduce word count. They didn't even warn me that I was doing it wrong, as they now say in this ANI. They now say that I should not make so many minor edits and should not edit comments already replied to, but no mention of this during the discussion. And please note that @Joshua Jonathan: is a fast responder on talk pages, writing 18 posts on the talk page in the 24 hours following opening of the "redeath" RfC, many of those were long posts as well. I seemed to do many more posts than him mainly because of all the minor edits that I didn't mark as minor. I also had responses by other editors to reply to as well. In the context of such a fast paced discussion it's perhaps more understandable that I also wrote a lot? He says that his posts were acceptable but mine were not because of WP:DONTGETIT but that is a mutual feeling as I have oftentimes felt that he doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying. And when I don't understand him and @Ms Sarah Welch:, it's not due to lack of trying! It would greatly help mutual understanding if they would give straightforward answers to simple questions such as which Pali word or phrase can be translated as "redeath" and the translation in context. After a long and frustrating conversation trying to get that information (this is just the last part of it [86]), I still have no idea what the answer is. Robert Walker (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (This is not like a fixed rule. Today I've done a couple of other short sessions of commenting during the day because Joshua Jonathan has just collapsed many of my responses in a comment thread above, and because I feel that there's a chance that admins may be reviewing this soon, but apart from that I've been doing just two sessions a day). Robert Walker (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose closing

This thread has been open for over a week now. So far as I can tell, the votes are basically 5-3 which some additional qualifications and indications of opinions. When should the closing take place, or, alternately, would it be a good idea to, maybe, request all those who have expressed opinions to more concretely indicate specific terms they would or would not support? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Even a partial read of the wall of posts by @Robert Walker suggests that this is not a 'content dispute', but a conduct issue per your own post. I urge that this WP:AN thread should focus on @Robert Walker's conduct, whether measures are needed to address the WP:FORUM-y, WP:SOAP-y, changing one's past edit after someone has already responded, and such misuse of an article's talk page (Talk:Four Noble Truths). If measures are appropriate, what those measures ought to be. @Robert Walker states he lives on an island and lacks access to scholarly sources. Yet, he is unwilling to accept the 10+ scholarly sources, published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, Routledge, etc by well respected scholars on Buddhism, in the last 40 years. @Robert Walker's walls of text and zillion RfC proposals are puzzling, given this situation, as is his proposal that the article should be rewritten to match the "traditional" (non-RS websites such as Buddhanet) presentation, because "surely the traditional presentation is what the reader expects". Let us keep the AN focus on conduct, not the content discussion. The 'specific terms' discussion, within wiki's content guidelines, are best discussed on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly am not entirely sure what comment is supposed to address regarding matters of closing the thread here, which is what my first comment was about.

Also, I suppose, it might be worth mentioning that Robert says on his user page that his username, Robertinventor, is also the name of his business. That being the case, it might be by some considered a possible violation of our policy WP:USERNAME, particularly if one were to think that perhaps some of Robert's editing is to, basically, promote to others the idea that he would be a good business to work with. I'm not sure if that has ever been mentioned before, or whether it might be a misread of the policy on my part, but it might be worth considering if it hasn't already been considered.

Lastly, I suppose, his comments on his user page in which he tries to defend his excessive posting to talk pages indicates that he does recognize that the behavior is problematic, and also, possibly, that it is something that he has insufficient ability or inclination to change. Being unwilling or unable to change one's behavior despite having been warned so often that one discusses the problematic behavior extensively on one's own user page is far from being a good sign. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the username issue appears from the opinions of a few admins contacted to be only a minor one, and one not necessarily needing any sort of admin attention. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That was written a year ago during the other ANI, and I'd forgotten about that also until you mentioned it just now. Nobody has ever complained about me using the same user name as for my business. I'd be happy changing it if that was necessary and possible though hopefully in a way that doesn't lose my user history here - as you may notice I did change my signature to Robert Walker, which is my real name (I have no reason to hide my real name here). It was the other way around, this is my usual internet handle, so when I wondered what to call my business, it was natural to use it. My business is a music software business. I did a declaration of interest as recommended for such things. It is also the name I use for my blog on Science20. For the same reason - that it's my usual internet handle. I chose it because RobertWalker is usually already taken, being a rather common name, so rather than e.g. RobertWalker55 or whatever, it's easier to register as RobertInventor which is almost never already taken (usually when it is, it's because I accidentally registered twice). That's all there is to it.And with that previous ANI it was just like this time @Joshua Jonathan: suddenly took me to ANI with little warning and produced a whole litany of complaints about my editing patterns, which he hadn't mentioned to me personally before the ANI. I can't remember what he said exactly in the ANI, just remember it was similar to this one in that respect.

Also perhaps it can help if I say a bit about why I spend so much time editing my posts normally? I do that when it's a topic where I want to be especially clear and precise. And to spend a few minutes on a post editing it for clarity is not much for me. Do you ever encounter copy editors? It's like that. I can spend a week refining an article, mainly working on the phrasing and ways of expressing things, how it's organized etc. Indeed, I've been working on a 2.2 pages document on and off for several weeks now, one that is very important to me. It's here in case you are interested just to see the sort of thing, I think it would be publicly viewable: Case for Moon - Short Executive Summary. I've been working on it since early April. And it's not finished. I'll probably spend another week or two on it. In the case of this debate, then I am trying to present some very precise things that are hard to explain clearly. And there's a lot of hostility from the other editors, so clarity is very important otherwise there is no chance of them understanding what I'm saying. Even so, most of the time I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to say, though I try really hard. So that's why I work really hard on the comments here. I hope that's understandable. Robert Walker (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can an admin close this, the collapsed content discussions illustrate the problem people have with this editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, your claim of hostility is rather unfortunate. It is, in general, assumed that if your conduct is such that it results in you being taken to ANI, you would remember that, and remember not to engage in the sort of behavior which got you taken to ANI in the first place. If you can't, that raises the possibility that there would be no lasting purpose to this dicussion either, which would make the request for stronger sanctions even better supported. Also, you do seem to have a rather dubious grasp of the web in general. Quora is not wikipedia - they have different guidelines, policiies, and purposes. Facebook most certianly is not wikipedia, as it is primarily a social networking site. Being good at something different somewhere else does not automatically mean that you should be allowed to, basically, act however you want in regards to policies or guidelines here. The primary hostility, as I see it, is your hostile response to being asked to abide by the rules of conduct that others are similarly obliged to follow here, seemingly based on your being, as you so proudly and repeatedly state, highly regarded at quora. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "redeath"

Again someone else collapsed this conversation. I understand that it is a long one, but can I just summarize? I explain that I do have access to scholarly sources over the internet. I just didn't have access to the source that @Ms Sarah Welch: claimed used the word "redeath" to translate a Pali stura. Later in this conversation I found her source online, and it doesn't use this word in its translation, just in a commentary and what's more in brackets, with a ? after it. I asked her to apologize for not being honest and straightforward with me in this conversation. She didn't apologise. She later gives a link to a Pali dictionary page which does give a couple of cites for "Agati gati" as "re-birth and re-death in the course of samsara". Sorry I missed that this morning. But why why why couldn't she have just given me a link to this dictionary page at the start of the conversation! That would have saved so much conversation. And why not give me a quote from the source when I said I couldn't access it, and why misrepresent it as a translation when it was a commentary on a translation in that cite? Robert Walker (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended Content discussion Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I do have access to scholarly sources as there are many available on the internet. It's just the specific one that you referred to that I can't access. I asked you to quote the English translation and say what Pali word or phrase "redeath" translates. And you just refuse. Cites in wikipedia and elsewhere quote from the sources - if your source supports what you say, why can't you quote from it? And what's wrong with mentioning buddhanet on a talk page as an example of how the four noble truths are traditionally presented - a website of an Australian Therevadhan monastery? I never said it was a WP:RS, I just said that's how it is traditionally presented. The rules about WP:RS are not applied in this strict way to talk page conversations. I gave many other WP:RS sources, see Four Noble Truths as a path to cessation of dukkha - cites. In most circumstances that would be considered sufficient reason to do an RfC I think. Robert Walker (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: See the cites in the article and read the talk page. @Joshua Jonathan and I already provided the page number, source details and embedded quotes in the 4NT article, for "birth", "rebirth", "repeated birth", "death", "re-death", "repeated death" and "redeath" related references, published by well known scholars in 4NT context. You keep misrepresenting the progress so far, by alleging we have not provided the cites/quotes, when here is a diff, and here is another, and here is yet another, that proves we have repeatedly done so. This is just another evidence of your Forum-y and disruptive conduct. You keep asking @Joshua Jonathan and others to explain Suttas to you, rather than accept what 10+ reliable scholars are explaining the Suttas on 4NT to be stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I'm referring to this conversation [87]. I asked you to give the English translation and the Pali word corresponding to "redeath" since you say it occurs in the Pali canon. I agree that it is occasionally used in secondary sources, but my word counting showed that it was a very rare word in commentaries by modern Buddhist scholars, such as Harvey with one use of "redeath", one of "re-death" and 923 uses of "rebirth" in his book on Buddhism, while most WP:RS don't use it. As part of the RfC I asked if it is a term in the Buddhist sutras (having established it occurs in the non Buddhist Vedas), and you said yes, and said that it is translated as redeath in any scholarly translation of Cetanā Sutta 12.40, see "M Choong, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, page 171" [88]. Now I know why you didn't quote from it. I've just found a copy online, and on page 171 it translates the passage you mention as "Consciousness being grounded and growing, there comes to be a bending (nati). From there being a bending, there is coming-andgoing (agatigati). From there being coming-and-going, there is decease-and-rebirth (cutiipapato). There being decease-and-rebirth, there arise in the future birth, ageing-and-death, grief, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. Such is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. ". It just translates it as " ageing-and-death"' like all the translations I found online which you claimed were inaccurate in this respect and not WP:RS. It does use the word "redeath" but only in commentary as "These texts, in both SN and SA versions, present a sequence from activities (as volition) to consciousness; from consciousness to the becoming of rebirth or a bending, coming-and-going (rebirth-and-redeath?), and deceaseand-rebirth; and thus to birth, ageing-and-death and the whole mass of suffering. Despite the variant terminology, they present the factors from activities to ageing-and-death in the usual sequence. ". It even has a ? after the word redeath in the commentary, which is also in brackets. So it doesn't establish what you said at all. Basically you deceived intentionally confused me there. And you compounded it by telling me to accept what you say as true through WP:AGF! Robert Walker (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I think an apology would be an idea here. Robert Walker (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC) See my response. Robert misunderstood, though I understand why. Ms Sarah Welch is referring to the concept of repeated birth & death, while Robert asks about the specific term "punarmrityu." Calling this "deceiving" is understandable, but nevertheless misplaced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) NB: Ms Sarah Welch was already clear on this above: ""birth", "rebirth", "repeated birth", "death", "re-death", "repeated death" and "redeath" related references". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC) This is not true. I wasn't asking about the term punarmrityu. I asked if there is any term in the Pali Canon that is translated as "redeath" and she said "Sutta 12.40 repeats the mention of re-death" [89]. And then for many questions back and forth I asked her "what is the translation and what is the original Pali". She just said that was a FORUM-Y question and said to WP:AGF. It would be clear to any neutral reader that I was asking her what Pali word corresponds to "redeath" and her reply was to say (to paraphrase) "read the cite and if you can't read it, WP:AGF". I've striked out "intentionally deceived" perhaps that's going too far but certainly "intentionally confused". It can't be just a mistake or misunderstanding. Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC) WP:AGF. Ms Sarah Welch has made very clear that she's referring to the concept, and a range of related words. This whole situation cpould hav ebeen avoided, if you just simply understood that dying again and again is an intrinsic part of samsara. We can use another word if you like; but look at the ENORMOUS amount of words on the use of just one word. We could have settled this days ago already, if it wasn't for your incredible inability to gain concensus. Please continue on your own talkpage, or start a blog, but stop driving everyone else nuts. We're trying to write a serious encyclopedia here, not a Robert-pedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: There you go again, recycling allegations and OR. Even after you confirmed that future death and redeath is used by Moong in interpreting the Sutta, and even after 10+ different WP:RS that do the same. Agatigati or Agati gati (plus a few other terms) is generally translated as 'rebirth, redeath'; see any Pali-English dictionary; e.g. pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede, where they list five Sutta examples with rebirth and re-death sense. You allege "most WP:RS don't use it", when in reality they indeed do, as @Joshua Jonathan and others have already shown you. Your frequency counts have been wrong, as a review of that article's talk page, wherein as @Joshua Jonathan notes above, I explained the terms "repeated birth/death, re-birth/re-death, rebirth/redeath, cycles of birth and death, etc" are equivalent, and that 'context matters' in frequency counts and the context here is 4NT. Yes, redeath is less frequent than rebirth, but is significant to be mentioned for NPOV, and the wiki article as updated by @Joshua Jonathan too uses redeath less frequently than rebirth. It is the non-RS websites, that you appear to champion as source for wikipedia article on 4NT, such as Buddhanet's introduction of 4NT, which avoid any mention of birth, rebirth, death, redeath. Such non-RS pushing by you, while ignoring WP:RS that @Joshua Jonathan and others have provided, are part of your behavioral conduct difficulty. Please don't use OR, or demand OR, or recycle allegations, to feed Forum-y use of article's talk page, because such conduct is not constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Okay, so no apology. I asked which Pali word or phrase was translated as redeath, and redeath did not occur in the translation, only in the commentary. I was not asking for another commentary that uses the word. I said "If the word "redeath" occurs in a WP:RS translation of the early Pali sutras, please provide the original Pali sentence, the English translation of that sentence, and an explanation of how the one is connected to the other, particularly which word or phrase in the Pali corresponds to "redeath" in the translation." How could that be read any other way than as requesting an actual translation that uses the word, not a commentary. You culd have just said "actually it's not in the translation, it's in a commentary". That would have been the straightforward and honest thing to say at that point. But you didn't. You just said WP:AGF and asked me to stop asking FORUM-Y questions. Conversation here. You keep mentioning my cite of buddhanet, the only non WP:RS cite I gave in the entire discussion, never said it was WP:RS. Do you agree that it is okay to mention non WP:RS sources during the course of talk page conversations? I gave 7 WP:RS cites, and linked to the old footnote b which gives another seven, and two very clear sutra cites also, collected together here: A handful of leaves. Indeed it is the normal way it is presented, as a path to cessation of suffering. I have yet to see a WP:RS that uses the word redeath in the statement of the Four noble truths, or that prefixes the truths with "But there is a way to end this cycle, namely following the eightfold path" or anything resembling that. Even Harvey does not use the word "redeath" to present the four noble truths, nor does he present it is a "way to end this cycle" in his statement of the truths. It may seem an insignificant difference, but Buddha said he chose his words with care, and this is how he presented it. The big difference is that it doesn't require the practitioner to affirm any creed or belief in rebirth or the possibility of ending rebirth to follow the path. All you need is to recognize dukkha and have faith that there is a path to cessation, making it strongly grounded in our immediate experience. So it is a serious change of the text to present it as a path to end the cycle. It turns it into a path requiring a creed, which Buddha spoke against so strongly, so many times. Robert Walker (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC) This discussion should focus on the proposal of a topic ban for Robert Walker/Robert inventor. The repeated introduction of content disputes might be perceived as a red herring. JimRenge (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC) @JimRenge: Agreed. The above posts are a repeat of @Robert Walker's conduct on the talk page. He just wrote, Quote 1: "I have yet to see a WP:RS that uses the word redeath in the statement of the Four noble truths" and Quote 2: "Even Harvey does not use the word "redeath" to present the four noble truths, nor does he present it is a "way to end this cycle" in his statement of the truths". This is prima facie evidence of @Robert Walker misrepresenting @Joshua Jonathan and others, and of @RW's disruptive behavior. Harvey does use the word "re-death" in the four noble truths chapter of his book An Introduction to Buddhism published by Cambridge University Press. See page 53, third last line, of Harvey's book. This page number and source was provided to @Robert Walker on Talk:Four Noble Truths on May 7 2016 here. But @RW continues recycling his false allegations, in a disruptive manner and a wall of text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Here we've got the whole point: "The big difference is that it doesn't require the practitioner to affirm any creed or belief in rebirth or the possibility of ending rebirth to follow the path." Robert has a specific understanding of Buddhism, and Wikipedia has got to be in line with this understanding. Didn't we call that POV-pushing here at Wikipedia? Please block him on this topic!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note , this particular content dispute of course is not especially relevant to this ANI, but it is relevant to these accusations of WP:DONTGETIT as part of their reason to topic ban me - I would "get it" easily if they could just be straightforward and truthful in the conversations! This action was taken right in the middle of an attempt at a very focused RfC on the talk page and right after the first Oppose vote by someone other than us two. That RfC is now completely derailed and I have given up on future RfCs on that page for now, when it is so impossible to do even a very focused RfC on a single word.

Note that last time that Joshua Jonathan took me to ANI it was a similar situation, it derailed an attempt at a DRN in that case. Details below (collapsed by me in this case):

Extended content

He took me to ANI a long time after I was posting most frequently to talk pages, when I was in the middle of attempting to prepare a DRN notice about his conduct on these articles along with another editor, and most of my activity was work on that notice. The ANI effectively derailed that. I was taken to ANI twice for talk page conduct. In both cases no action was taken against me, just warnings to be careful in how I post to talk pages - but each ANI postponed the DRN for a week as you can't do a DRN during an ANI - and the cummmulative effect was too much, and eventually the other editor @Dorje108: pulled out of the DRN notice, and so I stopped also as I needed his collaboration to present it. Previously he was the most frequent editor of Four Noble Truths and Karma in Buddhism, had worked on them for over a year, until @Joshua Jonathan: took it into his head to completely rewrite them without prior discussion, and he now no longer contributes to the Buddhism project here.

I do agree that I have issues writing on wikipedia talk pages and I am working on those issues and I do appreciate having my attention drawn to them. I don't appreciate being hauled to ANI over them without any attempt to settle it in other ways first, and especially so, that he did it in a way that derailed an attempt to try to make progress in our discussion by very focused RfCs starting with an RfC on a single word. Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New proposal: Ban Robertinventor from making talk page comments more than 250 words and from editing his own posts more than three times each

The "Four Noble Truths" topic ban proposal seems to be misconceived; I have been looking over the talk page following my comment in the (also ill-coceived) RFC and can see the problem pretty clearly. Robertinventor should be told that the next time he makes a talk page post of more than 250 words, or edits one of his own previous talk page posts so that it comes to more than 250 words, he will be blocked for 24 hours, and the next infraction will lead to a 72-hour block, followed by a one-week block, and so on. The same will happen for each talk page post he makes that he later edits four or more times. These restrictions should remain in place until such time as Robertinventor has proven he can engage in constructive and concise discussion -- six months seems reasonable. Traditional topic bans are messy, and it's clear the problem isn't Robertinventor's involvement in this particular topic area per se. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn per my statement on Joshua Jonathan's talk page. I still think this proposal is more appropriate to the proble, than either a TBAN or a PBAN, and certainly more objective and easier to enforce than the TBAN as originally proposed (especially as I outlined exactly how it would work in detail), but at this rate I think any sanction whatsoever would be a step forward, and any sanction whatsoever passing in these somewhat unusual circumstances would be rather surprising. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as walls of text are disruptive, intentionally or otherwise. An exercise in precision is definitely required. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - a topic ban is clear; this proposal is not. "A" talk post is unclear; what counts as "a" talk post? Does it mean he can respond to every response with a new 250 words, repeating the same "arguments" and original research? The problem is not only the length of the posts, it's also Robert's "involvement in this particular topic area per se": the distraction into side-issues, the non-comprehension of arguments, the unfamiliarity with reliable sources, the original research, and the misinterpretation of sources. A limit to 250 words per post is not going to solve these issues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a much more difficult judgement call to be made as to whether this or that edit is a violation of a topic ban from "Four Noble Truths", two problems of which being that very few members of English Wikipedia's admin corps know what the Four Noble Truths are and that anyone who wanted to either report or block for such a violation would have to actually wade through one of Rob's walls of text. It's very easy to catch someone wikilawyering their way around the edges of a ban, and if he responds with the same 250-word OR and non-sequiturs, you can report him for that and it will be a lot easier to get further sanctions. Believe me, my proposal is not meant to allow disruption to go unsanctioned -- my proposal is stricter than the TBAN proposal. I've dealt with users like this in the past, and TBANs don't work unless they are ridiculously broad to the point of effectively forcing them off the project; restricting their ability to abuse talk page functions is the way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessarily bureaucratic. Apart for Joshua Jonathan's example, this would not prevent Robertinventor from writing a spectacularly long response then editing it just once to fall within the restriction. The original wall of text would still be in the history. Alternatively, Robertinventor could collapse their response within a box, how does that count? Does this refer to 250 visible words? What about hiding text within the edit so that it is visible in the edit window but not visible in the talk space? Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, but your oppose rationale is far more bureaucratic. Posting a comment more than 250 words would be a violation, and would lead to a block -- attempting to game the system by immediately cutting the comment would clearly be unacceptable, and is actually a violation of the letter of my proposal anyway. Both ofmyour examples ar clear-cut violations of not just the spirit but also the wording of the proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

My oppose laid out examples of what would not necessarily be covered by your ban proposal. Blackmane (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

...except that they obviously would be covered by the proposal, as I specifically explained to you above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

They would, however, not be covered if Robert were to say something along the lines of "oops" when removing it. However, it would certainly be possible, even if he were to remove it on his own as a mistake, maybe even before anyone else comments on it, to say in response to some comment by someone else later something like "lookee, I maybe answered that already in the edit I removed here". I'm not saying he would do that, but it is possible, and if he were to do that it would require more discussion. The purpose of such restrictions is, ultimately, to lessen the amount of work required by others, not increase it, and I am not myself sure that this proposal would necessarily really lessen the amount of effort from others. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The same logic could be used to oppose any kind of restriction, as a TBAN would still be open to him saying "Oops, I forgot" after whatever violation he made, and then we would have to discuss the merits and demerits of his edits themselves before reverting. Of course, no decent admin would accept an "Oops" excuse more than once, for a TBAN or a more nuanced restriction like the one I'm proposing. And again, if Robertinventor is allowed continue to make massive walls of text, the burden of proof that such a wall violated whatever TBAN would be on his accusers, and since (especially with Shii apparently gone) very few admins have any grasp of what is meant by the "Four Noble Truths", theTBAN area is itself problematic. I would be more amenable to something like "Buddhism". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Joshua Jonathan, with additional reservations. "A" post is, at best, ill-defined in this context, and the specific word-count is itself possibly likely to lead to arguments about what is and is not a "word," as well as, basically, force people to spend the extra time doing a word count, as it seems to me likely that Robert will try to press the limit rather regularly. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: I see a pink blob] spreading over Wikipedia, discussing the discussions of the diccussions of the semantics of the word "word"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussions of semantics does seem to be a rather frequent issue here, doesn't it? Let's kill that discussion, at least in this instance, right now, and avoid any sort of proposal which includes it. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing poorly defined about it. If Robertinventor makes one talk page edit of the kind that one might normally sign with four tildes and that edit is more than 250 words (as counted by wordcounttools) he will be blocked. The "three edits" clause was not designed to give him leeway to edit his own posts down to below 250 words; it was meant to cover the (otherwise unrelated) problem of Robertinventor endlessly altering his own posts in a LittleBenW fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with @Hijiri88, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and others that @Robert Walker's behavior is untenable. @RW's conduct has been a form of filibustering and disruptive. I remain uncomfortable with a blanket ban on @RW, but feel some form of restraint is necessary without the enforcement becoming another form of time sink for editors and admins. Suggestion: [1] Allow @RW to edit any religions-related article, per AGF. [2] if @RW's edit is reverted or challenged, in religions-related articles, he be restrained to 0RR and to using his own talk page and sandboxes to present arguments/comments on that article, which he can edit and revise as many times as he wants, and he can just leave a link on the article talk page to his sandbox/talk page. If [2] is violated, he be topic banned. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  The weakness of such a proposal is that I think it is expected that Robert's discussions in his sandbox or talk page will likely be overlooked more or less as a rule by most of those involved. Particularly given the sheer length they so regularly take.

  The fundamental issue here, at least to my eyes, includes what seems to me to be the difficulty Robert may have with both his own ego and the fact that he, as more or less a scientist, thinks that articles should be "scientific", even when the topics with which they deal are not even remotely scientific, and, unfortunately, a lot of religion articles are not even remotely scientific, or, at least, on including "exact" terminology and utmost clarity, two things a lot of religion topics don't have in the first place. I have no clear concept of how to deal with that problem in this instance. If anything, I would advise Robert to look at the various relevant sections of Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles and add any he sees missing, or sources regarding those works, and then consult those works when dealing with religion topics. As most of them are written by what might be broadly called experts in the fields, they would probably have a better grasp of any issues of semantics relative to those topics than Robert or any of the rest of us would. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I'm not generally opposed to creative remedies, this seems like one which would be prone to generating a lot of annoying problems. Like, when we ban someone from a topic area, broadly construed, we all generally know what that means and doesn't mean. Same for a 1RR restriction: Reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations generally won't count. I think this is well-intentioned, but would probably wind up mostly uninforceable or rapidly turn into a siteban. I'm for cutting out the middle man, or doing something else. Even a final warning for disruptive filibustering. If this editor keeps it up—and there's no indication he's incapable of understanding a clear warning like that—we can come back here for a siteban discussion. Because if he can't get it through his head that his conduct has been disruptive, then he does lack the requisite competence to participate on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And to respond to the criticism above that "what if?" scenarios where Robertinventor might violate the ban in some minor way would be interpreted as gaming the system, I don't think that's the right way to go about it. I argue this because a sanction that restricts in the way claimed, that the effect would be tantamount to a discussion ban, and would create perverse incentives for other discussants to talk circles around Robertinventor. All that'd need to happen is a flurry of discussion while Robertinventor is asleep: He comes back and can only say 250 words? Then suppose he does that. It's entirely possible for such a response to fail to address the points brought up adequately, or by necessity ignores points. We can imagine the likely response: "But what about x? I mentioned that above. Why are you ignoring it? This is clearly a WP:IDHT situation!" I think that's a likely outcome. Particularly given 250 words is not a lot. The two paragraphs I've written in this thread total to over 330 words. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I actually wasn't thinking of some sort of minor violation, and possibly should have pointed out that the theoretical comment self-deleted might well constitute a problematic edit, either in terms of timing or length, itself. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: What you say is reasonable, but when we ban someone from a topic area, broadly construed, we all generally know what that means and doesn't mean really doesn't apply to the TBAN that was proposed in the main section -- I'd bet money that the reason this problem wasn't solved weeks ago is because very few members of the admin corps have a deep enough understanding of what is meant by the "Four Noble Truths" to do something about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as both unnecessarily bureaucratic and difficult to enforce. Something needs to be done, but this isn't the answer. A topic ban isn't the answer, because the problem isn't that he is tendentious in any particular area; he has been tendentious in other areas also. Some restriction on his talk page posts is needed, but this isn't it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - A specific page-ban; in this case, the four truths. Page-bans can be extended to other pages, if necessary, and eventually end in further measures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Are you sure you want just a page-specific ban, or maybe a broader topic-ban related to the comparatively narrow topic of the Four Noble Truths? I ask this because there is a very real chance that someone might, in good conscience but perhaps still in a problematic way, create dubiously needed spinout articles from the FNT and/or add content related to the FNT to other articles, like, perhaps, articles on books dealing with the FNT in some way? John Carter (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, sure... what's sure? Just a stop to these non-productive comments. A pageban is very specific and concrete, and could be extended; a topic-ban is fine too, either for the four truths, or Buddhism in general. But some measure to stop this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 18 May 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.

"Ghost" Artists - Scam protection. Fraud of industrial scale.

I am an amateur antique collector (mostly European postcards), and recently I have encountered a problem of scam utilizing Wikipedia platform i.e. creation of "Ghost Artists". For those interested in details, whole bunch of them is for example here http://www.metropostcard.com/index.html

Having experience of teaching history, I was simply shocked how these completely illiterate people motivated by the opportunity of making money, are creating biographies of in-existing artists and promoting their names to make sales under it. On a moment, i even thought that I am becoming crazy - past and present became impermanent if group of greedy traders would rewrite it for their own benefit. It is especially impressive when those "editors of history of art" are totally and completely ignorant both in History and in Art. There "best and most famous" 19th century artist use time-inappropriate colors and style, Norwegians were named after German town spelled with orthographic mistake etc. But they know very well how to register sales of their Ghost artist and increase the value of their works, and this it the only thing matters.

I wonder, is there any way to protect us from further revisions of history, or it will be written by business people from now on? They provide links leading to nowhere, and it should be possible to make a program checking those links - are the people really mentioned in the text provided by link or it is a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladKSF (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite a bit to read through, there. Do you have an example article here that seems to be for a non-existent individual? That, we can evaluate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not getting it either. I looked at that website, which I think is pretty cool, and checked all the artists under "E"--I assume we're talking about articles being ferried from that site to Wikipedia, and then linked back? Under "E" we have articles for Jean Effel and Delphin Enjolras, which seem to have no connection to the site, and the others listed have no articles, nor have they had them. Besides, that site doesn't seem to sell anything.

  Now, there are a few hits for "metropostcards"; this edit adds the site as a reference. We can quibble over the site's reliability, but I see no commercial interest on the site or in the link in this particular article (Vinegar valentines--funny stuff); I don't think that that particular IP editor was trying to spam us (and I appreciated this edit). In other words, VladKSF, please tell us specifically what there is in Wikipedia's article space that is troublesome. In the meantime, I hope some editors will look at that website and use its list of names to create articles. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Ultraexactzz and Drmies: Vlad seems to think that the people listed at the site are fake. ansh666 04:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think, I know, but I started new topic about it. VladKSF (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Allusion to the site was my mistake, because it lead away from the main idea I wanted to tell. So, I decided to talk about one artist to explain the scam. The name is Nicholas Kalmakoff or NIkolai Kalmakov. It is a name of non-existent artist used by Russian mafia in different scams. For further information please read that topic.VladKSF (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • • Vlad can think whatever he wants, but I think he should be expressing it elsewhere ([90], [91], [92], [93]--to list a couple of Es). I think someone is pissed at a former business partner or stepfather. Drmies (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd tend to agree. OK, AGF hat on. If a website is using Wikipedia articles to document facts about people who don't actually exist, then that would indicate that our articles on those people were grossly exaggerated at best or completely fake at worst. The part of that that we can fix would be our articles, but there's no evidence of a flaw with the few articles I checked. If the website has a bunch of false information, and then says "We got this from Wikipedia", but it's not actually here, then the problem is on their end - out of scope. If the reverse is true, and the site is a fabrication but we used it for data in articles, then we'd need evidence to show that website to be an unreliable source. In any event, for this to be a thing we deal with we'd need a lot more detail. As it stands, this goes to the 35 cent rack (postage paid). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• UltraExactZZ: Hellmut Eichrodt, Harry Eliott, Rachael Robinson Elmer. I'm leaving the rest for you. Rosiestep, I don't know if Rachael Robinson Elmer was one of your red links, but I think she deserves a spot on the front page. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the alert, Drmies. I've asked the WiR team to take a look at this as I'm at work, but I'll circle back tonight. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Copied from WiR talkpage: "@Rosiestep and Drmies: I checked every 5th name for the first 300 articles on our list. Checked full name, surname and hyphenated names separately, i.e. smith-jones was checked under both smith and jones. Find zero hits to this list. SusunW (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)" If you need me to do any other follow-up, please ping me. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal

There is some question about this falling under BLP. A non-admin placed the Discretionary Sanctions notice here [94] some time ago, and there is a case at Arb (likely to be declined) regarding the case, but the BLP status isn't at issue. Because discretionary sanctions are an administrative function, I felt it best to bring it here for consensus as to whether or not this article qualifies as a BLP. Please note that the name is a pseudonym for anyone that publishes for the organization, and none of the real names have been revealed. In fact, it may very well be a large group of people rotating in and out, or user submission that uses this name, we have no way of knowing. We only know that it is not a real person. It is my contention that this is NOT a BLP and not subject to discretionary sanctions. This would not affect the content, only the way we administrate the article. Please note it was named Sorcha Faal reports previously, and has been to AFD twice, including one delete and one no consensus (see talk page for links). The current article is a complete rewrite, and the "biography" stub was just added after the Arb case started.

• Not BLP For the reasons I've outlined above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• How is this not a BLP situation? WP:BLP is about "information about living persons", not living persons who's name is known. The article seems to be about the username although the stories focus on the website. In either way, it would be no different to me than if someone were reporting about editing under my username, say a claim that "User XXX is such and such" without a source so I don't see the difference between that and this pseudonym. Although I would support rewriting the article to focus on the website which sources like this actually discuss and not the creator's name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Since we do not know if it is 1 person or 10, and we do not know if their real name will ever be tied to their pseudonym, I think it is best if we play it on the safe side and treat it like a BLP.--v/r - TP 01:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Because there is significant doubt that an individual by this name even exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused as to your stance Liz, can you please clarify? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant that there is no individual with the name of Sorcha Faal who is responsible for writing these articles. I can't come up with the links at the moment but given the parameters of what "she" said about herself (that she was a Russian academic), ten years ago, individuals searched for evidence of the existence of this person and found nothing. Later she claimed she was an Irish woman who was part of a religious order (no evidence found) while some inquirers believe she is actually an American conspiracy theorist, David Booth. Or, it could be someone else or multiple people attributing these inaccurate, poorly written articles to this name. What I meant is that it is unlikely that there is a person with the name Sorcha Faal who has written these articles. In that sense, Sorcha Faal doesn't exist so I can't see how we are talking about a "living person". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you, that is very helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Potential BLP As I stated at the arbitration request, Sorcha Faal and their site have been linked to a person's name in many places on the web (eg, snopes, rational wiki, and similar sites) : earlier versions of their site were published under a different name, and that information can be easily found (though not in places that make it reliably sourced by our standards, which is why it's not in the article). It's always possible that was a pseudonym, but we can't be certain of that. To me that means that BLP applies. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not BLP. "Sorcha Faal" is a pseudonym; a fictional character used to "report" conspiracy theories. Or perhaps it is a title: "Sister Maria Theresa is the 73rd Sorcha Faal of the Sorcha Faal Order, Elected as Mother Superior 3 February 2007" per the website, which i encourage people to spend some time reviewing before they weigh in here. Who knows, there are endless layers of silliness around this site. But if BLP applies here it should apply to Snoopy too. If any DS apply they should be under PSCI -- and I think they should apply under that rubric. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC) (better, per below Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC))
  • It's a name. It's no different to me than say Satoshi Nakamoto is a name. Now, whether the website is real or an Onion piece, that doesn't mean the user(s) who created it aren't actual people, just using a fictional name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• To be clear, I would support the real people behind this fictitious character being covered by BLP, of course, but to extend BLP to this character who is credited as writing stories (both true and admittedly false) yet are really written by many real people is akin to giving movie or TV characters protection ie: James Bond or Bart Simpson. There is no singular real person here. This is not the same as Samuel Clemens using the name Mark Twain. Even using the word "pseudonym" isn't accurate in the traditional sense, it's just the closest word that fits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How is it a fictitious character? Someone, a real person, is blogging it. The fact that the name is nonsense does not mean that the person doesn't exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We have no idea who that person or people or thing is/are or have been; there is nothing we can say about him/her/them/it. Nothing. It could be a computer program generating the content, for all we know. Of course if there were anything to be said about him/her/them/it, to the extent that any of them are alive or have ever been alive, yes BLP would apply. The only thing we can possibly say anything about now, in terms of a "person", is the fictional character, which is not a living person. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• BLP None of the reliable sources available credit this with anything but the work of one person and as such its a BLP. Albeit under a anonymous name. Even if it was the work of a small group of writers (which no one actually credibly believes) it would still be covered under the BLP policy. All material about living people is covered by the BLP policy. And since there is material about a living person on the page, its still covered by the discretionary sanctions. Granted you could make an argument that material not related to the person known as 'Sorcha Faal' is not, but then thats minimal as it currently stands. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death please cite these reliable sources; I have looked and i have not found a single reliable source that says anything about who or what creates content on the site; there is nothing we can say and so there is no BLP issue. In my view. So I am interested to see what you are basing this on. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, well its had a cull since I last looked at it, but any of the articles where they refer to 'Sorcha Faal the author'. I think in the current version only the yorkshire post and the atlantic references refer to Sorcha directly. As it is, where they mention Sorcha Faal, they mention them as an individual author of conspiracy theories, not as a group. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind I have no objection either way to how the article is scoped - Sorcha Faal is a pen name for a person (no one except complete wingnuts think its a group - the usual CIA/NSA disinfo nonsense) so Sorcha Faal is a person for the purposes of BLP. If the scope of the article is the conspiracy theories they write rather than the person, then the article would need to be rewritten that way - at the point when I looked at it when Dweller posted on BLPN, it was a mishmash of biographical and non-notable rubbish. I would even vote delete if it went to AFD so I have no real objection other than that claming just because we dont know the identity of Sorcha Faal, they are not a living person. They clearly exist since *someone* is writing the stuff. And conspiracy theorists (on the extreme end) tend not to work well with others anyway. Too paranoid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death Yes. The current version of the article is really about the website and stories posted there and should be retitled to be about the website in my view. The article creator has been trying to write an article about Sorcha Faal for a long time now and is running into all kinds of trouble exactly due to the lack of sources about "Sorcha Faal". Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Generally, not BLP: theories and ideas are not living people, and it does not matter who holds the ideas or expresses them, whether or not it is a person, a group, or a corporation (thus witness, why no RS discusses a person). But more specifically, if any LP is mentioned in a theory or idea (as is likely when discussing a conspiracy), there is a BLP issue, so it's not clear whether it matters. At the end, I come to a question, is there any guideline on applying this DS? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Of course it's a BLP even though "Sorcha Faal" is a pseudonym, the person or people behind it are very much alive. It's very much the same way the "KoshVorlon" is not a real person, but the person behind "KoshVorlon" is very much a real person. If someone posted "KoshVorlon is a drug dealer" that would be a BLP as it's an attack on a real person, same thing would be true for "Sorcha Faal". It's BLP obviously ! KoshVorlon 15:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatdoesitmean.com does not have a WP:USERNAME policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's as much a BLP as Alan Smithee is, which is to say not at all. The person or people using the pseudonym are living people, but the article isn't about the person or people, it's about the pseudonym itself. And in support of that notion, I think the article should be refocused a bit and moved to whatdoesitmean.com ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Or George Spelvin. BMK (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not a BLP - I agree with Dennis Brown, a collective name is no more a BLP issue than it would be for, say Anonymous (group. There are real living human beings behind every action taken by Anonymous, but because of their collective and hidden nature, we cannot know who they are, and therefore cannot say anything about them which violates BLP policy, which is intended to protect known people, whether they are known by their real names or pseudonyms. BMK (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not a BLP For something to qualify as a BLP, it is more or less required for us to know that there still is a living person behind the name. So far as I can tell, we have no necessary reason to believe that. Also, the mere fact that there might be one or two people who may have been, correctly or not, identified with the name does not make the name, independent of those persons, a BLP. We do not know if the person(s) who wrote the material are alive, nor do we have any clear idea who they might be. Nor, apparently, does anyone else. That being the case, we have no particular reason to believe BLP can or should be applied in this case, until and unless such time as someone who claims to be identified with the name complains about it. If anyone here does have contact with someone who might claim that the article is damaging to them as individuals, they should probably tell those people to contact WP:OTRS with the information. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not a BLP anymore than an anon 'agony aunt', or 'deep-throat', of course the individuals behind any of these are BLPs. 'Biography'=approx. 'story of the life', since there is no known story or known life, how can it be BLP. As others have said, the question would not arise if the article title was the website. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Likely BLP - the writing style is idiosyncratic and consistent across the years (why yes, I've read more Sorcha Faal than most) and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence as to who they are (though certainly not Wikipedia-quality). I would treat this as a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment See also previous WP:BLPN discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive239#Does_Sorcha_Faal_reports_fall_under_BLP.3F - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Treat as BLP WP should use as much caution when dealing with reporting on any living persons, regardless if we know their names or not; contentious material aimed at a specific name but that has anonymity tied to it is still contentious material, and thus we should treat it as if there's a BLP on the other side of that name that all we'd need is one slip of a third-party news site to give away the reality identity to make it an absolute BLP issue. We should be writing this as if that slip can happen at any moment, so that we avoid BLP about the person(s) behind it and not suddenly have to whitewash our article because we didn't adhere to BLP to start. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think if we were to treat this subject as a BLP, then we would be more or less forced, by logical extension, to treat any and all criticism of any editor, whether they have revealed their real name or not, under the same policy. Maybe that is what we should be doing anyway, but do we really want to go that far? John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No. The article should adhere to V, NPOV, and NOR, always, always, always. . . that's more than enough protection for an unknown entity, it does not need more when there is no RS basis for LP. The LP assertion, here, is apparent OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That is my point, that this isn't the same as a pen name like O. Henry. There is no biography in this non-biography because the "person" doesn't exist. Muddying it up with BLP and discretionary sanctions doesn't help protect anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "AP" pens stories, too. [95] That does not make "AP" a living person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• just to throw this in, there is no barring to adding DS/PS is there? Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• If you mean is there any reason why a BLP discretionary sanctions template shouldn't be added to an article talk page, if it is done in good faith, I think the answer would be "no." That would probably be true even in a case like this, where it is arguable whether BLP applies, although, I suppose, if there were previous discussion on the article talk page or elsewhere that the template is inappropriate and it is removed, and someone restores the template later, that might be problematic. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is an unusual case. What I haven't seen is anyone show evidence that this name is tied to another human. Without that, there is not basis for BLP. People CLAIM it is, but no proof has been offered. Interesting discussion, educational as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: a real life named has been most definitely tied to Sorch Faal. User:Fyddkestix noted this on the talk page and I've seen one. Doug Weller talk 05:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Sorry, User:Fyddlestix. Doug Weller talk 05:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix said RS do not do so. Whereas, Jytdog appears to not be asking about BLP discretionary sanctions, at all. He appears to be asking about pseudoscience/fringe science discretionary sanctions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have found no RS that connect this "username" to any single real person; there is lots of crap like RationalWiki that speculates. I am opposed to BLP DS but think PSCI DS are very appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not so ironic, but when I heard about DS, the first place I looked twas PSCI. It never dawned on me that BLP would apply, then I saw a user had just thrown that on there without discussion, and that is why we are here. Still not sure it needs any DS, regular admin work should be fine, but will comply with whatever consensus is. The problem being that half the comments above are full of misinformation, said in good faith, just not based on any facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit more than speculation - old versions of the site are still available on archive.org, and explicitly state that the site is written and published by that person. Could still be a fake name, but it's also possible that it's not. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw I have opened a move discussion Talk:Sorcha_Faal#Requested_move_17_May_2016, to move it to Whatdoesitmean.com. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Which wouldn't solve the BLP issue. I can't quite figure out this post at Sorcha Faal about David Booth. The website now claims that one Sister Maria Theresa "is the 73rd Sorcha Faal of the Sorcha Faal Order, Elected as Mother Superior 3 February 2007" - with a photo. It also claims the order is over 2600 years old. Hoax, probably - but with named people involved. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • This is why we need this discussion, and for it not to be closed prematurely. Whatever the outcome, lets flesh out all the info we can so we can move ahead with confidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• BLP We need to draw a distinction between fictional characters who do fictional things (the suggestion above that James Bond would be an analogy) and things really done by real people under a (possibly shared) pseudonym. This, it seems to me, is the latter case - the Stig would be a better analog than James Bond. That the name isn't tied to one particular person doesn't matter; the subject of the article is real things done by real people and those real people should be protected by the BLP policy. The opposite position would lead to an absurdity; it would be fine to slander someone under a pseudonym on WP, so long as the identity of the real person is unknown. This immediately raises the question, "Known by whom?" The only obvious answer on-wiki is, "Known by an RS," because without an RS the suggestion that the real person was connected to the pseudonym would itself be a BLP problem. So we'd be fine with slander so long as no RS connects the pseudonym to a particular person, even if the actual identity of the person is well known? GoldenRing (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• GoldenRing's comment above seems to echo a point I made earlier, regarding the possible connection of a person with a pseudonym. GoldenRing, and me, and several other individuals are clearly operating under pseudonyms here, even though in some cases our identities might be well known to at least a few people. I would think, logically, that if we apply BLP in this instance to a person or persons unknown to many of us, but possibly known in real life to others, we might have to basically apply BLP to all comments made against any editor here. Do we really want to do that? John Carter (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of Goldenring's overbroad reasoning, and I certainly hope if this is ever closed the close does not adopt such overbreadth because the issue you raise is not really the issue at all, and Goldenring's reasoning in part shows that (we can discuss CIV, NPA and BLPTALK, as they relate to Wikipedians elsewhere) It is important to be clear, BLP already applies to this article and no one is really disputing that, not because of anything to do with Sorcha Faal but because BLP applies to every article and to everywhere on Wikipedia. The issue is DS, and whether there needs to be a DS warning. As I suggested above in my original comment, it does not really matter who or what Sorcha Faal is, what should matter is whether there is a reasoned risk that real living persons will be discussed (in policy violating ways) there on its talk page and in its article. I'm fine with DS, if it's done for that reason, but not for the rank speculation about Sorcha Faal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bug in page-top links to messages, & a minor query

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.

---

When I am logged in to Wikipedia, the very top of the page has a line of text showing:

1. A very small image :: is this a user avatar? If so, how to change it?
2. My username
3. A link to "Your alerts"
4. A link to "Your messages"

In the last few days, #4 always shows "99+", in the English Wikipedia, and in the German Wikipedia (where I have only edited a few times ever), and in Wikidata, and not the correct number of my messages which I have not yet read at the time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) This is just a generic icon to let you know this is your name, just a picture of a person - not personally editable.

(4) This is due to cross-wiki alerts being made available, during the launch this number may be off. In Special:Preferences notifications section you can opt-out of cross-wiki notifications.

Does this answer everything you were looking for? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The avatar has been there a while. You can probably hide it using CSS if you don't like it. Your messages is because of the global rollout of cross-wiki alerts, as Xaos mentions. See WP:VPT#Cross wiki notifications will be released by default on May 12 at 23:00 UTC. and WP:VPT#Cross-wiki notifications - how to clear?. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 15 May 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.

Talk:Bobby Fischer

Could someone please put an end to the silliness on this talk page? No blocks necessary yet. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to hat an off-topic thread re proper indentation. User Ewen has been changing indentations to posts of mine, and another user, which make them appear in reply to the wrong user. (I've explained several times to Ewen why his indentation changes can't be right. He was not willing to make adjustment, edit-warring the indentation corrections, and now has turned to badgering me by adding to a closed off-topic thread, repeatedly unhatting. I think he is just frustrated because he is on losing end of a content dispute that was "his baby" and existed at the article as he saw fit for some weeks. I've already made clear that I've found content discussion impossible w/ him, I'm leaving that to others; nevertheless, he's chosen the disruptive route and continues non-stop to badger and bait [me] re content. I'm not the person he needs to discuss with.) Thx for consider (if I can ask for three wishes, I would ask for a re-hat of the closed discussion re proper indentation at the point I introduced the hat [96]; an admin to assist Ewen to understand threaded indentation better, he doesn't listen to me, and stated he thinks every successive post s/b right-indented, see editsum [97]; and to instruct him to stop badgering me re content). IHTS (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IHTS is not entirely right about the indentation - for example, he changed the indents of one of my own comments, and I think I know what I intended there. I did make one mistake changing an indent of his, for which I've apologised. I don't see the other changes as he does. It's all very trivial. Hatting the thread should be left to an independent editor, should it not? And even so, not all my comments which IHTS hid were on the indentation topic, which means that he had no justification hiding all my comments. Far from being 'frustrated', I am pleased that some sensible suggestions have been made recently by User:Bruce leverett and User:MaxBrowne and I am hoping that we can find a consensus for the 'Psychology' section with fewer quotations from the more authoritative sources. IHTS just wants it deleted and refuses to add anything constructive. Ewen (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If "it's all very trivial", then there was no cause to revert my indentation corrections three times or more, call me "incompetent" as you did, and revert the hatting multiple times. I did not make any mistake in making the indentation corrections as you state I did, you stating so does not make it true. (You've just been being disruptive at the Talk page, and are trying to obfuscate it now that someone brought this to AN. Otherwise you'd be continuing to edit-war at the Talk page, and badger non-stop re content. I've asked you to leave me alone [98], and you just ignored that and have continued to badger non-stop.) IHTS (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've said my piece. I'm not going to turn this here discussion into a to-and-fro between us. Let's see what the admins reckon. Ewen (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If it's obfuscation you want, one good method is to edit your earlier comments after I've posted mine later. Please try to keep the comments as an accurate contemporaneous account of our discourse. I hope that's all I have to add. Ewen (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Obfuscation? (That involves cover-up using BS. A copyedit of mine here did that??) IHTS (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Obfuscation: "to make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible". Yes, if you make substantial changes to your post after I have commented (such as adding examples of edits, and those examples were not in your original version), then it is not clear what I am responding to. Please don't. Ewen (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse of "obfuscation" without any basis then, simply hypothetical. (If the diffs I added in support of my statements, altered the nature of your reply, you aren't putting that forward. So you're just taking the opportunity to bitch & accuse, for no tangible reason. False accusations are worse than picking on someone's editing protocol. You seem to want to pick on anything & everything. Strange, for an editor who clearly doesn't even know how to indent properly. I actually fixed the problems you created with mis-indenting, and did not complain to you about it, until you started edit-warring over it, calling me "incompetent", etc. Do you have a Wiki-life of editing articles? Or just pushing POVs and attacking anyone in your way? I repeat: LEAVE ME ALONE.) IHTS (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to LEAVE YOU ALONE (or "not reply", as I call it) then I suggest you just shut up and let an admin deal with this. Which is what I will now do.Ewen (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? (I've been careful to avoid discussing anything w/ you for some time. But if you mis-re-indent my Talk posts to make them look like they were in response to the wrong person, I get involved to change that. And if you edit-war those corrections and create an off-topic mess on the Talk page, I'll hat it. And if you edit-war the hatting, I'll ask you to STOP. And if you accuse me w/o basis of "obfuscation" here, I'll object. So I have no idea where you would have had me "shut up", since all of those are abuse points, and I didn't sign up as WP editor to receive unrelenting abuse, from anyone.) IHTS (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am really embarrassed to read this (also the similar material on the Fischer talk page). It is unseemly for editors to badmouth one another. It is provocative to modify another editor's material posted to a talk page; this includes modifying another editor's indentation. It is distracting, and unhelpful to readers, to refer to previous conversations and even unrelated topics (Ponteretto?). When editor A says something rude or offensive to or about editor B, it only compounds the problem for editor B to complain about it, let alone to say something rude or offensive to or about editor A. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What's happened now is nobody wants to join the content discussion and the IP who was working on the article with the apparent aim of lifting it to FA status appears to have given up. Yet again bad blood on the talk page has got in the way of improving an article. I've had my own history with one of these editors and I don't want to be seen to take sides. I just want to get the process of article improvement back on track, and this needs an impartial eye. Suggestion - ask the disputants (informally, on a no-fault no-blame basis) to edit somewhere else for a week? The article will still be there when they come back and maybe it won't seem like such a big deal then. And please, no ad hominems in reply, I know I'm no wiki-saint. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for the input. My view, anyway, is that the "Psychology" section is good as it is, so not editing it suits me. IHTS has said that he doesn't want to edit the section either. Can the discussion be re-booted with a new section on the Talk page? If IHTS and I keep away from the discussion for a while then a calmer debate could be established, I guess. Ewen (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am lost for words: [[99]] IHTS has restored the disputed hidden section. Ewen (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to come up with a face-saving formula but it looks like this will need some kind of admin involvement to get things back on track. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't that the purpose of bringing this to AN? (I.e. to get "admin involvement"?) And as long as that off-topic thread remains hatted, and user Ewen stops badgering me w/ questions after I've told him numerous times I wouldn't be discussing content w/ him, what remains to "get things back on track"? (See my three wishes above.) IHTS (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not adding to the talk page as I think Max's suggestion (to take a break) is sound. IHTS on the other hand; [[100]]. Ewen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

*Who* are you responding to with your message?? IHTS (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ewen, my advice is to let it go. The discussion on talk:Bobby Fischer#Remove the Psychology section appears to be back on track; we seem to be reaching a consensus that the Psychology section should be kept but limited to a summary. It's true that Ihardlythinkso's hat section hid your on-topic remarks about the Ponteretto citation, but you can always restate what you said if it becomes relevant again later. Let's move on. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At this stage, what do you want an admin to do? Best thing, I think, would be to:

• Leave the hatted section hatted
• Nobody "fixes" anyone else's indentations from now on
• Whether or not you're happy with the current indentation of your posts or others' posts, just leave it as it is now, and consider it a minor issue not worth your time
• Nobody edits their own post after someone else has responded from now on
• Focus on content disagreements, looking for areas of compromise, not on personality clashes
• Stop name calling (both outright and sneaky), stop using loaded terms like "POV/NPOV" and "obfuscatiate" and "badger" (even if you think they may be accurate), leave previous grudges at the door.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Mangoeater1000

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 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 proposing a site ban of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is already blocked and has a long-term abuse page. Mangoeater1000 is a prolific sockpuppeter whose SPI archive stretches back to 2012 and continues to this day. I was surprised this user is not already banned and figured a formal ban is long overdue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support However the user is de-facto banned it seems and their edits are reverted on sight. Bit of a formality, especially if their edits are treated under WP:DENY or WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Agree they're de facto banned... but I wasn't sure if that was "banned enough" to use my rollback tool since they're technically only blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 May 2016‎ (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. —SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Yep! Thanks. That's why I didn't use my rollback tool on him. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question" has long been taken to mean that they can be rolled back, and it's safe to say that rolling back socks of indef blocked editors is descriptive of current practice and I don't think anyone's going to argue that an LTA case should be banned for someone else to rollback the socks. I don't have an opinion on this ban discussion but I don't think we should worry about rolling back problem cases like this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support his sockpuppet archive page is ridiculous ! He's beyond net negative , banhammer him from Wikipedia, we'll be better for it. KoshVorlon 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment His long term abuse page says he has 365 socks and 20 suspected. Might as well as support a ban. — Etimena 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking comment by indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - this is the kind of user who should be banned; some contributions which are not obvious vandalism, but disruptive enough to warrant indef blocks on their main account and sockpuppets. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The editor is clearly doing more harm than good. Support as per nom. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, might as well make this official. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
• Support. + 1. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 21 May 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.

I have suggested to Nyttend that they re-close this thread in a polite way. While there's no strong need to formalise de-facto bans (especially in very clear-cut cases like this), I certainly wouldn't characterise doing so in good faith as time wasting. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. That close was uncalled-for, especially in the light of the unanimous support the proposal had received. Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Nyttend has made it clear that he thinks bans on LTA cases are pointless, my advice would be to just ignore them. The reality is that certain defacto banned users insist that they are being picked on by a few admins, a community ban has the effect of making it clear it is the community that is banning the user. @Nyttend: please undo your close and allow the consensus to be accepted by an admin who does not consider this a waste of time. HighInBC 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Policy is clear on this: the user is already banned. If you don't like this, try to get the banning policy changed and don't object that I'm merely enforcing it. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

An indefinite block, even one that's unlikely to ever be lifted, is not the same as a ban. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not merely enforcing policy. Nothing in the banning policy says that a defacto ban prevents a community ban. I get you think this is a waste of time, how about you don't spend time on it instead of shutting down what other people find of use? HighInBC 20:30, 21 May 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.

Evolution

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 believe there is some clear POV pusihing from practicing atheists around the Evolution which denies strong arguments against the idea that earth was created in 1 million years. Proudpatriot233 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you doing this - that is against my basic freedom. The founding fathers literally shed bled for the people's right to theocracy - which you are denying --Proudpatriot233 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 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.

Announcement regarding Gamaliel

Gamaliel has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.

For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee [cross-posted], Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Announcement regarding Gamaliel

Not sure if this is an issue

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 Ellos_Volvieron is copied from [101]. All the person other edits also appear to be copied from sources. imdb is editor created. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Names of IMDB editor and enwp editor aren't the same, so nuke all and talk to editor or as a last resort, block if they won't talk. Pretty common misconception where a new editor thinks it is ok to copy/paste from the internet, but IMDB is fully covered by copyright like any other source. Looks like Nyttend already got this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. Left a note at User talk:Evan131163 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I got that one, but Doc James, you asked about all of this user's edits. Have all of the user's edits been scrutinised? Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

All there edits are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Evan131163

• Have posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iv%C3%A1n_Noel as a copyright issue
• The led of this one is just a big quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodillas_Quemadas

The rest have been dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 22 May 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.

What to do if disagree with a CFD outcome?

Hi, please could you advise as to the correct process if an editor disagrees with the outcome of a WP:CFD? An involved editor has just undone and then tried to fully revert a purge close by User:Fayenatic london after two months of discussion [102]. In six years of editing I have never seen a formal close reverted. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just found WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sounds like the discussion needs to come here. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:DRV is what you are looking for. That is for reviewing anything deleted at a deletion discussion. Stuff gets overturned regularly, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I have re-closed the CFD amicably to the satisfaction of the editor who undid my original close, after a discussion on my talk page between others while I was away for a day. The matter seems to be resolved, although of course another editor could still take it to DRV. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was probably best that you were away - it was getting a little chaotic. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4

There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4 with the proposal "Remove archive.is from the Spam blacklist and permit adding new links (Oppose/Support)". Cunard (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

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

---

Currently around 35 entries waiting for action. BMK (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't get any beer the last time I cleaned it up and it took me hours. My thirsty cry for recognition is still unanswered--look up. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: If you give your address, I can mail you one. It'll be a nice seven years old when it gets to you. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • My address is on Earth--yours, likely, not so much. Seven years? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Your beer is in the mail, via passenger pigeon. Expect some delay. Jonathunder (talk) 18:25, 17 May 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.

Mass Rollback

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 trying to get mass rollback per Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Rollback to work. It is a script by User:Writ Keeper.

We have a couple of users adding ELs to 100s of articles to a website they have created per here.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, the spam blacklist might be of use to stop the bleeding while we figure out cleanup. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocking would also work to temporarily halt the edits and get their attention. It also has the bonus of being easily reversible by any admin without arcane blacklist knowledge. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors are User:L.C.Reimer and User:AnnaVetci. Website is http://bacdive.dsmz.de/ Have left messages on both their user talk pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I see you've installed a different one, which is of course okay, but if you still want to use mine, you just have to put importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js') into your common.js (or monobook.js, or whatever) page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Was here User:Writ Keeper. Will try removing the second one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Has all the rolling back work been completed? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of it. An IP have added a bunch as listed here [103] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 18 May 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.

Extended confirmed protection

Recently there has been a steady trickle of inappropriate uses of extended confirmed protection. I have been sending the responsible admins requets to change, but I think we need a mass-message to get across the message that it is currently only authorised for ARBPIA articles or discretionary sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not the case. Those are the articles it is currently authorised on. It does not limit its use to them. The motion makes it clear the future expections are "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption." and makes no mention of limiting it by topic area. If it was their intent to limit it only to DS and ARBPIA areas they would/should have explicitly said so. As it stands the motion very carefully avoids making policy - which if they said 'You can only use ECP in these areas' would be doing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not the case. If you read the talk for that motion, you would see arbitrators saying that the motion applies only to DS. Given that the policy says ECP "is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community", and the community has not yet made any authorisations, my original post was correct. I grant you that the rollout of ECP has been a cock-up from start to finish, since nobody seems to have been told what's going on. BethNaught (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with BethNaught, but wish it were like Only in death stated. We're going to have to bite the bullet and start talking about this in earnest. If we don't do it in short order this is going to really get out of hand. Katie^talk 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an RFC is in order, but it may be valuable to start gathering ideas at e.g. WP:VPI. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you at least agree with me a mass message is in order so all admins know the current state of play? BethNaught (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say so. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Er its worse then, because in that case the community (read, all admins at this point) can apply it wherever they want - as their is no policy prohibition or community discussion that indicates they should not do so nor any limits from Arbcom (except when used in discretionary sanctions). Someone may want to start a policy amendment discussion very quickly to lay out specifically as to how it should be used. Policy is reactive - the general presumption is if it is not prohibited it is allowed. There is a good reason 'the community can authorise' is not used in wording, because it is effectively a carte blanche for any member of the community to act.Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not true either. The RfC closed as "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason." This implies a positive endorsement from the community to authorise a topic for ECP. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The implication is that a community discussion would be required to implement it, but that is not what the policy actually says. Oh well, easily fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay done, I retract all my previous comments and endorse a mass-mail. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I realise it's a mixed-up situation. BethNaught (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've begun a brainstorming section at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Extended confirmed protection policy. Katie^talk 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one that thinks it would be easier if we raised the bar for autoconfirmed to 30/500, get rid of PC (optional), and just used semi-protection? We have so many gaming the current autoconfirmed (see: WP:SPI) that this would solve several problems. We keep making it more and more complicated, evidenced by this discussion and the fact that most admin have no idea how to apply this, and a good portion aren't sure about PC. If you want more done with fewer admin, making it simple is the key. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

IPBE Proposal

An editor has opened an RfC regarding a change to the IP block exemption procedures. Members of the community are invited to comment on the proposal. Mike V • Talk 04:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism by IP's

A group of IP's were vandalizing on the page Eliza Taylor, but after I filed an RPP, they are currently vandalizing about the same topic, just in other (unrelated) articles. This is a large group of different IP's. (This is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_leg&type=revision&diff=721722771&oldid=720118990) Any admin who can help is appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Filed an SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.252.91.180. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There's probably nothing we can do, except block IP addresses in sight and semi-protect the multiple-time target articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Actions required for my alternate accounts

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

---

Dear admins, I would like the following doppelganger accounts of mine to be softblocked to prevent abuse. I keep them in accordance to WP:VALIDALT, nevertheless I would like them softblocked for the aforementioned reason. These accounts were made via both new account creation and account request.

0ptakeover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

0pt4k30v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

0pt4k30ver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

0pt4k3ov3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

0pt4ke0v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

0ptak30v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

I also have an account, Optakeoversandbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used for the testing of automated tools like Huggle, to familiarize with the behaviour of said tools. I do not request block for this account, as I may like to make test edits in accordance to WP:VALIDALT. Such edits will be limited to my own user space, of course.

Next, I found there was an account which I may/may not have created in 2008. The account is Optakeover123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am unable to access the account because I do not know/forgot the password, and there is no email linked to the account so I cannot recover the password. I would like this account to be blocked on the grounds of impersonation and/or the fact I lost access to that account. No edits were made on that account.

I would like also like to ask if it is possible for some form of Checkuser because I have no idea what other accounts I may have created but I have forgotten or do not know of. If I can find out what are they, I would like to log into them and tag them as accordingly or request block on them, just so I don't face trouble with these accounts in the future.

Lastly, User:Optakeover is my main account, and the only one to be used for all my Wikipedia activity, in accordance to WP:VALIDALT. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is kind of silly. I can think of 2 dozen other usernames that would look, at a casual glance, more similar to yours than these do. Are you going to create them all? Should we then block them all? Should everyone do this? As long as you don't give anyone the passwords, these accounts are as secure as your real one. Just don't use them and everything will be fine. And for God's sake stop creating doppelganger accounts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 24 May 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.

IPBE proposal v2

Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#RfC:_Automatically_grant_IPBE_to_users_by_proof_of_work_alone Sai ¿?✍ 23:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection

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

---

Hi guys I recently encountered List of social networking websites which under an indefinite full protection, which seems like major overkill given it's history, all the while semi/PC protection doesn't seem like enough of a solution. Looking at the history of the page, it would seem the 30/500 protection is an almost perfect fit for this article, and would go a long way to making it editable by the community. Most problematic edits/edit requests come from users who don't meet this threshold, while the majority that do, meet the threshold.

Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection.

TO CLARIFY: This is a discussion, as required per policy, to protect this single page with 30/500, not if we should make 30/500 a routine protection level.

Another Clarification: This page is already fully protected indefinitely. No one but admins can edit this page. This is a proposal to reduce it to 30/500 protection indefinitely, so more established users can edit it.

Yet Another Clarification: People seem to be opposing on the belief that only ArbCom can authorize this protection level. This is false. A community discussion like this one is also a valid way to authorize this protection level. From WP:30/500,

This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community.

• Support per initial statement.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xeno^talk 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [104] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katie^talk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite full protection is well, not useless, but it is aggravating. Plus, most people who have passed the 30/500 protection are trustworthy. Peter Sam Fan 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The slippery slope has begun. I opposed creating the 30/500 usergroup back when it was proposed at the Village Pump because I feared that this protection level would go from an ArbCom mandated sanction of last resort to just another sanction level. Even the creator of the RfC, Cenarium, recommended that "Pages may be protected by admins with the new level only when a decision of the arbitration committee mandates it". Well, here we are in April, facing a decision whether 30/500 protection should be a routine substitution for full protection or only used under ArbCom authorization. Although I don't like either option, I strongly recommend against the former. Altamel (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand your rational, and it makes sense to an extent, but can you tell me how 30/500, which allows more users, who are likely productive and WP:CLUEful contributors, to edit an article, over the current status quo, which is restricting a page to admin edits only, indefinitely? I'm not proposing this to set a precedent, I'm proposing this because this option upholds the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" more closely, and see it as the idea solution to the specific problem this article faces. I would otherwise not have proposed this, and requested semi-protection instead, which I initially did, until I learned about the article's history. From my point of view 30/500 isn't meant to be another hierarchical protection level, but rather an in the middle solution when semi isn't enough, leaving the only alternative indefinite full protection, which IMO is unacceptable. If it was only a temporary protection, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion. I hope this helps.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, both procedurally, as this isn't the largest community forum for such a discussion, and on general principles, as my understanding was that 30/500 is for serious problem areas. Fighting over social networks on a list is relatively small-time. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand this oppose either. If this isn't a big problem area, then why leave it fully protected. If it's not a problem area, then semi should be sufficient right? But it isn't. That means to keep disruption at bay, it's either PC2, template, or 30/500, which is a middle-ground solution I am proposing to keeping most disruption at bay, while still allowing all the established editors to edit, not just admins.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support this is already being used, and most opposition is either a request for process or "slippery slope" argument that is unlikely to be a consequence (most BLPs are still unprotected, for example). Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the 30/500 protection seems perfect to me. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that arbcom is not reserving this userright for their own purposes. What is more I think it should be used liberally throughout Wikipedia when there is a semi-protection is not enough but protection is too much. That being said I am not sure this is what arbcom intended for the userright or what the status of use of it outside arbcom is. HighInBC 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 30/500 is intended to be for Intractable areas of dispute, not as a step down from full protection. Second, if we disclude the 30/500 we're only left with semi-protection as the only place to reduce the threshold to which has been shown to be easily gamed and thereby crash the page back into edit warring about inclusion on the list and going right back up to full protection. Third, as much as we don't want it to be, being listed in Wikipedia is a great way to increase the prominance of your venture (whether business, website, art endeavour, etc). See also COI/Paid editing. Fourth, if something needs to be changed/added to the page there is the "Edit Request" way of proposing the change and potentially securing consensus for the change. In short: 30/500 should not be authorized barring a Village Pump discussion authorizing it and Full Protection is not set in concrete. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Thread bump, to keep the bot off of this.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Point of order - 30/500 is not a community protection level. It must be authorized by ArbCom, and it has not been for this topic AFAIK. This proposal is out of order. If you want to propose 30/500 protection for this topic, file a case with ArbCom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  Please re-read the policy. It says this protection level can be authorized by ArbCom or the community. This is a community discussion to authorize this protection, and so this proposal is in line, with policy.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Altamel. I agree with Ivanvector that "30/500 is not a community protection level". Furthermove, this noticeboard is for "information and issues that affect administrators"; this discussion affects the community as a whole, and as such, this is the improper forum (along similar lines to what Torchiest stated).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  It is a community protection level. Policy dictates that this protection level can be applied by the community, as such this is a community discussion. As for picking the location of this discussion, I chose AN as we are dealing with potentially protecting a page with 30/500, but this discussion seems to be going south, because people keep misunderstanding the use of 30/500, and why I proposed this protection level on this page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Any oppose arguments because there's no consensus for use of the protection level are circular and nonsensical, as this is an attempt to get consensus for use of the protection level. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not the best place for community discussion

Top o' the page clearly says: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators," therefore it is not a proper place for discussing policy changes. If someone wants to make a proposal it goes somewhere like Wikipedia Talk:Protection policy, gets slapped with an RFC template and listed on the centralized discussion list. This notion that it's appropriate for the admin corps to make policy decisions a) gives admins, collectively, a bad name, and b) pretty much ensures you're going have non-admin stalkers here. NE Ent 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be a little confused. Per the RfC on this matter the community can impose 30/500 restrictions on any article they deem it to be necessary on. That is what this discussion is about. At least that is what I think this discussion is about. This seems like the perfect place for that kind of discussion since this is a highly watched page and things of this level should have a lot of eyes on it. --Majora (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. This page is for admins. For a true community discussion, this discussion should be held exactly at the place you just cited for a previous community consensus on this subject: the village pump. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, this isn't a policy change I'm proposing. I don't understand why people seem to be thinking that when I clearly noted above what this discussion is about. To protect a single page 30/500, which requires community approval. I chose AN because we are dealing with a fully protected page, to have it's protection discussed. That kind of requires an admin for that, hence I thought it would be appropriate to discuss here.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is that you didn't fill out Form 86-20924Z/3OY in triplicate and file it with the proper affidavits. You'll never work in this town again. BMK (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aw damn. I knew I forgot something. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No forgiveness - your TPS sheet came in without a cover page. SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I needed a cover page for that? I thought you only needed that when filing for authorization to change your signature. :-(—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned the original proposal only intended this as arbitration enforcement, and didn't allow use outside such context. In the discussion, also allowing use by "community consensus" was suggested, and the closer stated it was restricted "to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". But the "or the community" mention isn't explained, and I believe not supported by the discussion. It should require a formal proposal at village pump and actual consensus before being suggested for use on a particular page outside AE, and the proposal should specify where and how it should be requested for an article (e.g. on article talk page with mandatory WP:CENT listing...). Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions, which are similar to this; village pump is for decisions that don't require administrator action. If a decision made here is invalid, so are community sanctions (including bans) and these would have to be regarded as lifted. WP:CENT is for discussions with "potentially wide-ranging impacts" - use of this protection on one page wouldn't change anything as a similar discussion would have to take place when it is proposed for another page. It would have less impact than full protection of the same page which doesn't require any discussion. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions" That is an incorrect statement of practice. In fact, this board (AN) is the preferred board for community sanction discussions. Frequently a discussion about sanctions will arise from an already ongoing discussion on ANI, and the consensus has been to allow them to continue there rather than breaking the flow of the discussion by moving it here, but otherwise sanction discussions are preferred to happen here. It's a bit less like the Wild Wild West here as compared to ANI, so presumably a more reasonable discussion can be held. BMK (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The top of the page says "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices". I would say that a discussion on the acceptable use of a new admin tool falls into discussion of administration methods. It is the discussion about if admins should use a tool on a specific page when there is no clear guidance about the tool. If it was a proposal for a policy then I would agree that another place would be better, but this is no different than discussing the use of admin tools in any other specific area. HighInBC 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the alternative, I hope that people here take the result from this discussion (I'm more of a meh on it) and incorporate it into the protection policy. If 30/500 is a new protection standard, it would be easily just to put it into policy, whatever it is, and then to use WP:RFPP for it in the future. ANI can always be the backstop if no one at RFPP agrees to it. I mean, we have the technical ability to PP2 but that's been wholly rejected for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A proposal with 72.9% support is "wholly rejected"? 82.132.184.165 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I mean PC2, the second level of pending changes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 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.

Permission to come back to the Ref Desks

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.

---

Due to a dispute last year I agreed to a voluntary ban. The dispute was about medical advice, but it was also more of a "who is the boss here" issue. I decided to leave because I saw that I got carried away too much by the power play. I have contributed a lot to StackExchange, and I think that I can come back here without causing problems. I'll just stick to 0RR, so if someone sees a problem with anything I do there, they can revert and if that revert is seen to be a problem then that's an issue for the others to sort out, I will stay out of any disputes. I don't see the need to "protect my contribution". The lesson I've learned is that as soon as I would get such feelings, then it's time to leave for a while to prevent wasting time on futile issues. Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would one need permission to end a voluntary ban? That's asymmetrical. But, if necessary, Support. Sounds sincere and rational. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk for the original discussion. There was no formal ruling on consensus at the time. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

To Count Iblis - I would support your request if (and this is a big if) you were to give a clear, unambiguous undertaking to abide by the Reference Desk guidelines concerning medical advice (WP:RD/G/M). I do not see such an undertaking in your comments from October or in your current request. Tevildo (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also thick to 0RR. Let me explain. The way the medical issue is dealt with on the ref desk is in practice quite ambiguous. If there were any truth about what was said on AN/I about me, then anything remotely close to medical advice would not be approached with a ten feet long pole. That's far from the truth, and when I took a look yesterday I saw a question about diet and exercise, the question about exercise was posted by a ref desk regular. Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline. But there is no way to tell this in general a priori. The way to avoid disputes is thus for me to disengage from any arguments about medical advice issues. So, I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR. Anyone can modify anything I write there without me going to revert them. There is then no need to run to AN/I in case of problems, there won't be recurring problems where I continue to post something else later that also needs to be refactored which would then necessitate intervention. I'm not going to play any such games, if anything is edited in an answer that I write, I'll stay out of that particular topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is actually how it's supposed to work - our guidelines say "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions... When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice, outright removal of the question is discouraged. It is preferable to add a link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and answer by giving information, such as links to articles. The first answer in particular should advise the person to seek a qualified professional. Subsequent answers must never bring this advice into question, and should reiterate it if there is any doubt." Emphasis mine. If you do get allowed back, I invite you to run potential replies by me first if you are concerned about understanding where to draw the line. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the above reply. I would hold that a firm commitment to abiding by the guidelines is essential for Count Iblis' rehabilitation. Tevildo (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing my opposition based on Count Iblis' replies below. Tevildo (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on Count Iblis' very apparent continuing lack of understanding of what "no medical advice" means. His action in answering a question about diet and exercise is a blatant example of violating that rule, so I have absolutely no faith that he would be able to control himself if allowed to return to the Ref Desks. Since it was a voluntary self-ban, if CI returns despite any consensus here that he shouldn't, the previous discussion should be unarchived and continued until there is a community consensus on whether he should be banned or not, since the original discussion was short-circuited by the voluntary ban and never concluded. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Changed - see below. BMK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• It was my question and my talk page, and I dispute the assertion that it was medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Struck my support for now. I haven't been around the desks much for some time, but I don't recall much (if any) editing of others' responses because they were improper. It's a bad example to set for the less initiated, and the questioner very easily might see the improper answer anyway. Striking it or removing it from the page does not erase it from their memory. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to stay out of anything remotely resembling a medical/physiological/health question, just to be safe. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support- CI wants to help. WP:AGF applies here too. I think CI is making this request in good faith, and we always need more good faith help at the ref desk. Keep in mind he sort of self-topic-banned in the past, and he doesn't need our support to come back. I think he'd prefer our support, as few people like to post if they feel unwanted. He's admitted fault, and wants to reform. I think our ref desks get better with more eyes on the questions. CI knows he will be on very thin ice, and if he's allowed back I assume will be on his best behavior as part of an unofficial probationary period. If that goes sour, we have nothing much to lose by offering some attempt at rehabilitation in lieu of punishment. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't doubt Count Iblis' good faith and his potential for useful contributions, and I accept that his disagreement with the guidelines isn't unreasonable in itself. I'm concerned that he's not apparently prepared to make the simple statement "Yes, I will follow the guidelines." If he does so, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I feel the risk of last year's disruption being repeated is still too high. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support for starters he doesn't need anyone's permission to come back, and also he's a lot less hypocritical and dishonest than most of the more zealous self-appointed enforcers of the refdesk guidelines. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from "OP": I am the refdesk regular who posed the question (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Exercise: Repetition vs. weight lifted.) and who Count Iblis answered on my talk page. (User talk:Guy Macon#Frank Medrano knows the answer) The notion that my question or any of the answers I received are "medical advice" goes against Wikipedia policy and against longstanding refdesk policy. Exercise isn't a medical issue. It is a normal part of life. I am leaning toward supporting Count Iblis returning to the refdesks. A simple declarative statement along the lines of "I will abide by the existing refdesk rules even if I disagree with them" from Count Iblis will turn my position to full support. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - In view of his history not only of giving improper advice but of maintaining his right to do so, I see no reason to be assured that he will follow the Ref Desk guidelines strictly. He may want to help, and I am willing to believe that he wants to help. He just has shown that he doesn't know when help is not help. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, he should need permission to come back, because he "voluntarily" departed under a cloud. Allowing people to come back without permission after departing under a cloud would set a bad precedent. (Admins who depart under a cloud have to come back via RFA.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong agreement. The basic concept of "under a cloud" (no matter where used) allows us to halt proceedings when the accused voluntarily withdraws. This is a Good Thing; it saves us effort and allows the accused to save face. But if he is later allowed to undo that decision without permission, we will have to continue the proceedings and decide upon sanctions just to avoid gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As this appears to be directed only to me and one other user, I'll state that I now understand, and I withdraw that part of my already-stricken comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, Count Iblis, please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice (see section #2). Because it explains that while editors are welcome to go to the questioner's talk page to explain why medical advice can't be given, editors should not then provide medical advice on the user's talk page. You're not abiding by a guideline against providing medical advice by providing it on a user talk page instead of at the reference desks. Don't provide medical advice, anywhere, period. Can you make that promise? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• It was my question and my talk page (see above) and I dispute the assertion that it was medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a medical question or like medical advice to me. It's an exercise question with an exercise answer. He replied correctly on Guy Macon's talk page rather than on the Reference Desk because he is banned from the Reference Desk. That doesn't mean that I support reinstating him to the Reference Desk, only that he didn't violate any rule in that matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely is advice that should not be coming from the Ref Desk, whether directly on the Ref Desk or on a user talk page. CI told Guy Macon how he should exercise, without knowing anything whatsoever about GM's physical condition, or having the professional qualifications to evaluate them if he did. We may have gotten used to infomercials telling all and sundry what people need to do to "get in shape", but we don't do that, whether you call it "medical advice" or not. CI's inability to differentiate between information that can be given and advice that cannot be is a prime example of why he should not return to the Ref Desk. BMK (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I was basing my comment on CI's explaining that his user talk page comments were medical advice not suitable for the reference desk "Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline.". That is how he identified his remarks in his comment, that his remarks would have been inappropriate at the Ref Desks because it would be considered medical advice but they didn't violate the guidelines because they were posted on a user talk page.

My concern was not whether or not the comments were medical advice and more that CI didn't seem to realize that the medical guidelines apply to any talk space, not just the reference desks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - CI's tendentious argument which led to last year's proposed topic ban is archived here. CI's current "I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR." indicates that they plan to steer clear from such arguments in the future. -- ToE 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment To repeat what I've said above, that statement is not a clear commitment to abide by the guidelines. Count Iblis needs to refrain from posting anything which comes under our definition of medical advice, not his definition. I'll also add that Guy Macon's question and Count Iblis' talkpage answer do not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines. What took us to ANI last year was Count Iblis' recommendation of medication in response to a question. We need to be sure that he doesn't intend to do that sort of thing again. Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I never ever wrote anything intended as medical advice. What happened was that what I wrote could, when taken totally out of context, be interpreted as medical advice. However, one may impose such a stronger rule, so I should have let others redact the text. Resisting that is the only real mistake I made. Your demand that a priori it should be clear that no one can ever fault anyone for violating the guidelines is unworkable, as this very thread demonstrates. Editor BMK argues above that what I wrote on Guy's talk page is a violation of the guidelines, and when pointed out by you and a few others that it is not a violation he vigorously disagrees and continues to argue why you are wrong. So, what if BMK were to summon editors like you to AN/I and then point out that what matters is not your interpretation but his interpretation? Clearly then, the best way to avoid problems is to work within the spirit of the rules, which means that no diagnosis of medical issues is permitted but when something is written that looks like could be interpreted as such, then it's best for the text to be redacted, the editor should allow that redaction to proceed, the matter should be discussed on the talk page. I have promised above to go out of my way to make sure that no problems w.r.t. medical advice will ever happen. Should e.g.BMK accuse me of giving medical advice then I'll still recuse myself and let others handle it. If he is wrong, other editors will correct his mistake, if not his intervention was justified. In neither case will there be an edit war involving me there or a big fight at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, in my eyes that's still not sufficient. You took a voluntary ban because you were on the cusp of receiving a community-imposed topic ban. Obviously you felt the need for community approval for your return. Many of the editors here are looking for a straight-forward statement from you that you will follow the guidelines, but instead, you're still dancing around them. Speaking for myself, what I need from you is a statement that you will not give advice in any area that could be considered to be medical or health-related broadly construed - and the community does the construing, not you. Given the background to this, I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

        Failing that, if you return to the Ref Desks without making such a statement, and without a clear consensus to do so here, the discussion about your community ban should be unearthed from the archives and continued from where it left off, as such a decision on your part would be an indication that you have not changed your views about what is and isn't allowed on the ref desk. BMK (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

        • It is an unreasonable request given that there was no substance to the original case in the sense that something terribly dangerous had happened. Certainly not in the context of the frequent disputes on the ref desk at the time for which no one ever got restricted. I'm willing to go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
          • So, you're in the same position as the editor who goes to AE to appeal a sanction on the grounds that the sanction was unjustified. Those appeals almost never succeed, because the working assumption is that the sanction was justified, and what the people hearing the appeal want is some indication from the appellant that they understand why they were sanctioned, and a pledge not to do that anymore. Evidence of having changed is also helpful. You, apparently, don't think that your imminent community topic ban from the Ref Desk was justified, so how are we supposed to take your word that you will "go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice". Don't "go out of your way to prevent any problems" just say that you will not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines. Your curious unwillingness to make such a straight-forward statement is what's holding things up here, and your continuing to carefully parse your words is simply not helping you - at least in my opinion, as it gives the distinct impression that you are setting up loopholes for yourself to use should you get into trouble in the future. As for your statement below that what you have said "has exactly the same meaning", I'm afraid that's not the case. BMK (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I have no problems to say "I'll not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines." you can take this sentence as me having said this. I think the problem is that I add additional context to the matter and explain how in practice any problems will be resolved. Note that I was already sticking to that rule, as problematic requests for medical help appeared almost every day. So, I would have been serial violator of that rule had I not stuck to that rule. So, the problem was not me not sticking to that rule in general, it was some exceptional case where I wrote something offhand that in the judgment of others did violate the rule and I was edit warring to revert the redaction of my comment. While I can then also take measures to prevent that particular kind of incident from happening, one has to keep in mind that something else on some other sensitive point, not necessarily involving medical advice, might go wrong. Take e.g. BLP. Clearly, I'm not a serial violator of BLP, but who knows if something I say will be judged to be in violation of that and we're at AN/I discussing that? Take e.g. people who are widely judged to be pseudoscientists, so it's easy to see how something written on the Ref desk can fall foul of BLP. Again, I'll do my best to stay away from such problems, but we're talking about the one in a thousand exception here not the general editing. That's why I'm saying that I'm going to stick to all the rules, but also that I'll stick to 0RR to allow other editors deal with whatever they see is a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Weak support - "Weak" because I would much rather have Count Iblis make a positive declarative statement rather than say "[Y]ou can take this sentence as me having said that." Once again, the semantic shenanigans are off-putting and redolent of game playing, but since he has agreed not to give out medical or health-related advice and not to otherwise violate the Ref Desk's guidelines, I'm obligated to change my !vote, with the assurance that if he is brought up again on a similar complaint, my !vote won't be swayed by any arguments he might make. BMK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per CI's comment immediately above dated 20:36. What I wrote could, when taken totally out of context, be interpreted as medical advice doesn't tally at all with what he actually wrote and the context, and the fact that he genuinely appears to believe there's any other possible interpretation gives me no reason to trust him to interact with the often vulnerable users who ask questions on the reference desks. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Why then don't you close down the Ref Desk? The incident I was involved in was a minor incident, I got referred to AN/I based on the whim of a single editor, not as a result of a big discussion. On AN/I a false picture was painted as if this particular incident was a huge violation of a sort never seen there, when in reality there were far bigger disputes, sometimes real big fights there almost every week. I almost never got involved in any of these disputes. These disputes were always handled locally. If your argument is that I can't edit there then why can all these other regulars continue to edit there, given that they have violated the medical advice rule in much more unambiguous ways than I have? Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I saw a comment by an admin yesterday, "Editors are treated inconsistently by administrators all the time." Within the context, it was clear that the admin felt that is an acceptable situation, just one of those things. The admin's statement is consistent with my 3 years' experience. If you're looking for fairness and even-handed treatment (a normal human instinct), you won't find a lot of it at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Waiting to see if Count Iblis responds to Guy's comment which said "A simple declarative statement along the lines of 'I will abide by the existing refdesk rules even if I disagree with them' from Count Iblis will turn my position to full support." I too would support if he made that pledge. Moriori (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I already made that statement above (not the same wording but it has exactly this meaning), and I promised much more than that. Not only will I stick to the guidelines, I will also step aside, stick to 0RR should there be any dispute about anything on the Ref Desk. This to prevent any issues where I edit something in good faith according to the guidelines but which according to someone else is seen as a violation. Should that occur (but note that I'll stay away from topics where I think this has a chance of occurring), I'll let other handle the issue, I'll not defend the edits I've made. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• While I do not support a return (See Moriori's comment above to see why) I would very much like it if anyone who thinks I or Count Iblis have violated a guideline or policy on my talk page would please report it at ANI so we can get a clarification. Don't worry -- nobody is going to block me for doing my best to follow the guidelines. The worst that can happen is me being told that I misunderstood them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You obviously did nothing wrong, as there's no restriction against asking a question, and I see no need for an AN/I on Count Iblis, when there is a pertinent discussion ongoing right here. BMK (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Statement by Count IblisTo clear things up, I make the following statement: I'll not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines. As discussed with BMK above, this seems reasonable. There may still be disagreements about my attitude regarding this problem, but to solve problems one has to consider the proper context. As I explained above, the idea that I was flouting the rules in general is not correct, because there were request for medical advice almost every day and I had not engaged with such requests in the many years I have been editing there. I was not a new editor who went in there and on day one decided that the rules were wrong and therefore I would violate the rules. What happened was that out of many hundreds of cases, there was one atypical case where in the opinion of others, I had made a mistake. Note that the AN/I case was only about that one incident, it doesn't list many problematic incidents as is usual in most AN/I cases involving problem editors. To prevent the rare in in a thousand accident you need to do more than just to say that you'll stick to the rules. A few years and thousands of edits later, you may bump into another freak incident, this time involving another rule (say BLP). That's why I'm saying that I'll also stick to 0RR and let others deal with problems should they occur. Count Iblis (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Good enough for me. Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• support return to refdesks, given the intention not to violate the rules. Also there was no systematic problematic editing either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems reasonable, uncontroversial. Lesson learned and net benefit for the refdesks. -- œ^™ 05:09, 24 May 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.

Can someone keep an eye on this article

List of companies based in Oklahoma City has become a linkfarm for external links. I tried to pare it down, but am being reverted, and I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else could look it over, and act accordingly, that'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron32 02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the initial edit to the article by User:Roserock16, perhaps the addition of the remainder of the linkfarm is intended to disguise their actual purpose/COI (and it might warrant a username block). --Kinu ^t/_c 02:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are way off base. I found that article and it already had 25+ external links to other companies. Since I had never edited anything on Wikipedia before, I created an account and added a link to my company website, just like the other dozens of companies. It did not occur to me that adding a link would violate user terms since it was obviously being allowed on that site well before I edited it. The reason you were "being reverted" is because after adding the link I looked at it later and noticed my link and the 25+ existing external links were gone. Again, as a first time editor, I thought I had done something wrong and accidentally deleted all of them. I still had a tab open with the original code so I edited it again to restore what I thought I accidentally erased. A simple warning would have been plenty for me to remove the link and not add it again, but blocking my account because you think you're in an "edit war" with me? And accusing me of adding dozens of other links to "disguise their actual purpose?" Really? User:Jayron32 User:Kinu User:Cryptic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• For someone who has never edited Wikipedia, you did manage to find ANI and ping three users, which is astonishing. One possibility is that our HELP: section is world class. There are other possibilities. Yet, me thinketh thou doth protest too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It took me 30 minutes to figure it out. I ended up looking through the posts above me to see how they pinged me, and I followed the format because the help section was not very helpful. Far from "world class." Just because I've never edited Wikipedia before doesn't mean I can't figure it out. But learning how to ping someone makes it "astonishing?" It must have taken you much, much longer than 30 minutes to learn it if that's astonishing to you. User:Dennis Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Check the internet archives for the link to that page. The snapshot back in January shows 27 external links to other companies. I'd post the link to the page for you but Kinu might try to get me blocked again for posting links. Dennis Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Skipping over the usual paranoia of AN, On your block, the main reason you were blocked is because of your username violating the username policy. The rest of it had to do with you promoting the entity your username was apparently connected with. Normally when this happens, the user is familiar with wikipedia, and not here to build an encyclopedia. However, as you are admittedly connected with the business, you should read and follow the conflict of interest policy to avoid additional problems. As far as external links are concerned, please see this guideline for what is not allowed for external links. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:The Voidwalker I apologize for not reading those terms before posting. I did not think I was breaking any rules since there were over two dozen external links on that page already. I will not be using that username any longer and will not post any links, now that I know. Thank you for your professional and informative explanation. Aaron12354 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not blaming you for not reading them, as Wikipedia rules are often difficult to find when you just start off. I'll leave you a template message for new users about getting started. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass additions of RfCs at ANRFC

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.

---

WP:ANRFC is perpetually overloaded, to the point that the transclusion on this page was collapsed into a small notification due to consensus that it overwhelmed this noticeboard. I've been working on reducing the backlog at ANRFC for a month or two as a non-admin, and I've noticed that many discussions are added there by a single user (Cunard). Discussions are regularly added which do not appear to need closure, either because the consensus is so overwhelming that anyone with a basic understanding of English can interpret it properly without formal closure (example here), there's no ongoing dispute (i.e. changes have been made that make the question irrelevant; example here), or there's obviously no useful consensus (example here). As noted at WP:RFC, "Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."

I don't see how it's sustainable to list 29 discussions just two weeks after listing 50 discussions. I'm not the first editor to express these concerns (see this past discussion). After the May 8th addition of 50 discussions, I discussed this with Cunard, but after closing some of the discussions added within the past day, it's clear that the results weren't what I'd hoped. All of the examples linked in the first paragraph are from the latest batch. These mass additions are interfering with the closure of contentious RfCs that desperately need a closure from an uninvolved editor, but I have no idea how to fix it. One possibility would be to actually enforce the language at WP:RFC that requires a participant to list a discussion, but I'm not really sure that's a net positive. ~ Rob^Talk 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm notifying Cunard of this discussion, but this is not meant to be a behavioral discussion in any sense. I'd like to come up with a solution that involves new guidelines on listing discussions at ANRFC or something similar, not biting an experienced editor. ~ Rob^Talk 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is almost entirely behavioral; Cunard insists on adding things that don't need a close. It's time to ban Cunard from ANRFC, because as any history check will demonstrate, he's always been responsible for the vast majority of items, including the vast numbers that go against the specific notice at the top of the page, Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think I need more diffs to get a better idea of the problem but one thing people should consider is that I think this is supposed to be an emergency backlog and reporting things that are 3 days overdue for a close is just not good in terms of triage. We have severely bad backlog at the discussion forums at the moment as well but I think the agreement was against just putting each one of the individual listings up there. Should we consider creating a separate RFC closures backlog page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: I think the problem is that there isn't a massive backlog, though. Unclosed RfCs aren't a backlog to be cleared. The vast majority do not need any closure. If an editor working in the area of the RfC needs a closure or the RfC is difficult to interpret, that's when ANRFC should be used, but most RfCs resolve perfectly fine without formal closure. As for more diffs, this is not a new issue, and here are some other examples: [105] [106] [107] [108]. More generally, the "edits by user" tool shows this has been going on at least since September 2012, with discussions such as this being listed in that month. ~ Rob^Talk 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Enough for me. Propose a topic ban of Cunard from requests for closure. Front side only, Cunard can still engage in talk page discussions given what I'm going to suggest. I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. While they don't need an admin closure, I do think there's a fair concern that someone should close them and since it can't be the people involved in the discussion, they are kind of left in a loop if it's a pretty obscure talk page. From there, we can leave it as another backlog or whatever people want it called here (CSD and TFD are listed even though non-admins can close those as well) with like real complicated past-120 days or something ones separately identified when it gets really bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • And yes, I acknowledge most of them don't need a formal "close" but people seem to want one so I don't think it's a crazy suggestion. I'll propose it at VPP and see if there's interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I'll strike the topic ban. If even the nominator here is against it, no reason to be the wild one. Cunard, can you help us out here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I think I need more diffs to get a better idea of the problem but one thing people should consider is that I think this is supposed to be an emergency backlog and reporting things that are 3 days overdue for a close is just not good in terms of triage. – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is for requests for closure. Nothing in the page's text or history suggests that it is an "emergency backlog".

            I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. – I agree.

            I am fine with WP:ANRFC having a section for "an emergency backlog" and a section for unclosed RfCs. I would list nearly all of my closure requests in the non-emergency unclosed RfC section. Would you support that?

            Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

            • If it's not an emergency backlog it has absolutely no business being transcluded on WP:AN. Not even just as section headers, barely even as a simple link. No other backlog, many of which are of much higher urgency, gets such preferential treatment. —Cryptic 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Agreed – if there's no stomach to reign it in and make it more like an "emergency backlog", then it needs to be "demoted" (i.e. dropped from WP:AN – including dropping the "AN" from the shortcut). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What would an "emergency backlog" of RfCs even be? Nothing about RfCs usually involves an immediate "emergency", as they are meant to last thirty days anyway. This is absolutely strange, to hear this kind of talk. One of the tasks that the community expects administrators to do is to provide proper closures to community processes, such as RMs, RfCs, AfDs, &c. WP:ANRFC includes listings for all these processes. RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere. Why are administrators here desiring to abrogate their responsibility to the community in carrying out their expected duties, one of which is to provide formal closure? The best way to reign in ANRFC is to start closing RfCs, instead of just ignoring them for ages as is done now. Removing the "AN" implies that administrators simply can't be bothered to do what they were appointed to do. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well who can tell the RfC's truly in need of closing from the long list of crud currently clogging up ANRFC?! As of now, it's a completely useless list for Admins. We might as well just have people come here and directly ask for the few individual RfC's that need to be "Admin closed". I guess the rest can stay at the useless listcruft that ANRFC has degenerated into... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that if there is a "junk" RfC listed at ANRFC, someone should close it as "junk" and delist it, rather than just ignoring it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgetting, of course, that this is a volunteer project, and Admins are volunteers too. Admins are not required to do anything! So, when ANRFC is rendered useless by one overzealous editor, are we surprised that they've been conditioned to ignore it?! Now, I am of the opinion that one single topic ban would take care of this problem, as no one else, not even the editors that claim to support Cunard's goals (though I doubt they support his exact methodology...), would spam ANRFC as severely, and thus ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's also clear than neither Admins as a group nor the community have the stomach to do that, so bemoaning the current situation is wasted effort. It's time to just move on and acknowledge that the current system is broken, and won't be fixed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course this is a volunteer project, but if administrators have no desire to administrate, why are they are administrators? They are "not required" to do anything, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do the job they were appointed to do. Someone has got to administrate this mess, and ignoring it is not the solution. All Cunard has done is brought the brokenness of the RfC process to the front. Shuffling it off into the dark beyond shan't do anything other than prolong the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think some are going to be more complicated than others and do require an administrator. Something like Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring should not be done by any one person. That could be posted separately while the remainder of unclosed RFCs are in a general backlog listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to note I strongly oppose a topic ban at this time. Cunard is doing something I don't like, but he's not doing anything against the rules by listing discussions. It's disruptive to bombard the process, but we should be putting guidelines in place that make it clear what is and isn't acceptable. Topic banning a good-faith editor when we haven't tried any alternatives is downright silly. I thought coming to AN instead of ANI would avoid an over-reaction, but guess not. I'm intrigued by Ricky81682's idea to keep a list of all unclosed RfCs separate from ANRFC without necessarily eliminating a triage list. What if the RfC bot replaced RfC notices with a template noting the unclosed discussion instead of removing the RfC notice entirely? We could use such a template to create a tracking category for all unclosed RfCs. We could include a simple link to that tracking category at ANRFC and allow participants of discussions that need closure to continue listing their RfC like normal if a formal close is actually needed. I think this satisfies all parties without any need for a topic ban and automates the work of putting together a list of unclosed RfCs. Thoughts? As a side note, this doesn't push work onto whoever operates the RfC bot; changing the bot's function from removing an RfC notice to replacing it with some static text is technically trivial. ~ Rob^Talk 23:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we need to agree that (a) there should be a separate list and then (b) how to populate it. The bot is an obvious way. Cunard, how were you getting your list of unclosed RFCs anyways? I'm open to reconsidering a topic ban if another solution presents itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Cunard is doing the right thing. If an RfC is approriately opened, then it needs to be appropriately closed. "Doesn't need a formal close" is a very odd position. Close it anyway. An unspoken agreement to not close a heap of RfCs is far worse than there being a backlog. Hiding unclosed RfCs is definitely bad, Cunard should keep up his excellent work.

The root of the problem, the real problem, is that there are too many poorly-posed RfCs. I propose that the solution is to require that to open an RfC must involve a seconder. At least two people must agree that there is a good reason to ask the question, and that the question posed is a good question.

If you can't find a single person to support your RfC question, either:

(1) you are wrong (unanimously disagreed with), or

(2) WP:3O is more appropriate, and if WP:3O can't produce an experience opinion-giver who agrees that you have a worthy question, most likely you don't, or

(3) you seriously need to work on improving your question.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please review WP:RFC. The policy has always been that RfCs are a method of getting extra eyes on your question, not a bureaucratic nightmare that must have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. More importantly, though, Cunard is volunteering the time of other editors when he insists an RfC be formally closed despite a clear consensus. I spent a solid 2-3 hours working through a good chunk of his latest addition of RfCs trying to find the few that genuinely needed closure. ~ Rob^Talk 00:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am familiar with WP:RFC. It is quite uninviting, and when you dig you find an overwhelming content of RfCs. It has been that way for a very long time. That it has unchanged for a long time is evidence of a lack of review. Covering for the problem is the custom of advertising important questions outside of WP:RFC.

Requiring of a seconder is not a bureaucratic nightmare as evidenced by its common use in many places. Reference to "i"s and t"s is absurd, getting the question wrong wastes an awful lot of time and space. I disagree with "Cunard is volunteering the time of other editors...", there is an obvious backlog, and documenting the backlog is what he is doing.

If an RfC has an obvious consensus, why not close it?

I have made this proposal at WT:RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If an RfC has an obvious consensus, why not close it? – I agree. Those RfCs take very little time to close. I've closed discussions this week (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) that I've felt comfortable with closing.

Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Unclosed RfCs are often a recipe for disaster, and nothing more. Often times, an RfC about a controversial topic will go on, everyone will have said their bit, but it will languish without closure forever. Then, the dispute comes back as there has never been any resolution, which is what a formal closure provides. RfCs should not be left unclosed unless they really are approaching unanimity. Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes. Please, if you've got the ability to carry out a close, do so. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• This discussion shows why nothing will ever be done about WP:ANRFC, and it's getting to the point that entirely abolishing it needs to be seriously considered. The fact is, many discussion that are "tagged" as "RfC's" are in fact discussions that don't need closing. What Cunard is doing with his unselective spamming of ANRFC is seriously disruptive. But it's clear nothing will be done about it, and if ANRFC is going to continue in its present state because no one is going to do anything about it, let's just get rid of it, or at least "demote" it (i.e. cut the "AN" part...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There are things "tagged" as "RfC's" that are in fact discussions that don't need closing? Is that opinion or objective fact (genuine question). Why does an RfC not need closing? Is it because the result is obvious? (I am guessing from Rob's comments.) AfDs that are obvious are still closed. Why not close them? A closing statement can be "no consensus", or "derailed" or "discussion has moved beyond the original question", or "moot", or "no question articulated". Or is the problem with the template, and the lack of template {{RFC-openended}}? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Some RfC's are either derailed by a poorly formed "statement question", or in fact are simply "discussions". The most recent one I tagged at ANFRC as "Not done" was in fact in the latter category – rather than a "question" with "support" and "oppose" !votes, it was more of a back-and-forth discussion, so there was truly nothing to "close". Other RfC's are simply "unclosable" due to a lack of participation. Still others are "overtaken by events" or are rendered "moot" by the time a "formal close" would take place. The fact is a significant percentage of the RfC's that Cunard spams to ANFRC simply do not belong there, as they are either "unclosable" or are not in need of an "Admin (or otherwise) closure". If ANRFC could be pared back to just the "serious" RfC's in need of closure that RGloucester is referring to, ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's clear no one has the stomach to make that happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What if Cunard was asked to only list "closable" cases? I guess this is asking Cunard to close all the unclosables with closing statements such as "unclosable due to a lack of participation', "overtaken by events" or "moot". Maybe I should close them myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Deciding whether it's "closable" requires good judgment. It would be more reliable to require Cunard (or anyone else who wants to list RFCs that they have no particular interest in) to ask the participants if they need to have the RFC listed at ANRFC. That step alone ought to weed out the discussions that are still active, overtaken by events, moot, had no participants, or when the result is obvious enough (and accepted by all of the principals) that nobody ought to have to waste time writing it down. It should be a matter of substing a template onto a talk page and checking back for a positive response later. NB that Cunard has previously rejected this suggestion as being too difficult, so we should probably not expect voluntary adoption of this approach now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template to an RfC open for 30+ days being a needed qualification before listing at WP:ANRFC is a capital idea. (Perhaps we need an RfC on this proposal?!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template could be very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No, {{RFC-closeneeded}} should not be a requirement for listing discussions at WP:ANRFC. That an editor took the time to formally create an RfC already signifies that the RfC initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Likewise, that an editor took the time to formally create an AfD or DRV already signifies that the initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Requiring the template would be like asking an editor to put up a "close needed" template for an AfD or DRV before requesting closure. Both RfCs and AfDs and DRVs should have their consensus assessed regardless of whether a "close needed" template is put up and responded to. The "resolution needed" is implicit in an RfC's creation like in an AfD's creation.

I agree with RGloucester that "Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes." That is my primary reason for listing RfCs at WP:ANRFC.

I guess this is asking Cunard to close all the unclosables – I've closed several discussions this week (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) instead of listing them at WP:ANRFC that I've felt comfortable with closing.

Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

See, I'm thinking that if an editor took the time (which can be as little as three seconds to type {{rfc|code}} at the top of a comment) it takes to create an RFC, then the editor might have read the long-standing advice at WP:RFC, which says Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance (emphasis in the original).

Providing unrequested or unwanted closing statements is like telling these editors that you think they're too stupid/biased/incompetent to evaluate and agree upon the results without outside assistance – outside assistant that too often, unfortunately, comes from a non-admin who knows nothing about the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Cunard's work. Sure, he listed some that didn't need it, but he listed plenty that did. --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Second, I'm sure this is not the intent but 'shoot the messenger' comes to mind. We need a good system for settling these kinds of questions, RfC is the system we have - it would be great to make it better, remembering that the RfC is all about participation in settling/clarifying matters. So, just hoping they don't exist/ignoring them does not even approach making the participatory system better. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what's known as a straw man, as no one has actually said that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall unless someone can tell me specifically how a formal close (which does not take a small amount of time, unless a closer is not carefully reading the discussion) helps editors reach an agreement on RfCs that have a near unanimous outcome. Do we really think our average editor so mentally deficient that they can't tell what 10 yeas and 1 nay means? And before someone says this, we're not talking about closes where a WP:POINTy user is contesting the outcome, since any participant of the obvious discussion could list the discussion at ANRFC if that were the case. ~ Rob^Talk 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The question was asked why a formal close is needed when there is a near unanimous outcome. I have a further question. Was the outcome truly unanimous, or merely near unanimous? If the outcome was near unanimous, first, a formal close does only take a small amount of time, but, second, a formal close is useful. The reason is that, not infrequently, a stubborn editor will continue to push their edits after the RFC went against them by saying that there was no consensus. There was indeed no consensus in a terminological sense if one means that consensus is established by an RFC. That is why I respectfully disagree with the statement that most RFCs don't need formal closure. It is true that there are too many RFCs for which formal closure is nearly impossible because the RFC was worded badly. That is a different problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It is my opinion that a closer must read the entire RfC before making a closing statement, with absolutely no exceptions. You cannot make an informed close without first reading what was written, period. To do otherwise is to invite contested closures. The time sink to read entire RfCs where there's really nothing much in dispute is significant. I can say that because I've put in that time, which amounts to several hours every time Cunard posts a wall of RfCs to ANRFC. No-one can argue away the time that editors (including myself) have spent doing that. If an editor causes problems due to a WP:POINTy claim of lack of consensus, then nothing stops anyone who sees those problems from asking for closure at that time. Why preemptively close discussions that likely will never be disputed because of the small probability someone will violate WP:POINT? If there's really no consensus against closing every single RfC, I'll drop the stick, but I also won't waste my time at ANRFC when I can be a larger net positive elsewhere. Lots of wasted time. ~ Rob^Talk 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a closer must read the entire RFC before making a closing statement. That doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, RFCs where the result is obvious still do need formal closure. The time sink is not formal closure, so much as it is some RFCs themselves. I agree that closure sometimes be deferred until it is needed, until an editor is editing against consensus. (I wouldn't call it a WP:POINTy claim, so much as a disruptive claim, but the principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Rob that providing unnecessary closing statements communicates our beliefs about whether typical editors are capable of figuring out the result of a typical RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Innovative Ideas

Two innovative ideas have been proposed above that are ways forward from the chronic backlog of long-open RFCs. I personally think that both are good ideas, but that they should be discussed at the RFC talk page rather than here. The first is to require or strongly encourage RFCs to be seconded. In particular, I would suggest that RFCs that are seconded should be formally closed. RFCs that are not seconded may reasonably be ignored, or treated as RFCs now are, which is said not to require formal closure. The second is that maybe the RFC bot, rather than simply pulling the RFC tag, should replace it by a tag that the RFC needs closure. (I would reconcile the two by saying that RFCs that are not seconded within some number of days, maybe four, should be manually pulled, and, if not pulled, the tag requesting closure can be manually pulled.) Those are in my opinion good ideas that should be discussed at the RFC talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree on a single point: we should go to the RFC talk page. It seems like the resolution here is against doing anything to Cunard at the moment so it should be closed and AN left to its usual issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I started the noticeboard/backlog board question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Separate_noticeboard_for_RFCs. Beyond that, we can then argue once we agree on where it should be, what should be listed there. Otherwise, a debate about what should be done belongs on that talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs can be rewritten. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 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.

Backlog at WP:RFPP

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

---

We are currently badly backlogged at WP:RFPP, help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 27 May 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.

Captain America

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 Captain America a topic area authorized by the Arbitration Committee for extended confirmed protection, or as a result of community consensus? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you only assume those two options? Admins can also decide the issue on their own. Heavily vandalized pages can be subject to extended protection. Did you make a request at WP:RFPP to reduce the protection? Is there a reason to do so? Are there extensive approved edit requests on the talk page that would evidence that protection isn't needed? There's no ARBCOM notice on the talk page and Arbcom sanctions are more for editors not for page protection. The last protection added doesn't include a link to any community discussion either so I doubt it but BOZ can probably answer that question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Per WP:EC-P, I believe the protection is used only in these two circumstances, and "a process for community use has not been established." I'm also aware that there's an ongoing discussion about this protection level at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Extended confirmed protection policy. I'll stay out of this, but I know folks with strong opinions on the matter. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ricky: I don't see support for use of EC-P in #Vandalism. Regardless, #EC-P makes it clear where it presently is authorized for use; without a community decision agreeing to its use otherwise and creation of the associated process, I think clearly the default is "don't use". --Izno (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Did you ask the protecting admin about this yet? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• I think it might be a simple mistake while protecting (it's easy to go one line too far)...semiprotection was intended imho. Lectonar (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• I believe I may have selected that option in error. If it makes more sense to switch this to a regular semi-protection, I will do so. BOZ (talk) 11:23, 26 May 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.

What is WP:MINOR?

Hey there admin fellows, what's WP:MINOR? Is it a policy? A guideline? An essay? Nothing? I've got an editor who's generally been a pain in a variety of ways, who keeps mis-marking non-minor edits as minor. Given his history of logging-out to avoid scrutiny, his minor edits look like yet another attempt to escape scrutiny by hiding edits like these: [109][110][111][112]. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Its help namespace, its descriptive of the use of the 'minor' flag, not meant to be taken as policy anymore than a description of the use of the 'edit' button would be. This may be an oversight if someone is using it incorrectly, however there is clear consensus in the archives for AN that inappropriate use is subject to blocking. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Vandalism#Gaming_the_system. I personally would consider anyone marking minor an edit that substantially changes or alters content as 'bad faith' if they feel the need to deliberately hide it. Others may disagree, but consensus has generally held dont mark edits as minor if they are not minor edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's important because most watchlists and the like tend to ignore minor edits. If it's a repeated antic, it can fall into disruptive editing and is block-worthy. While one of the dumber things, I've seen it go that far. The page itself, I agree is a help page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've probably seen two blocks for repeated abuse of marking minor, but it has happened. Talk first, then a warning at ANI if it doesn't stop, then a block. Each step needs to show a pattern, not one questionable marking. That is the usual pattern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Minor edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Rcrox was not notified of this discussion of his behavior. I have corrected this oversight. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, appreciated, but this wasn't a request for intervention, rather a request for community input for my own edification, using Rcrox's edits as real-world examples. That said, your point is noted and I'll do that in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know, but all the examples were from his edits, and you wrote, "I've got an editor...", which implies you are discussing that editor's edits. Therefore, you must notify him of that discussion. If nothing else, it's polite. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD issue

At AfD, due to there being a large, unnecessary backlog, I combined 50 or so related pages into one AfD report. The pages have been added again by a bot. Can you delete all of the separate AfD's, as they are unnecessary? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) @ThePlatypusofDoom: The bot re-added them because the AfD templates in each article all still point to their individual discussion pages. If you want the articles to point to a single AfD discussion page, then you'll need to modify the tags on each individual article to point to that single page, preferably (IMHO) with the explicit approval of the original nominator. --Finngall ^talk 23:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I know why the bot re-added them, it seems easier just to WP:NUKE, instead of going through every single one, which I did to combine the articles into one AfD discussion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If the nominator agrees, it would be best to simply redirect all of the individual AfD pages to the main one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Games), then change the tags on each individual article to point to the main AfD page. The tags need to stay on each article, so that people who visit know they're being discussed. Also, Asian Games itself probably shouldn't be linked/tagged, but WP:IAR so whatever. ansh666 02:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Rollback function process has changed

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 Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Rollback_function_has_been_changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 26 May 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.

Possibly prematurely archived 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.

---

Would anyone like to look at thread #118, entitled "Topic ban requested" on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280 and maybe restore it or close it? John Carter (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for a non-admin to make a close potentially resulting in a topic ban? I've read through the majority of the discussion and am comfortable making a closure (after doing a more thorough read-through, of course), but both WP:BAN and WP:NAC are silent on this issue. I won't make a close unless a couple administrators or otherwise experienced editors give me the go-ahead to do so, since I'm not so sure what convention is here. ~ Rob^Talk 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally, it's best practice to leave an admin to close a discussion that may result in sanctions against another editor. Reason being, only an admin has the tools to enforce the close. This isn't to say a non admin can't close it, especially if community consensus supports it, but it's best to close out any loopholes for the sanctionee to wriggle out of. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that the archived discussion was approaching a topic ban of User:Robertinventor. If User:BU Rob13 wants to read all the comments and offer his own neutral reading of what the consensus said, why doesn't he post his recommendation here, and see if an admin wants to take action on it. I think we could make an up-or-down decision on a topic ban (based on the arguments of the original participants) and that the archived discussion covered all the bases well. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If convention indicates non-admins shouldn't do sanctions, then I'll stay away from it. Just looking to help out, since I noticed the discussion at ANRFC and again here. Based on my initial (just about everything but the collapsed sections) reading yesterday, there is clear consensus for some form of sanction, and a topic ban limited to the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed, seemed to be the likely option. Limits on just the length of comments or number of edits clearly had no consensus. I'd need to give it a complete read-through to know for sure, though, and I'll leave that to an admin. ~ Rob^Talk 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-admins cant/shouldnt close anything that requires admin tool use. As they technically cant enact the closure (see discussions closed as delete etc or those requiring removal of permissions). A topic ban discussion requires no tools to close as the closure is basically 'you can no longer edit in that area, dont do it'. Any actual enforcement would obviously require tools, however that is not at the point of discussion closing, and assuming the editor abides by the topic ban, may never be required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 27 May 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.