Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 98 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 95 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 95 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 34 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 28 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	0	11	0	11
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	87	0	87
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 253 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 76 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 70 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for sanction removal

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

---

Normally editors do not need to make requests before making edits, and as a copy editor and content creator, the sanctions which I am under are having severe consequences limiting my ability to make contributions to Wikipedia. The origin of the sanctions were what I thought of as a perfectly reasonable request to spell thinks correctly, and remove any guideline limitations that indicated that Wikipedia should make up spellings instead of using what reliable sources use. Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed. I have fastidiously adhered to the sanctions for six months, resulting in the loss of many edits that no one would ever complain about not being made, due to those sanctions. I therefore humbly request that the sanctions all be removed so that I can go on with making contributions. Apteva (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase, and then please tell me if I understood you rightly. "Please remove all bans and other sanctions that currently apply to me, because..."? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are the sanctions: Restricted to one account and "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." Both are preventing necessary edits. I am working with a keyboard that is missing a key, when it comes to making edits. It is never appropriate to topic ban someone because you disagree with a proposal they make. We do not topic ban because of the position someone takes, only if they are unable to make positive contributions to the subject. Apteva (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think it would be useful to your appeal if you would comment more specifically about your impressions regarding the complaints about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, and then User:Seraphimblade's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please, User:Gatoclass's close at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon, Spartaz's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon, and why your block within the past two months was made more restrictive by User:Black Kite and then by User:Beeblebrox. What is different now? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What is different is I know enough to shut up and edit. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you still seem to be justifying and rationalizing your previous actions. Describing the situation that led to previous sanctions "a perfectly reasonable request" raises red flags that you actually intend to continue the same behavior. Blocks and bans are prophylactic, and this indicates that yours may still be necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance. The behavior was pursuing the issue ad nauseum. While I am willing to defend the practice, I am not willing to annoy anyone myself. Which would any of us prefer, an encyclopedia which is correct, or one that is incorrect because various editors are bullied against pointing out errors? I am not interested in the drama. I can point out errors, but beyond that it is out of my control. The funny thing about Mexican American War is that over 90% of reliable sources use "Mexican War", rendering the entire discussion of punctuation moot. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly demonstrate in this very thread, you have not learned to "shut up and edit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) An appeal against a sanction generally links to the discussion where the sanction was imposed. It is also advisable to not say "I was correct" (a perfectly reasonable request to spell things correctly) in the appeal because unless the intention is to re-argue the whole case, an appeal should work on the premise that the community was not incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[double EC] Only commenting on the "restricted to one account" bit. Looks like the issue with your Delphi234 account was that you were judged to be using it improperly, apparently circumventing previous sanctions or something like that. There's nothing better than a declared alternative account for legitimate uses "security", "maintenance", and "testing and training"; if the Delphi userpage contained a prominent link to your Apteva userpage and vice versa, you obviously wouldn't be using it improperly, and if people thought you'd remove it and start socking again, you could demonstrate good faith by asking that the userpage be fully protected — you can't edit your own userpage when it's fully protected, so people would be able to see that you weren't planning to obscure the connection betweenthte accounts. I see no reason to prohibit that specific use, but I have no comment on further one-account restrictions or on the restrictions unrelated to sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with my primary account has never been with improperly using alternate accounts, but was to monitor my observance of the topic ban, and was never necessary, as I would never normally make any of that sort of edit from that account anyway. I have never socked. Ever. Using an alternative account appropriately is not socking. Socking is completely different. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I wish to return to appropriately doing so. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per block log. --Rschen7754 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The last block was for complaining about incivility. Is that wrong? It was clearly an inappropriate block because it was solely punitive and not preventative at all. I had already agreed not to use ANI/AE to complain abut incivility. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, you seemed to be using frivolous civility complaints as a weapon against opponents of your views on the MOS. This BATTLEGROUND approach to the subject has generated a lot of disruption and your failure to realize the problem with that is why you were blocked. I do not adhere to the idea that an editor needs to admit wrongdoing to be freed of editing restrictions, but I do think requesting a lifting of all your sanctions just a few weeks after coming off a long block for your treatment of opponents in the underlying dispute is a bit premature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is important to allow all points of view and I have never targeted anyone who has a view either in agreement with me or opposed to me. I am not here to be treated with incivility, and it is only incivility that I have objected to, not someone's point of view. On that everyone is welcome to state their point of view, and consensus prevails. I am bringing the appeal now because I want no doubt about commenting at the RM discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, which I probably could anyway, but with the sanctions removed I would not have to wonder. And no, I am not the IP who did comment. Apteva (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I detest to see a legitimate editor under sanctions and was initially inclined to support, but changed the mind on discovering of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 #Dicklyon about two-months old. Although there are some problems with the guy mentioned, one should never attack a fellow editor on a noticeboard with a wall of text consisting almost entirely of irrelevant linguistic stuff and external links instead of diffs and [[]]s. Sanctions shall remain until the editor in question learned more constructive ways of defending himself and his point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already have. As mentioned, I am waiting for the civility enforcement RfC to make a recommendation and will adhere to whatever it says. I am planning on helping move the RfC forward but have not had the time to do so yet. It has not had any edits since February, as I recall. Apteva (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] —Neotarf (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I confess that I have not made a particular study of this, but it's my impression that although Apteva has insisted that it is necessary for him to use an alternate identity to edit certain articles or subjects, he has never made it clear exactly why that is, simply asserting it as a fact, without acceptable explanation. I cannot see why this would be, especially if the secondary ID is linked to his main ID (as sockpuppetry policy requires). I'm afraid that my AGF has been streteched, thinned out, and broken by Apteva's behavior, and I can no longer believe much of what he says. For these reasons, I oppose removing the sanctions on his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is him or her, he or she, his or her, thank you. Alternate accounts are not required to be linked and can not be linked where privacy issues are concerned and they are not linked. You are blocking my primary account, which makes no sense. Block this account and there are many articles that I would not be able to edit. Neither block benefits Wikipedia. I have at all times maintained a high level of integrity and am a valuable contributor. I adhere to all guidelines and policies. If any one has a problem with my edits, I have a talk page and welcome criticism. Statements such as "I can no longer believe much of what [they say]" are patently ludicrous, and have zero credence. Point to one diff out of 10,000 edits that was not in good faith, and that was an example of not being believable. For example, I was not unblocked because an admin did not believe me when I said that I was not going to bring ANI actions for civility. Well I am unblocked now, and have I? No. Would I if I had been unblocked? No. This lack of faith is completely, 100% undeserved. One of our rules is to ignore all rules, and one of my options is to simply ignore the sanctions but I have not done that and that is a measure of my integrity. It should be patently obvious that I can not maintain privacy and explain why I am doing that and how, because I could only do so by giving up that very privacy that I am protecting. I edit solely under the condition of anonymity. Apteva (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for removing sanctions from users who've shown that they're no longer necessary. However, considering that in your very request to lift sanctions you've repeated the same problematic views that got you topic-banned in the first place, I'm not sure this would be a great idea. Furthermore, your comment that "Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed" actually contradicts the WP:ICANTHEARYOU portion of the disruptive editing guideline:

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

  Could you please answer the following questions: 1) Do you understand why your continued advocacy of your positions on dashes, etc., was considered disruptive? 2) If your sanctions are lifted, do you plan on returning to said advocacy? 3) Could you please give some examples of dash-modifying edits you'd like to make?

I'll say right here that I don't see myself supporting a lifting of the sanctions, but I could possibly support allowing you to make uncontroversial changes to dashes in articles... but that depends on your answer to the third question. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, even though it was not. Airports and comets are not spelled with dashes, only hyphens. I can propose that, but decisions are made by consensus.
2. No, I am considering that there is a moratorium on dashes and hyphens until next year. I am hopeful that Wikipedia will start spelling things the way everyone else does, and that does not seem to be too much to ask.
3. Often people use hyphens, dashes, and minus signs incorrectly, and as a matter of discussing proposed name changes and as a matter of copy-editing it is helpful to correct errors when they are seen. It is horribly draconian to not be able to make simple corrections. During the moratorium I will not be proposing name changes, but should be expected to contribute input to any that have been proposed.

Sorry, I should've been more clear in my third question: Could you please show some sample edits that you'd make? Five to ten should suffice. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a minus sign to a dash or hyphen, removing spaces around an mdash, adding or removing spaces around ndashes, changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges, such as 1819–1922. None are controversial. I do a lot of RCP so I see everything imaginable. We allow minus signs for negative numbers, but I would never change any to or from that, as that is not important, but when a minus sign is used for a dash or a hyphen that is significant and does need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has made it clear enough that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, constantly lecturing others even when it is abundantly clear consensus does favor their position. No valid reason is given for ifting these sanctions. The supposed privacy concern is nonsense since it is known what the pother account is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The valid reason is to allow valuable edits that might not otherwise be made for some time, if ever. I have been watching one error that I would have fixed and it still has not been fixed. There are many others. I have never used intelligence as a criteria for editing, and recognize that all of us do our best to contribute. It is often possible to learn private details about editors but that falls into the category of outing and is not permitted. We simply do not tell editors not to fix things. The bottom line is there are no positive benefits from the sanctions and serious consequences, almost all of them unintended. Removing them would clearly benefit the project. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no outing concern here, that is a lie. I don't recall the name of your other account off the top of my head but I recall it being specifically mentioned, by you I might add in previous discussions of these sanctions. Your apparent compulsive need to argue endlessly with everyone is plain for anyone to see and does you no credit. This is part of why you have been having such trouble and it's sad that your ego apparently makes you unable to see that you are your own worst enemy. If you could just get over yourself and shut up about the sanctions for a while (and maybe consider the possibility that you have been wrong once or twice in your time here) you probably could get them lifted. As long as you continue to act like this you will continue moving further, not closer, from unrestricted editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it took me about one minute to find this. There we go. Your other account is User:Delphi234, and it is blocked per the near unanimous conensus in this discussion] some six months ago. So, you can just cut the crap about there being a privacy issue at play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apteva is both interested and involved in the project. I knew nothing about Apteva a couple months ago, and I thought an enforcement boomerang would be too much. The follow on trip to ANI suggests a continuing problem. Since then I've seen not only continued good but also continued trouble. Recently there were issues at Talk:Go (game)#Move? (see edit history). Apteva has clear and consistent views and vigorously defends them, but those views don't always align with the community. Despite Apteva's claims, I doubt Apteva understands the reasons why the restrictions were imposed: it is not the belief but rather the behavior. He has raised the understanding and unreasonable restriction arguments before, but they have not flown. (See Bwilkins decline at User_talk:Apteva/Archive_7#Next steps; Bwilkins doubts Apteva's prior claims to understanding.) I want things to go right for Apteva, but there needs more uneventful history. Glrx (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is he or she, please. So the result is I continue editing with one hand tied behind my back and can not contribute as much as Wikipedia needs? What is the point of that? Who benefits from that? No one. Who suffers? Everyone reading Wikipedia, and readers out number editors by 1000:1. The edit that I am watching is on a page that is viewed 3500 times a day, 100,000 times a month. As the months tick away, that is one, two, three, four, five, six hundred thousand times that viewers have been presented with erroneous information. Is that what everyone here really wants? For that to continue for another six months? Does anyone really understand how ludicrous this is? Apteva (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless you specify what gender you prefer to be addressed as, it's up to the other editor what form to use in a situation where gender isn't known. Your attempt to force other editors to bend to your preferences is typical of your attitude and your behavior throughout Wikipedia, and is indicative of the root cause of your sanctions. You clearly have no plan to change your behavior one whit which is why your sanctions should not be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. as a fellow grammar nazi, on the basis of uncorrected spelling errors in Apteva's request.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That spelling error was introduced deliberately as an example of a spelling error. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Amend the sanctions as follows:

Apteva is topic banned for six months from proposing or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation in article titles. All other sanctions are vacated.

What this would do is give me my keyboard back and I would not bring up or discuss moving Mexican American War or other such titles for the balance of the sanctions. By making it a definite time, it is trivial in six months to extend it if needed, but it would not require bringing the same appeal here again if no problems occurred. It would limit the false information from being seen a million times, limiting it to only 635,000 times (add 3,500 for each day it takes to implement this sanction amendment). Since the sanctions have already been in effect for six months, it is effectively a one year sanction. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question Solar power and wind power both fall under the realm of renewable energy. Delphi editted wind and Apteva editted solar, which seems to be the cause for the topic overlap that the single-account restriction was based on. Is it possible, if the sanction is lifted, to create an alternate account that edits strictly renewable energy topics and then use Apteva or Delphi to edit everything else on the 'pedia? Ishdarian 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the single account restriction was to see if I was violating the topic ban, and solely for that reason. It is not needed, and has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unreasonable to believe that the banning of a single editor, no matter how productive he is, has "severe consequences to the encyclopedia", and that fact the you honestly don't seem to understand this is part of the reason why your sanctions haven't a chance in a million of being removed as a result of this thread. It is also the reason why I doubt you will follow my prescription below, as you seem to be incapable of seeing your place in the big scheme of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humility. Look into it. There have not been "severe consequences" anywhere but in your imagination. You have failed again and again to provide a logical reason why you need separate accounts for editing certain topics, and you did not keep the two accounts you had properly seperated. That is why you were limited to one account, and your inability to comprehend the problem and insistence that it was not needed and wrong are indicitave of the other issues you have had as an editor here. We're all wrong sometimes, it's the abikity to learn from ones mistakes that helps us grow, on WP and in real life. If instead you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for them, there can be no growth. But if you already believe you are infallible I guess that isn't a very compelling point. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of us are equally important to the project. Without us it would not exist. I certainly recognize my faults and always encourage anyone to point out anything they see me do that is inappropriate, on my talk page so that I can be aware of what was done, and take corrective action. Sure I have a healthy ego, but there is no crime in that as long as I keep it to myself, and do not use it to belittle anyone. I obviously recognize that I could be wrong on absolutely everything. That is why we discuss things, so that we can learn what is right and what is wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you make some hard to believe statements. You say above that the restriction to one account has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. What are the severe consequences? Why can you not make the edits you need to make to avert those consequences from your Apteva account? You also say that readers are suffering from you not being able to make an edit on an article that is viewed 100,000 times a month. What is the problem with this article that readers are suffering? GB fan 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Wikipedia, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Wikipedia, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Wikipedia, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This gaming of the system has gone on long enough. If this user needs to be forced to accept their restrictions due to their behaviour then so be it. If this user had merely waited out the appeal period and edited constructively then this would not even be happening, but they didn't and here we are! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support what? All of the sanctions that are proposed are already in effect. There is absolutely nothing the proposal would change. I have in fact waited out the appeal period and edited constructively. I will in fact wait out the next appeal period and edit constructively, and the next, if necessary. Apteva (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In case you are not aware, the above reads like a promise to do whatever is necessary to resume the old arguments as soon as possible, no matter how long it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Apteva may not have thought this through: should his allowed appeal after 6 months be as non-substantive as the current one was, the community can easily extend the appeal period to 1 year or longer, and should that pattern continue to be repeated, it's likely that a total site ban would follow. The Wikipedia community does not have infinite patience, and there comes a time where even those with far more ability to WP:AGF than I have can no longer tell the difference between unintended disruption and deliberate trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand that Apteva's attitude is not the best, however, he wishes to do what he thinks is best for the project. Looking over his actions leading up to the topic ban and account restriction, I am fully in agreement that the topic ban on dashes et al should remain in place. The one account restriction puzzles me; maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else saw/sees. I found one instance from 2008 in which Apteva/Delphi234 overlapped and caused an issue, which was compounded by the fact that, when questioned by other editors, Apteva did not confirm that the two accounts were the same person. However, this was 2008. I was unable to locate any issues with two accounts since then. In an email I received from Apteva, he states that he uses two accounts for privacy reasons, and that's okay as long as the accounts aren't used for malicious purposes. I think that Apteva should be allowed to operate his present two accounts with the understanding that any sanctions earned on one account also apply to the other and that the two accounts should be given a wide berth in their edits. Reblocks are cheap, so if he misbehaves with one account or the other, he can be blocked on both and end it at that. Maybe a little bit of rope could do the entire project good? Ishdarian 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Should this be accepted I can assure everyone it will not be abused in the slightest. I have no interest in this appeal being nothing but a clean, no blocks, no issues, "I recommend removal of sanctions" the next time this comes up, so I really implore everyone who has any issue with my editing, even the slightest, to bring it up immediately when it occurs with me on my talk page so that I can take corrective action. What attracted me to Wikipedia five or six years ago or whenever it was, was to take pity on anyone who was reading misinformation, and correcting it. I have not been able to find my first edit, but I think it was correcting a date or time in an article. I still fix things I see that are incorrect, but have branched out to more content creation, and article quality improvement (moving every article towards FA). Apteva (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Ishidarian: Apteva has claimed privacy issues for a long time, but has never adequately explained what he means - and he's been asked to many times. He's already had a considerable amount of AGF and "rope" extended to him, which is how we've ended up in the current situation. I'm afraid that, given his behavior in this very discussion, his assurances are not at all believable to me.

      Then, of course, there's the matter of his WP:CANVASSing for your comment here via e-mail. This is not new behavior on his part, as can be seen here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

      • Thank you. I just want to make the clarification that he did not request I make a comment; I asked a question in the Prop 2 above and he responded to my question a bit more in-depth via email. I was satisfied with the answer and that's what brought me here to comment. Ishdarian 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case there is some doubt that this proposal is necessary, here is a review of the appeals so far (and I might have missed some):
  • Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
  • Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
  • Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
  • Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
  • Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
  • Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
  • Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
  • Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined. At some point this needs to stop. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Reyk, and specifically the single-account restriction. The tendentious punctuating and refusal to drop a wooden device have led Apteva into a corner they cannot easily extricate themselves. Full wiki-break might help. Narrowing the appeal options will only make him more frantic. Unless there is evidence of him using socks abusively, I don't see why this restriction is necessary. Frankly, I don't see how anything short of a full ban/block (for a definite period) with Apteva voluntarily agreeing not to appeal during that time is going to make a difference, here. And Apteva will undoubtedly perceive these (or any) sanctions as punitive, rather than preventative. (Which only exacerbates the problem) --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I wish I didn't have to. I think Apteva means well, but that only goes so far. Apteva, I've encouraged you before to think hard about why it is that a series of increasingly escalating sanctions have been applied to you. And no, it's not that everyone else is a fool, nor that we're all out to get you. It is squarely because of the way in which you have behaved. We've all lost some of the arguments we've gotten into here, and there comes a time at which to accept that consensus has not gone your way and move on. The fact that you haven't done that, and continue to argue this issue rather than moving on to others, gives me no confidence in lifting the topic ban. Drop the issue for a year or two, completely, edit productively in other areas and interact positively with other editors, and then we might consider modifying or lifting the ban. If you keep this up, you are perilously close to exhausting the community's patience entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, supporting what? All of the sanctions are already indef. The appeal has already been closed as unsuccessful. Someone may have thought that the sanctions have an expiration date, but they do not. I was first able to appeal the sanctions on July 6 at 11:43 UTC. I waited about another 10 days and only appealed because of an RM that did not really conflict with the topic ban but I wanted the topic ban to go away so that there would be no question. All this support nonsense and proposal three is nothing but gravedancing. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The current proposal calls for your topic ban to be appealable 6 months from when this discussion is closed. In addition, any violation of the topic ban will be met by escalating blocks. That's what this proposal changes, and it's not "gravedancing", because your own behavior brought about the proposal. If you want to have any chance of this proposal not being enacted, you must shut up and stop commenting here. Every comment you make is just another nail in your coffin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What they said PantherLeapord (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Since when are blocks not sharply escalated? Since when is six months different from six months? All of the above is pompous rhetoric that changes nothing. What is this, Lord of the Flies? Just out of curiosity, in the last couple of days I made a list of articles that someone else can correct, because I can not. Gabriel Orozco, Prefaxis Menen, Cohors IV Delmatarum, Edward Snowden, Sérgio Leite, Rate of climb (last year it was estimated that 40% of articles misuse punctuation, but that is probably a lot closer to 4%, but out of 4 million that is still a big number of articles to correct). Multiply 3/day times six months and I will likely run across another 500 articles that I can not correct. Who benefits from that? No one. Just for giggles I will check back to see if anyone reading this thread or anyone else for that matter corrects those articles. Or are we solely here to see who we can sanction, and not to build an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a misuse of punctuation only if we bow to your preferred MOS the choice between dashes, en-dashes and hyphens are not spelling or punctuation errors they are style choices. Wikipedia is an electronic document that evolves to fit the preferences of the editors who write it. If as a community we choose to use a different style of punctuation because it best fits writing from keyboards and the community’s artistic choices, even if it becomes a one of a kind style unique to Wikipedia. It has been repeatedly shown that the community does not want to use your outdated formal style that you learned as a kid, you will have to learn to live with that before you restrictions can be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that if you made these edits, you would be violating your topic ban. Is that right? Well, let me explain something to you: Your topic ban prevents you from making such edits because you were far too willing to make a big deal out of inconsequential edits that 'do not actually improve the articles at all. That is rather the point of this whole thing. Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles. So no, probably these non-problems that so horrify you will not be corrected becausre they are not actually important to 99.99% of our editors or readers. Your inability to accept or even comprehend this simple point is exactly why you are so restricted. We are all sick to death of your constant pathetic whining about it and so these additional restrictions, which you wrongly imagine do not change anything, are being proposed. Alternately, you could just pledge to shut the hell up about it until January 20, 2014 at a minimum, with the same conditions, i.e. blocks, should you violate your pledge. I don't honestly expect you to do that, I expect more nonsense, but I'd love it if you surprised us all by just accepting the consensus on these issues and moving on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

B, you go too far in saying "Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles." Actually, quite a few wikipedians routinely work to make articles more consistent with the recommendations of the MOS, as it makes the encyclopedia more precise, readable, and professional looking. It's OK that you don't care. As for Apteva, the problem is not that he cares about or works on style, but that he has a history of tendentiously working against the recommendations of the MOS, and is generally unwilling to listen to others, understand, compromise, or tolerate opinions different from his own. It's not an MOS problem, but an Apteva problem. Anyone can fix hyphens in number ranges, or title case in headings; we won't miss his help; and if they don't get fixed any time soon, it's because it's not that big a deal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that not 99.99% but certainly close to 98% could not care a hoot about correcting those six articles, or can even tell that there are errors in them, and quite frankly, I would write the MOS to say that if punctuation is used consistently in an article, it is not wrong no matter how it is used, provided it mirrors a reliable source, and should not be corrected just to correct it (and yes I wrote an essay that said exactly that, until it was f'd up by "correcting it"), but that is not what the MOS says, it says those six articles have errors and should be corrected. Why I am sanctioned is not because I want to or do not want to correct those six articles, but because I want Wikipedia to spell things the same way others do, and not using cockemamy ideas about how punctuation should be used in titles when no one other than 2% of the world uses those cockemamy rules. Get with it Wikipedia. Spell things the way the rest of the world does or forever make us look like pompous idiots. Follow policies when choosing titles, not guidelines. It is not rocket science, but plain old common sense. Go visit the Reno-Tahoe Open and guess what punctuation they use? Not the punctuation our article uses. Read about it in any reliable source and what punctuation do they use? Not the punctuation we use. Why is that? Are we just that stupid, that we do not know how to use punctuation properly? And I am being sanctioned for that???? What has the world come to? I have absolutely no problem with saying absolutely nothing about the subject between now and January, as is already required by the sanctions currently imposed. It is not that sanction that is hurting Wikipedia as much as the sanction on one account. Probably 98% of the world is not going to know or care that we are misspelling Reno-Tahoe Open, which is why a moratorium was proposed for 2013 on discussing or making such changes, which is perfectly acceptable to me, but everyone does care if factual errors occur in important articles, like saying the moon is made of blue cheese (okay that one someone else would probably notice and fix, and that one even I could fix). Apteva (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware the our MOS calls anything an "error", or says things "need to be fixed". It provides guidance for moving articles toward a consistent preferred style, not judgements about the styles that others choose. And aren't you violating your sanctions again by using this venue to argue for treating the dash/hyphen distinction as a spelling error? Or did that one expire before you took up this nutty campaign again? Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is not an essay, which can be ignored at will, but is a guideline, something that all editors should attempt to follow. As a guideline, it will always have exceptions, and those do not need to be nor can they be listed. Some of it though, gives very bad advice, and apparently got that way simply by topic banning half a dozen editors who disagreed with the rubbish that others wanted to include. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS would be perfect if only we let you, the most important person on this entire project, wrongly accused and topic banned, to remount your white steed and charge once more back into battle to slay the evil hyphen-breathing dragon... You really are a lost cause. See you at the inevitable future discussion of banning you entirely... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, it it essential in a collaborative project to treat all contributors with equal respect, and not view one as more important than another, without exception. I certainly do not think that I am any more important than anyone else here. I see problems, I fix them. When others disagree, I discuss that proposed change, and a decision is made by reaching a consensus on the topic. It makes absolutely no difference who made the proposal that was finally accepted. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Anyone can see that from your behavior in these this very discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support It's obvious about Apteva's comments here and snippy comments across the project related to this well-deserved original restriction that Apteva just needs to stop whinging, and get to work. If they really believe they are a net-positive, then start to prove it. A good six months of such proof will go a long way to rebuilding the community trust. Both the topic ban AND this restriction that will allow them to get to work without worrying about appeals will therefore be good for them AND the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support re Bwilkins. This is an opportunity for the community to not have to deal with an editor who just plain doesn't get it, but could potentially be a net-positive to the project if they can just get over themselves. It's also an opportunity for Apteva to stop worrying about these meta-matters and figure out how to simply be a productive editor. (S)he has six months without having to worry about convincing anyone or researching policy vaguery. Just keep their nose clean and show that they can avoid being a pain that others are forced to deal with, and maybe their actions can speak more elloquently than their words. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this editor continues to protest valid sanctions without every actually stating why the sanctions should be removed, and continues to waste everybody's time. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Babita Sharma

A user (Jimthing (talk · contribs)) is trying to add unsourced information in the page, that made the real person send an E-mail to info-en (that's why I'm here) the user is edit warring too. please take care of it ASAP, (As a sysop and crat in another project) I suggest protect the page and send the user a warning not to add unsourced or poorly sourced materials in WP:BLPs (request of real person exists in Ticket#2013071710007773) :)Ladsgroup^بحث 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just responded to a similar OTRS e-mail from the subject. I have warned Jimthing (talk · contribs) and also reported this to WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to delete it. As it stands, the citations do not support WP:GNG as both of them appear to be primary sources. One is her talent management agency and the other is an upcoming summit where she is a speaker.--v/r - TP 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I contacted the Press Office, who gave me that date in a very curt response; which I mentioned in the edit summary. So who is this user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) (they seemingly only edit the Babaita Sharma page??)? And why are they allowed to continually ignore my sourcing summary comment, continually reverting the info – I notice they don't get a bollocking for their actions on their talk page in the "edit war" when they refused to justify properly their removal of the birth date (given I actually bothered by explained my source in the summary!)?? Is this user actually Babita Sharma herself then, who then went on to contact the OTRS board (ticket of which, I seemingly am not allowed to log-in to read, in order to provide comment on!)? And if so, why did they not make themselves known, and bother to inform me that the info I was given must have therefore been incorrect, on her own page talk? This all sounds weird to me. Jimthing (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What the Press Office tells you isn't a reliable source, because it cannot be verified - this is basic stuff, see WP:RS and WP:V. The dob is obviously disputed so per WP:BLP the correct course is to remove it pending proper sourcing, again basic stuff. We cannot divulge communications to OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should provide a reliable source for birth date, what you've done is an OR. Babita Sharma contacted with OTRS system, I can assure you. I think they are not familiar with system of Wikipedia so they didn't what old users do and they sent us an e-mail :)Ladsgroup^بحث 04:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Right so BS hid behind username NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) to edit their own page, but couldn't be bothered to actually provide a link to verify their correct DOB whilst editing against the info I added from their own PO – how nonsensical is that. And Is that even a correct way to go about ones own page, there's a WP policy against that isn't there, so regardless of understanding WP or not, it's unacceptable me thinks – hence a warning by an admin should surely be placed on that user's talk page by one of you? Jimthing (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OUTING? Whoever NewsHoundTV may be, they haven't identified themself as Babita Sharma so no one is going to template their talk page saying they are that person. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not outing anyone, this is the Admins page, not the open talk pages, and I'm merely trying to get an idea of how things are handled in such cases. Does no one else find it strange that user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs)'s only edits on WP were to remove my DOB edits on the BS article (and they have done not a single edit on any other WP pages, before or since)? When at exactly the same time BS herself pops-up to email WP about her DOB being wrongly edited: coincidence?

Someone editing their own page is against WP policy for sure (WP:COI), yet no action has been/is going to be taken against this sock puppet (WP:SOC) user account that distinctly reeks of the article subject matter themselves having their hand in it: why? And as I already said: why did she not just correct the date, rather than spending time using a puppet account to simply remove the DOB repeatedly and wasting an editors valuable time in the process? (Please answer all my points, not just one.) Jimthing (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer what I want :-) WP:COI suggests that editors should not edit a page about them. However, we still tell COI editors that they may remove improperly-sourced detrimental information. The DOB you provided is not sourced, and can be removed by anyone. In addition, we have a formal request logged that the real-life person does not want their DOB listed. On top of that, you attempting to link an account to a real-life person anywhere is a violation of WP:OUTING. In short, unsourced info can be deleted - even by the subject. About WP:SOCK - a sockpuppet is an improperly-used alternate account - I don't see any suggestion of a violation of WP:SOCK (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, so she emailed about both a wrong DOB being there and her not wanting her DOB there. Strange request in this day and age when all her other BBC work colleagues have their's listed without any problem (fraud from just DOB is highly unlikely as to be pointless, so one can only speculate it's an 'ageism' issue with her not wanting to be thought too old to be front of camera by some producer or other in the future, lol!). Anyway, this is dealt with and can be closed/archived accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, not really ... we still need to deal with your continued attempts to link a Wikipedia account to a real-life identity - as you know (having read WP:OUTING by now), that is grounds for an immediate and likely indefinite block. Yet, you still are making that assumption and link in your last post - is this not something you have learned, or do we need to protect both a real life individual and the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Please read my last post again – I did not say anything in my last post about that whatsoever. I very clearly only spoke about the email BS sent you where she mentioned two things (it being an error, and she wanted it omitted anyway). The edit was done by me in good faith, but unfortunately the PO gave me entirely wrong info, so obviously I wouldn't be adding it again anyway, with or without any cite being available. Jimthing (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to community-ban User:Damorbel from all articles and talk pages on thermodynamics.

Damorbel (talk · contribs) has a personal fixation that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule -- even if there's just one molecule; and that heat is a measure of the molecular kinetic energy of a substance, rather the standard textbook definition that heat can only consistently be defined as energy in the process of being transferred into or out of a system.

He has filled up archive after archive, in particular at Talk:Heat but also elsewhere, endlessly pushing these views despite a raft of editors attempts to straighten him out, in exactly the way that we're not supposed to do, per the Arbcom cases on Speed of Light and Monty Hall problem.

He's at it again now, at Talk:Heat, and it has gone past the point of being disruptive.

I raised this at WT:PHYSICS for general discussion in December 2012 (archive here), where there was general agreement that Damorbel's views were not well conceived, and his continued returning to them was not helpful.

At that time I held back from the ultimate step and bringing it here. But it's now started up again, on and on, just as before, and it's time to say: Enough is enough. This has gone on for too long, taken too much energy from too many people, and it needs to finish. Jheald (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Request and discussion advised to WT:PHYSICS, Talk:Heat and User talk:Damorbel. Jheald (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport. [But not indef, but for a month.] The edit warring there is absurd, the article is a mess, and needs people who have a basic understanding of heat contributing, but not by edit warring. It is a technical subject which requires the assistance of someone who is an expert, and a topic ban is not warranted. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you have an evidence that Damorbel is an expert? Besides an article needs assistance of an expert who can provide convincing references to carry across their opinion. Also, article needs an assistance of a person skilled in resolving NPOV issues for a subject, if there are scholarly disagreements on the subject. If the community considers a certain contributor disruptive, an "oppose" without finding the facts of the matter is not helpful. The real problem with this and surrounding articles, such as Temperature, is that the talk pages there are battles of wikipedian's views and opinions, rather than battles of external sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The editor is using technical arguments to explain the issues, which would not be possible for someone with a high school awareness of the subject. My assessment of the article is that anyone with a good knowledge of the subject would agree that the current status of the article is that it is far from GA status. I did not see that the issues involved scholarly disagreements, which would be presented with references. The article lays out what heat was defined as when Maxwell wrote about it, which is fine, but I defy anyone to try to understand the largely unreferenced section Heat#Usage of words. The editor clearly needs to back off from trying to get everything they want inserted into the article, but not through the mechanism of a topic ban. I thoroughly agree that no matter how much of an expert someone is on a subject, they have to support their proposed edits with refs, and as many people have pointed out, anyone who is really an expert on a subject can readily find those refs (but they might be from a technical journal that is not widely available). Apteva (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Damorbel is pretty clearly far from an expert. See my explanation of where he went wrong back in 2010. But he's too committed to his viewpoint to listen. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • That is why we require RS's, and WP:V, but the editor in question has clearly studied thermodynamics, qualifying them as an expert in the subject. Do experts ever disagree? Absolutely, and we use RS's to document those differing points of view. Are they an expert at the post Doc level? Or at the Nobel prize level? That is not important. As far as the general public is concerned, anyone who has taken (and passed) even one thermodynamics course qualifies as an expert on heat and temperature. Apteva (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • He does not cite valid references (makes vague allusions to Einstein and early 20th C. scholarship), he continually pushes WP:FRINGE POV, attempts to justify it with being WP:RIGHT and posing logical paradoxes that don't even fit. If Al himself were to show up here pushing silliness without the cites to support it, he'd be rightfully ignored. "Expertise" is only helpful if the "expert" conforms to community behavioral standards, which Damorbel does not.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Diffs please - After a quick review of contribs, article and user Talk pages and the thread at WP:PHYSICS there is definitely something here that probably needs a remedy but diffs are needed to lay it out clearly. Zad68 03:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Neutral Support. I think Damorbel should look at thermal energy and the relationship between heat and thermal energy discussed here. I am not a good expert in this, but I do not see serious problems with current version. Damorbel should take a deep breath and edit something else or propose improvements that do not cause objections by others. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now Damorbel has added yet another round of edit war undoing of Heat: Revision as of (not utc), 19 July 2013 Damorbel (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 564795561 by Chjoaygame (talk) reason for change "he tried in a very kind and friendly way to be helpful" insufficient argument + personal). Now he has been warring based on a now-irrelevant disagreement about whether a particular post (and the single undo that I've done to him to date) was or wasn't helpful vs patronizing/personal. Your suggestion to look at Thermal_energy#Differentiation_from_heat is similar to dozens of suggestions that many of us have tried to make to him. Literally tens of thousands of words (probably hundreds of thousands if I look at more archives) have been written trying in vain to get him to stop, not just on Talk:Heat but on Talk:Thermal energy and probably others as well. I myself am guilty of writing several thousand of those words recently, engaging in these debates about the merits of his views themselves, in the hopes that he would stop re-instating them in the articles. I know I shouldn't have spent so much time on that, because the real point is that they are his own views, right or wrong, and are inconsistent with the definitions accepted in the physical sciences. Thus they represent OR, and WP is not the place to introduce them to the scientific community and argue their merits. I'm not sure why it matters whether he's studied thermodynamics -- he still can't singlehandedly decide that his own views and definitions trump those of the well-established consensus on these terms in the thermodynamic and physical science communities. At some point it has to stop being all of our jobs to convince him that he should stop removing the mainstream view from the articles and argue his case to the scientific community itself, not here. DavRosen (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many changes by Damorbel, such as this, are not improvements. He could make his point by making only minor changes in the current text. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking at additional examples below (such as this), it seems that Darmobel utterly failed to work in collaborative fashion. For example, he unilaterally (and without edit summary) removed a large paragraph with a perfectly reasonable historical description [5] and insisted on the removal rather than gradual improvement of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm leaning toward Support for a ban, but I'm not sure the editor fully appreciates the ramifications of this behavior. Would support severe warning, probation, which if they fail (as they probably would), leading toward a topic ban. He needs to understand that posting his POV without citation is harming Wikipedia. So far he appears to think its a personal dispute with a few WP:STICK wielding yahoos.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• This kind of situation is fed by the fact that editors with a science background often cannot resist engaging in endless discussions over the underlying science. Glancing at Talk:Heat shows lots of WP:NOTFORUM violations—what is needed is firm closing of unproductive discussions. An editor who is on a mission to demonstrate a flaw in physics or an article on physics will always have the last word. It's the other editors who have to stop replying. Focus on the article, and whether any proposal is verifiable and due, and close discussions based on opinions. If that situation were followed for a couple of weeks, it would be a lot easier to demonstrate that a particular editor should be topic banned (IMHO that is already clear, but the community has infinite patience for unhelpful contributions). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMPETENCE. I don't know quite what flavour of kookscience he's peddling, but it's crazy nonsense (a physics grad. writes). Nor does he show any sign of reigning it in. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Diff? Apteva (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The problem is not that the editor in question has his own views. The problem is that he edits in an aggressively violent and irrational way, and is unresponsive to reasonable comment. I think this is more or less what Jheald is referring to when he says that "it has gone past the point of being disruptive". As for "follow[ing it] for a couple of weeks", we have been following it for years. The method of "stop replying" just doesn't work in this case.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately everyone at heat and temperature has been violating expected WP:Talk page guidelines. Apteva (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Damorbel. I've reviewed the Heat talk page and I agree with the assessment and proposed solution. If someone wants a nutshell, read just the section Talk:Heat#Latest change to the article. Note that User:Cardamon has provided quotations from several textbooks there while Damorbel is simply talking out of his head and even peremptorily disagreeing with any textbook. And that does not seem to be an isolated incident per [6], which would be a BLP violation if these guys were not dead (he was trash-talking Lev Landau [a Nobel Prize winner] and Evgeny Lifshitz and a volume from their series Course of Theoretical Physics). Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their scholarship or credential, their contributions are definitely welcome, but simply need to be channeled in a manner that they can be used. For example, if they disagree with every text book, there is no reason to assume that text books will not change to reflect that view. Science is a constantly changing field, and half of everything that everyone knows becomes obsolete in four years. That means that Wikipedia also needs to document those changes, to explain what the science of heat considered over the years. We have the same situation with any number of articles, with experts proposing changes, but not being able to articulate them in a manner that we can easily use them. The solution is definitely not to topic ban everyone who knows something about a subject. This is the most recent edit that the editor wanted to include in the heat article.[7] The grammar is horrendous and the science questionable, but not a reason for asking for a topic ban. Apteva (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no evidence that Damorbel knows much if anything about the subject. (I personally don't know anyone with a graduate in Physics who hasn't heard of Landau and Lifshitz.) On the other hand there's plenty of evidence Damorbel dismisses or trash talks sources that contradict his poorly informed, idiosyncratic views. That's why a topic ban is needed: to stop wasting the more informed editors' time. You don't seem to be a stranger to problematic conduct yourself, per section above on this noticeboard. Kindly stop acting as the devil's advocate in this. You have replied to almost everyone who supports the topic ban; you oppose it, we got that already. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Damorbel's aggressive (and pretty clueless) editing [8] of these basic science articles seems to originate from another problematic preoccupation [9]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • @Apteva, we are supposed to use textbooks as they are currently written. Not as they might possibly be written in the future if they happened to change in such a way that they supported the opinion of a specific editor of wikipedia who sound clueless about physics. Science might change over time, but there is no indication that it's going change in that specific direction..... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, this guy is still pushing his misconceptions of physics on wikipedia? I looked at a few of his edits a few months ago, he was misunderstanding heat radiation and other stuff. It seems that he hasn't changed his behaviour. Wikipedia is not a physics internet forum to endlessly push personal misinterpretations of science. I support this ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Damorbel from topics related to heat, thermodynamics, greenhouse effect (already in effect, I think), global warming, etc. I think Someone not using his real name is right that the underlying problem is Damorbel's climate-denier POV, but I'm unclear on how that informs his edits on Heat. As for Apteva, he should just butt out of things that are this far over his head. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Damorbel was/is trying to prove the CO2 doesn't cause global warming (or something like that) by arguing from first principles, well at least his interpretation thereof [10], presumably after he "fixes" Wikipedia by removing all text based on these annoying science textbooks! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And if you wander why he (thinks he) needs to redefine heat for his purpose, the answer is here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support banning Damorbel from articles on thermodynamics topics because of recent edit [11] and banning Damorbel from associated talk pages due to wikilawyering attitudes. Can you believe I searched in contributions for a potential for improvement of Wikipedia? I did. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva, it sounds like you're saying that wikipedia is a good place for someone (like Damorel) to put forward his own unpublished viewpoint which contradicts every authoritative source on the subject. Even if he's an expert in the subject who has come up with views that could eventually replace the current authoritative consensus, he needs to demonstrate that through peer-reviewed publication and a dialog with the mainstream authoritites within the field, not by continually trying to intercept the communication of the mainstream viewpoint via wikipedia and replacing it with his own. This is a particularly egregious case of trying to publish your own OR in wikipedia articles, not just as additional, notable viewpoints when they're not, but as a replacement for the other viewpoint.

Even if, some day, he can support his view with some citations of notable contemporary dissenting publications (and I haven't seen him cite any myself that really qualify as this), they need to be presented as such in the article. What Damorbel does instead is repeatedly simply edits the article to replace the mainstream views he opposes with his own, throughout the article, where ever they occur. (I haven't even seen him even relegate the mainstream views to a section where they can be stated as alternative viewpoints in any form, but even if he did, it still wouldn't be acceptable to bury them or to banish them from the lede.) Invariably, a discussion ensues, either before or after someone reverts his changes (and possibly after he flips them back yet again), and he doesn't manage to convince any other editors that his changes are valid, but nonetheless he re-inserts them again later, sometimes based merely on a real or perceived personal insult by another editor on the talk page, which he cites as a WP policy violation and thus feels invalidate viewpoints that oppose his and justifies his reinstatement of his changes. And so the edit wars continue.

I don't think there's any question about the fact that Damorbel has abused his ability to make unilateral changes to the articles by continually changing and re-changing the mainstream views back to his own, even while the consensus continues to oppose him. The only question in my mind is whether he can and should be allowed to continue to post to the Talk pages, so that if he ever manages to convince other editors that he his views have become notable and verifiable, another editor can make the correspnding changes to the article, but Damorbel can't continue to do so unilaterally an unlimited number of times as he has been doing.

As for the practice of debating the pros and cons of a given point of view with Damorel (rather than its verifiability and notability), the fact that many editors have been drawn into this same behavior does not itself give Damorel the right to continue to make his unilateral changes with complete disregard for everyone else. I've been one of those editors recently, and all I can say is that I keep thinking that one more paragraph will make him realize that he's wrong and then he'll drop the whole thing -- problem solved. So long as he's been allowed to keep making his changes, that's been the only other means to stop him.

DavRosen (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is contributions are always welcome. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not the contributions that are a problem, it is the manner in which they are made that is a problem. What we need to find is a way to allow the contributions without the problems. For example, we have a mentorship program that the editor could certainly benefit from. Apteva (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I completely agree that "It is not the contributions that are a problem, it is the manner in which they are made that is a problem.". This proposed ban is entirely due to the manner in which Damorel has continued to "contribute", which is by edit-warring on the article itself, repeatedly removing the (mainstream) views and continually replacing them with his own unsourced/un-notable views, rather than by going to the talk page and actually building any consensus about verifiable and notable views. DavRosen (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some more links to highly problematic behavior/approach to sourcing: [12] [13] Basically Damorbel deleted half the article because he says he doesn't trust textbooks. The only source he trusts is basically a paper from 1857 [14]. What's incredibly amusing about this is that Damorbel claimed (in the previous diff) that he does trust Maxwell and Planck, but Damorbel still deleted [15] text cited to both. I think we're simply dealing with a troll here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also, he clearly lacks access to an academic library and deletes/objects to sources that are not free on the web [16]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Another edit which points to trolling [17] when coming from an editor that has been around for years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• More deletion of material (in another article) [18] sourced from Planck. I guess Damorbel's trust in Planck vanished in the meantime! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a troll. They have never created an article, and may never have read the MOS section on the lead of an article to know that we make the title bold to indicate what it is, not for emphasis. It sounds like they are only interested in working on views of heat in the 19th century, which is a component of the article, but is not the entire article. I wish them well, but my principle observation is that it simply is not advisable for Wikipedia to pick and choose from those who are interested in contributing, passing some and failing others. The correct model is to channel contributions in a manner that everyone is welcome and everyone can contribute. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • He should build himself a time machine and edit Wikipedia from the 19th century then! His contributions will then be in line with science of the day. Or heck, he'll be considered the foremost genius of his time! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is just another example of unilateral (without even edit summary) removal of sourced text that was clearly on the subject of the article over objections by others. This is a typical example of WP:DE. This is taking place through many article and over a long period of time. Therefore, the topic-ban seems reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Apteva: Please stop encouraging badness. This noticeboard often sees a disruptive and clueless editor who might be chanelled to do something productive. But then someoone starts adding "let's be nice" commentary, and the problem editor regards that as encouragement to continue down their path, until they end up indefinitely blocked when the problem becomes sufficiently clear. The purpose of the community is to build an encyclopedia, not to ensure that anyone on the Internet can contribute regardless of the associated disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem. Some stats. They have made 1,695 edits, 70% of them to article talk pages. They have edited 49 articles, making a total of 203 article edits. 137 were thermodynamics (or more, depending on which are included), but 47 were to heat, 37 to temperature, 9 to Planck's law, 7 to Wensleydale cheese, 6 to each of three thermodynamic related topics. 80 of their article edit summaries began with the words "undid revision". Just for comparison, I do a lot of vandal patrol, and 2 of my last 500 edits started with "undo good faith edit", and 11 with either "Undid revision" or "Reverted edits by".Apteva (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Can you explicate on what you think these stats show? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think they show very poor editing, and a huge amount of edit warring. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
            • And being basically a WP:SPA [19], which would not be a problem in itself if his contributions were useful, but most are not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Definitely an SPA, but only in the sense that there are only a small number of articles they are interested in editing, such as heat and temperature. Apteva (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on heat/thermodynamics, very broadly construed. I had thought the issue was just enthusiasm-exceeding-ability at some articles regarding heat, but the problem is more widespread, as shown above by the diff from Incnis Mrsi at "23:16, 20 July 2013". That diff, and its associated discussions, shows that Damorbel is using Wikipedia to push an agenda to "correct" science. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Or to include the facts of science that they were taught in school, and have learned. Science is a broad subject, and there is nothing wrong with having articles about each field and each point of view within each field. The problem with the heat article right now, is that it does not define the subject, and does not provide a clear view of the topic. It is written from the point of view of a grad student, and is not accessible to the general reading audience. In the last section, a muddled explanation is given that the article is not about what most people think of as heat but about Heat (physics). Early versions of the article used the topic sentence: "Heat (abbreviated Q, also called heat change) is the transfer of thermal energy between two bodies which are at different temperatures." (defining heat as heat change, and not as the garden variety of heat that everyone knows as heat, and which seems to be the type of heat that the editor in question wants to write about, which can go either in a separate article or in a separate section of this article) Feedback has not yet been activated for the article, but I do not think the responses would be very complimentary. At one point the article was redefined to be about heat as everyone else knows the word: "Heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter." What we are dealing with is like five blind people describing different parts of an elephant. Apteva (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • First. Heat as energy is already taught in high school physics books:
      • This book discusses the historical origin of the modern concept in the 19th century, and how people still confuse the old and the modern meaning in everyday situations, despite the modern concept existing for a long time. [20] pp. 383-384
      • Physics problems for talented high-school and undergraduate-level students: "If the temperature of the atmosphere rises, a part of the absorbed heat increases its internal energy, while the rest of the heat is converted to mechanical work due to the expansion of the gas." [21]page 386. The problems distinguish heat from temperature, etc.
      • "Heat energy is the energy associated with changes in internal energy", in the paragraphs above it talks about kinetic energy. Makes clear that heat is not kinetic energy. In other parts of the book it always uses heat only as a form of energy that appears as the result of certain processes. [22] p. 159
    • Second. Heat has been known as the transfer of energy for a long time. When I studied physics at the university, I was told that Tipler was the definitive guide on physics. From Tipler's 5th edition: "Heat is energy that is transferred from one system to another because of a difference in temperature. (...) The modern theory of heat did not emerge until the 1840s, (...) When heat energy flows into a substance, the temperature of the substance usually rises." pp. 566-567
    • Wikipedia should use the standard meaning, which has been known for decades and is being taught at high schools, colleges, and univerities. We should say very clearly that the alternative meaning is just a popular simplification that is not taught at schools. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, in one of the few occasions when Damorbel actually cited a source, it turns out he misrepresented it, as discussed at Talk:Temperature#This_edit; you can check the source in dispute here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I mean this in a purely descriptive way, rather than as an ad hominem: Damorbel is a clever, dedicated troll. Without going into whether he is right or wrong, he makes edits which many other editors disagree with. He then repeats his argument over and over, rarely engaging in productive discourse. When the other editors begin to drift away in frustration, begin to spit the hook, he becomes reasonable, agreeing with them here and there, playing out the line. He has a knowledge of the subject, and his agreements are insightful and can be very encouraging. Then, having re-engaged them, slowly returns to his original argument. The cycle begins again. For certain editors, this game can go on for weeks, months even. He has been playing this game for years. Having been hooked a few times myself, I now ignore every piece of bait that Damorbel offers on a talk page, revert only once those edits of his that I believe are nonsensical, and hope that other editors will step in and support my reversion when he offers an edit war by reverting me. If every editor behaved this way, I think the problem would be solved, but there are always new fish swimming into the pond unawares. Support. PAR (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In his last edits he is resorting too lame excuses for removing textbooks. First he claims that they are too expensive[23][24] (but they are not excesively expensive for this type of specialized material, and they are still accessible via academic libraries), and then he claims personal attacks in flimsy grounds [25][26]. He is using troll tactics to replace the mainstream view with his personal unsourced version of science (which seems to be very incorrect). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. I had to check those (could it really be true?), and I'm afraid it is as described. The four edits are within the last week, at Heat. The edit summary for the first diff is "Undone! Refs. @$300.00 absurdly inaccessible. Please find something better!". The second diff shows the same section being deleted, with summary "The section was deleted because the main ref. is inaccessible, making the whole section obscure.". The third diff shows a different revert; the revert is justified with edit summary 'DavRosen writes:- " Pls. take course or read textbk)" Personal attack!'. The fourth diff is similar. Damorbel should be topic banned to prevent further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Having looked at the evidence, a topic ban seems completely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on the diffs presented here. Whether troll, dunce, or something else, Damorbel is wasting an exorbitant amount of other editors' time with bad edits. Zueignung (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva seems to be going in all directions -- imploring us not to block Damorbel but rather to [keep] trying to channel his contributions so that they're constructive, then citing statistics that he admits "show very poor editing, and a huge amount of edit warring" on the part of Damorbel, and now most recently he apparently argues that Damorbel is merely trying to include "what most people think of as heat" that they "were taught in school". While I agree that the article needs a lot of work, and could be made more accessible to a larger readership, and could include a better explanation of the colloquial (and perhaps primary/secondary school science class) usage of the term "heat" (with reliable sources stating how they do use it) and how and why the definition in the modern physical sciences differs from it, none of this is what Damorbel has tried to do. Damorbel is advocating a point of view about heat in the physical sciences, as evidenced by his technical arguments. He isn't simply trying to rewrite the article to be about the colloquial or grade-school view of the term "heat", and he certainly isn't trying to add such views, but rather to replace parts of the technical definition of heat with his own. DavRosen (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  What? WP:FOC applies. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  What? Focus on Content is indeed a good idea in this situation. The editor in question is repeatedly introducing incorrect content. Are you arguing that introducing incorrect content is all right? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  Just to be fair, I'll point out that I believe "WP:FOC applies" was intended to respond to my post by suggesting that my post was focusing too much on him (Aptewa) as opposed to the subject at hand, although I disagree with that characterization of my post. DavRosen (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Whether a troll, or a POV pusher, the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and not WP:COMPETENT, and clearly never will be. Having looked through the evidence, I can see nothing at all that distinguishes him from a garden variety troll. Support indefinite ban from thermodynamics, global warming and all related areas of chemistry and physics, very broadly construed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The deletion of a textbook as a source due to the cost is bizarre, and the most likely explanation is that the user is simply trolling on the point. In any case, introduction of incorrect content is problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  CommentDamorbel has now proposed a distinction between heat and thermal energy that thermal energy is measured in Joules but that heat is measured in Joules/mol. This is not only contrary to academic practice, but changes the dimensionality of a physical quantity, a proposal that, if unsourced, is original research. If Damorbel is not a troll, he is engaged in original research and is wasting the time of editors who remember the thermodynamics that they studied in the twentieth century. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I smell socks. Sorry if this is the wrong way/venue, but I'm not an expert when it comes to sockpuppet investigations. However Damorbel quacks loudly like banned user GabrielVelasquez (talk · contribs). Same WP:COMPETENCE issues, same obsession with heat transfer, both of them have/have had formulae for calculating planetary temperatures on their user page. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  Request for investigation filed at WP:SPI -- Jheald (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have definite evidence, and I am not skilled in detecting sock-puppetry, but perhaps I may say that I am not strongly impressed that GabrielVelasquez is a puppet of Damorbel. They seem to me to have some distinct differences of character. That is not to say that either of them edits properly. Slightly irrelevantly, I have come across some persistent, troublesome, and I think inappropriate editing, which I now recognize as perhaps coming from a sock-puppet of GabrielVelasquez, about planetary temperature, at Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium#Equilibrium Temperature? (of planets. Copied from Kepler 11.).Chjoaygame (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be right -the table of planetary temperatures is more of a definite obsession of GV, from what I remember. Still I find it suspicious that there are two editors both with civility and competence issues, both involved in the topics of heat/temperatures, both with math formulae for planetary temperatures in their home page, both with very similar style quirks when upset (line breaks at every stop: [27], [28]) etc.etc. But for sure I've never been very good at spotting socking. I will be happy to apologize if I am wrong. -- cyclopia^speak! 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I tried to edit some thermo pages myself just a little, but I was surprized with a very harsh reaction. Now I may understand why: editors' frustration. Of course, my suggestions were not perfect, but I still think I had valid 2 cents to throw in. Nevertheless I abandoned the issue after a glimpse in the talk pages, with miles of bickering. Hopefully, this topic ban will defuse the poisonous atmosphere there, and the "page owners" will not be so trigger-happy and listen to what "passers-by" might say. I am not a rocket scientist, but I can see simple logic blunders. (I am not going into details of my grievance now. I will merely revisit the pages in 2-3 months.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose May I put my position?

I suggest this discussion contains no valid objections to my contributions but more to do with article ownership WP:OWNER for the following reasons:

1/Editor Chjoaygame is by far the largest contributor to the article on Heat with, at the time of writing, with a total of 221 edits (out of a total number (including deleted) of edits = 4,107) since starting editing at heat on 02 October 2011.

This is an impressive achievement, just double those by user User:Sadi Carnot (user UserSadi Carnot no longer edits in Wikipedia, he was permanently banned as a sockpuppet).

Editor Chjoaygame no doubt wishes the best of all possible progress for Wikipedia but his opinions about other editors should not govern his contributions. User:Chjoaygame should have good faith with regard to other contributors and try to reach a consensus through the talk pages.

2/Editor Chjoaygame refuses,with very many objections, to discuss his edits [29] instead he writes "Foolishly perhaps I will try just once to help you with your present difficulties". I suggest he wants to help me undestand an article that he has written!

3/Editor Chjoaygame tries to get me in banned as a Sockpuppet

4/Editor Chjoaygame tries to get assistance from William M. Connolley in his efforts to get me banned as an editor. Connolley refuses! Clearly from Chjoaygame's last statement (Editors PAR and 2... have eloquently and carefully explained, specifically for the benefit of our hero, the difference between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics) is colaborating with other contributors on this page to discredit my edits. PAR has contributed in support of a ban (block?) (PAR).

5/ Similarly and perhaps more anti-Wikipedia editor Waleswatcher promises to revert my stuff:-

If you make changes to articles along the lines you suggest, they will be reverted as they would violate wiki policy.

Waleswatcher, are you an administrator?

6/ Also JHeald writes:-

So I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this, and in future I shall just revert any more of this WP:OR from you on sight. Jheald (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

8/ Also I disturbed by the qualifications of some of those contrributing to this page, see:-

a/ User Someone not using his real name

You made your First edit: Jun 23, 2013 14:45:35 and since then you have made:-

Total edits (including deleted): 1,784

This is a great achievement but I would suggest you give some credibility to your position on topic banning me, just to get up to date on the detailed arguments I have put in the talk pages, since as far as I can see, you have only made about 11 contributions on heat and related matters. However, I relly appreciate your edit on Carathéodory

b/ Also user DavRosen

User DavRosen has contributed a total of 328 edits (including deleted) since Jun 05, 2013

DavRosen, I really would like to get involved with discussion where I find your very first contibution on Mass Energy Equivalence, maybe adding some references?

Again, although, in a space of 1.5 months you have made a lot of contributions in thermal and energy matters, do you think you are really familiar enough with Wikipedia discussions to ban other editors, especially when interacting with them?

9/ This is but a small fraction of the reasons why the article is in rather poor shape. I suggest there is no case for banning here, much more of a case for a reduction in personal attacks and a big, respectful, cleanup of the article.

My son is studiying at Leiden university and he is forbidden to use Wikipedia. The attitude shown by those contributing to this section is almost certainly one of the reasons. Not responding to criticism? Trying to ban reasoned argument?

For what it's worth I have worked on satellite systems, notably Skynet II power subsytems and also experimental projects for Spacelab

I have also examined patent applications in electrophysics. Sorry if you are unhappy about the arguments I put in the discussion pages, but the arguments a patent examiner makes have to stand up before the highest courts, they are never the examiner's opinions, that would be laughable. Further, in court you cannot say you will ignore the arguments of others, you would indeed be laughed out of court!

NB. If you want to discuss me I might just respond a little on my talk page, but nowhere else.

Come on gentlemen! A more positive attitude between editors and closer observation of the principles of Wikipedia would do a lot to enhance its reputation.

--Damorbel (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So.... you think that you are under attack by a small group of petty editors who are ignorant about thermodynamics? After all the comments above, you still think that you are following wikipedia content policies properly? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Damorbel, your response didn't address the substance of the objections to your behaviors that are being discussed here, so I don't see how it helps your case. If you are banned it won't be because your views themselves are not shared or adequately rebutted by the other editors, but because you repeatedly, unilaterally replace widely-accepted (I mean by the mainstream scientific community, not the editors) views with your own, without coming anywhere near "reaching consensus through the talk pages" as you implore editor Chjoaygame to do, no matter what any (or in fact nearly all) of the other editors say.

To your points, 1/ makes unrelated insinuations against Chjoagame, 1/ through 6/ give isolated quotes of Chjoagame and two other editors that may simply express frustration after many of the editors tried to assume good faith for a long time in quotes you didn't include, 7/ is absent, 8/ accuses two of us (of whom I'm not even among the 13 or so "Support"s above but have merely expressed my opinion favoring such) of being unqualified to have a view on this ban issue, and 9/ is your wrap-up paragraph.

Not one of those points either denies or justifies that you've continued to argue the merits of your views themselves and then unilaterally edit-war even though you were unable to obtain virtually any other editor as part of your "consensus", rather than making a case for the the verifiability or notability of the views in the published scientific community and obtaining consensus on that among the editors before reinstating your views yet another time. DavRosen (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose.

DavRosen, your view expressed here is that:-

The technical term heat does have some linguistic problems.

As an experienced thermodynamicist I do not have any 'linguistic problems' with the technical term 'Heat'. What I do see is a new editor trying to make an impact in a field that is new to him.

Now I don't know if you have read them yet but I have made two contributions here and here that explain the origin of your 'linguistic problems' with the technical terms of heat (and thermal energy).

Sorry to be blunt, but what you see as linguistic problems are actually technical problems with what the difference between 'Heat' and 'Thermal energy, as used by active thermodynamicists, actually is . --Damorbel (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Enric Naval's four diffs have persuaded me that Damorbel does not intend to abide by WP:RS and consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Persistent and ongoing misunderstanding of WP:RS, serious WP:IDHT problems, edit warring, WP:SOAPBOX issues. I don't doubt Damorbel's enthusiasm, and I won't question his good faith, but ultimately when working on a major project one needs to be able to work constructively and productively with other people—many of whom probably have the same level of expertise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• See recent posts at Talk:Heat by the editor in question. Still using a different definition of heat than that used by the article. ("Heat is the energy content of material due to its temperature.") Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it belongs in the article Heat (engineering), not the article that we have, which is Heat (physics). I would recommend a one month topic ban during which time they work with a mentor on basic Wikipedia editing principles. For this purpose, the topic ban should list articles not to edit, or at least specify Category:Thermodynamics, and not be subject to interpretation. Apteva (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

CfD backlog

Can a few admins look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Discussions awaiting closure? The backlog goes back to May 10! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In particular no discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 1 has been closed. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

urgent urgent URGENT!

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

---

What to do about this edit here!??? I just saw it and don't know what to do! Joke? maybe,... but if not this sounds serious! The Carabinieri can definitely help - call from anywhere 112 and they will pick the girl up and bring her to their nearest station, but I am at a loss here if just posting on her talk page that number will help! Advice please! thanks, noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Emailed emergency@wmf similar to WP:SUICIDE. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you for the quick response! noclador (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, a call from anywhere in Italy and the Carabinieri will respond. The IP address indicates whether it is in Italy. Anyway, the emergency was dealt with properly and has been redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Would somebody take a look here

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

---

At User talk:FrankSanello. I suggest the best thing is to revoke user's talk page access before he digs himself in any deeper. He's clearly very upset and so I don't consider his legal threat to take out a restraining order is anything but bad tempered posturing. But leaving him the option to vent on his talk page is wasting admin time (checking his unblock requests) and not calming the situation at all. Keri (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still receiving emails from this user, using the "reply" button I presume. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The username shares the same spelling as an author that we have an article about, and while contributions are welcome from everyone, the drama is not welcome. Apteva (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

They claim to be that person. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of "spamming" him again, we should probably tell him that he can turn off email notifications. I'll do so. Huon (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have taken an WP:IAR approach here by blanking the editor's talk page, using a minor edit to avoid a notification to the editor, and by giving it indefinite full protection. This will prevent further notifications to the editor and will allow them to leave in peace. Let's move on now.--v/r - TP 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a good use of IAR. Thanks for resolving it, TParis. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Block proposal of Baboon43

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite block of Baboon43 (talk · contribs · logs) as a preventative measure due to sustained combative and tendentious editing. This block could be successfully appealed based on the conditions outlined at the RFC/U.
I will start by voicing my support as the nominator.MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this proposal was outlined solely because i didnt participate in the rfc..on the other hand these are nothing but ill will and bad faith on the part of the user MezzoMezzo to have me not criticize his edits or respond to his accusations on talk pages....he launched an rfc after a talk page discussion got heated, and i made some remarks which i had apologized to him later on. basically all he did was bring up my past violations and use them as an excuse to have me put on wiki trial. the so called "endorsers" are mostly people i have had conflicts with in the past which makes the whole thing utterly biased. Baboon43 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As a commenter who didn't lean either way, the very fact that you failed to engage the community on the issues raised in the RFC/U is troubling. If you felt that the endorsers were biased, all you had to do was discuss it in the RFC and this step wouldn't have been necessary. You were notified that an RFC had been raised by declined to engage. I even left a note on your page informing you that a proposal to bring an indef block or community ban to AN was being discussed and all you did was delete the notification. I don't particularly care about you but in the spirit of fairness decided that you deserved a chance to voice yourself when drastic measures were being proposed. An RFC is not a "trial", it's an open forum to bring editors together to hash out their differences informally. All you had to do was discuss with the other editors and an understanding could be reached. I made some comments on the talk and project page of the RFC, but they were entirely procedural and I stand on neither side, but I can only say that you brought this upon yourself by not engaging. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef as per the RfC/U which Baboon refused to participate in, and the comment here, which is highly inappropriate and downright false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef as per the RfC/U's accepted solution, I had expected Baboon's participation, but in vain. Faizan 08:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef with the understanding that "indefinite != infinite". Of course the people who certified the RFC/U were people you had past negative encounters with - that's pretty much the rule with RFC/U's. The original intent of the RFC/U was to provide others with the opportunity to discuss and suggest your behaviour so that you could change to community norms. It gave you the opportunity to understand the concerns of others, explain your side, and allow you to politely question where you failed these norms. By refusing to participate, you personally forced the hand of the community as you showed you have no desire to conform to this community. You were also aware that the result of the RFC/U would be a recommendation for a block, yet you still thumbed your nose at the community. It's a little late to request "leniency" now ... you've had over a month to participate in a focus-group about you that was lenient. The overall concerns raised in the RFC/U are significant enough for an indef block. So, I recommend the block based on your behaviour, and your clearly-expressed unwillingness to change that behaviour. As such, the block is preventative (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

my participation at the rfc is not mandatory & a little note on my talk page says i shouldnt comment if im opposed to the block..coincidently by the user who drafted the ridiculous proposal. Baboon43 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right - your participation was not mandatory. Neither is brushing your teeth. Just as you're wise to use a little Colgate a couple of times a day to prevent losing teeth, you're also wise to participate in discussions about your behaviour - especially when it could lead to you losing access to editing this project. Sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "LALALALALALALA" when proven behavioural issues are being discussed, as well as potential solutions really was not helpful. An RFC/U is an attempt to help bring you towards community norms - the fact that you don't seem to believe you've done anything wrong is very concerning, and the proposals that were brought forward were very helpful - too bad you chose to reject the chance to amend your ways. As such, you clearly have rejected the very kind offer to help you remain as a community member ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a typo, which I have fixed. Common sense would tell you that you should speak out if you are opposed to a proposal (i.e. an indef block of yourself). Remaining quiet endorses such actions. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

right. & perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president of the united states. its quite simple this block proposal is a punitive measure for me not participating in the rfc which puts this on par with blackmail. stop putting words in my mouth to get me blocked. Baboon43 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That, Baboon, is part of the reason why you wound up here. Even if you find this to be inappropriate and unfair, comments like "perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president" are unnecessary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If this were a punitive measure for not engaging in the RFC (making the presumption that any admin would even do such a thing), then you would have been blocked less than a week into the RFC not a month later. The RFC is a number of editors saying "hi, we're concerned about the way you're doing things and we'd all like to have a chat about it". As I've said a number of times, your stubborn refusal to engage the community in an informal environment to hash out the issues without fear of sanctions ultimately meant that the editors were forced by you to propose sanctions. Blaming the community does nothing to help you. You had a month, you squandered it, now you'll have to deal with the consequences. If you're too stubborn to see that, then this will mostly likely be your final days here. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Recommending sanctions is beyond the scope of an RFC/U, which exists solely to work with the user. If it fails, the extent of the recommendation that can be made is that other mediation or arbitration be pursued. No specific remedy can be recommended. Recommending sanctions is like deciding the outcome of a trial before hearing any of the evidence. Apteva (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only RFC/Us I've ever seen that actually ended recommended sanctions... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Inappropriately. A venue can be recommended for further arbitration or mediation, but not the outcome of that mediation or arbitration (mediation for content disputes, arbitration, contrary to the name, means behavioral issues). No one can come here and say "we decided at the RFC/U thus and such should be the sanctions". What the RFC/U can say is we are not getting a response from the editor, and will need to bring this up at thus and such place. It is up to that thus and such place to determine what to do, not the RFC/U. After it is being discussed elsewhere, and it does not matter how it was brought up there, the RFC/U is closed with the statement to the effect that it is being discussed there, and a link to the exact venue/case where dispute resolution is continuing is provided. Deciding the outcome first is putting the cart before the horse. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva, the overwhelming consensus of editors who got you blocked by that process probably don't agree that is was "inappropriately". Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Apteva, if you look at the RFC a proposal was raised to sanction Baboon43. This indeed would have been beyond the remit of an RFC. But if you read the actual text, there was no request to sanction Baboon43. It was an expression of intent that a proposal for sanctions be raised on WP:AN. This is entirely procedurally appropriate. The proposal may have been leading, per legal parlance, but any editor would have been free to propose alternatives. Perhaps you should raise an alternative rather than harp at others. Blackmane (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at WP:Requests for comment/Baboon43#Template 3. As was pointed out there, "This proposed solution should be reworded". Our goal is never to find a way to block or sanction an editor, but to find a way that the editor will edit constructively and we will not need to block them. And if we fail, then a block or sanction is used to prevent us from having to clean up after them. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• And of course, you failed to realise that this is what the point of the RFC was in the first place. Furthermore, none of this would have been necessary if Baboon43 had come to the metaphoric table and sat down with the other editors to discuss it rather than dismiss it out of. Ironically, given that there is a sanction discussion on yourself under way you would take your own advice. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - the user refused to participate in the RfC and continued the behavior outlined in the RfC after it was filed - showing no regard for the concerns that were being brought forth. That, combined with the attitude taken when approached regarding the RfC (i.e. "I have to decline because I have other things to do") shows he simply doesn't care. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That would indicate a wake up block, not an indef block. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. It would indicate an indef block, with reasonings outlined by Bwilkins above. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

      I think we are saying the same thing. Per above "indefinite != infinite". Apteva (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

      • See WP:INDEF. This is what everyone is and has been talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - I've encountered him many times. He doesn't follow wikipedia protocols, always resort to edit-warring before a consensus is reached, doesn't work well with other editors, and overall very disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. The evidence in the RfC/U is pretty weak. At best it justifies a topic ban from religious movements, although the handful of problematic talk page comments were about the Wahhabis and Deobandis, so it could probably be narrowed down to Islam. Basically Baboon43 is somewhat clueless about Islam, but not more so than most Americans. Among his most heinous infractions are accusing a Saudi prince of being a Wahhabi [30]. While this may be inaccurate, according to PBS as cited in Wahhabi movement: "Al-Wahhab's teachings have become the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia." So while Baboon43 may require some remedial courses in Islam (to teach him about the religious minorities in the Saudi royal family), his infraction is as outlandish as accusing a Russian of being an Orthodox Christian. This is not the kind of stuff that should result in indef blocks. His linking of Deobandi's with Wahhabi funding [31] is not particularly jarring either; you can find fairly reliable sources for that in the Wikipedia article itself. (The diffs are from the RfC/U evidence.) Baboon43 does personalize the disputes somewhat; the example given in the RfC/U accusing MezzoMezzo, who self-identifies as Sunni, of being a Wahhabi himself is over the line, (see 1st diff) but I did not see evidence of that being repeated. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block per Someone not using his real name, Support a topic ban for articles relating to Islam. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• An addendum here: the RfC/U claimed that Baboon43 was "abusing multiple accounts" in 2012. The evidence linked there [32] shows some edit warring by some IPs assumed to Baboon43 while logged out. The RfC/U however failed to mention that the editor with whom Baboon43 edit warred there, User:AmandaParker, was "herself" blocked indefinitely for far more obvious sock-puppetry using multiple registered accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

i didnt use multiple accounts i just forgot to login. rfc also conveniently left out the fact that he turned the discussion personal by calling me a barelvi in this discussion. [33] which forced me to call him a wahabi on a separate talk page after he hounded me, which i shouldnt have..i find it hypocritical for him to bring this up on ani or rfc when one indulges in the same personal attacks. Baboon43 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming there is going to be a wiki future you, you should refrain from responding to WP:BAITING like you did. As you can see, the social dynamics of this venue make it rather probable that similar infractions receive widely different penalties, depending on how many wikifriends and wikienemies one has. Oh, and MezzoMezzo did not accuse anyone directly in that discussion; he is too clever for that. He just cast an aspersion on basically anyone disagreeing with him... Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here should ever depend on having "friends" or "enemies", and should solely be decided on its own merits, from the diffs that are provided, for example. All of us are working together to build an encyclopedia, and all of us are "friends". If anyone thinks they are an enemy, or have enemies, they are working on the wrong project. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to Darkness Shines and Someone not using his real name: Their POV edits are far from the only issue. The user is simply unable to edit collaboratively without abusing others, of which there is plenty of evidence, and their responses in this very thread are an example of that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef: BWilkins hit the nail on the head. Block is required to prevent continued disruptive behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Pointer to related discussion: Both blocks for edit warring of Baboon43 were against an editor (and his sock-puppet) with a much longer track record of disruption, so I've opened a separate ban discussion below for User:McKhan. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef According to the block log, this user has never been blocked before, despite their numerous attacks on other users' talk pages. If a block is being proposed, I don't think it should be indefinite.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• @User:Forward Unto Dawn, I'm looking at the user's block log right now and there are two previous blocks, both for edit warring. It might not change your position and I respect that, but I did a double-take when I saw "never been blocked before." MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's weird... I could have sworn that was blank yesterday. Well I would still suggest a block period of 1 month be imposed before an indefinite block is. Or, alternatively, a topic ban.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I did the same thing. My browser window was too small, and I did not realize I needed to scroll down to see the blocks. Apteva (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef to prevent further disruption and until Baboon43 can regain the trust of their fellow editors. The refusal to participate in an RFC/U of which they are the subject suggests a lack of respect for the community and its processes. There is ample evidence of behavior that is damaging to the collaborative nature of the project to justify a block of indefinite duration. - MrX 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Njmap-0219.png

Can someone tell me the original source, author and license template of this file: File:Njmap-0219.png? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The only information was "Map showing Fort Lee within Bergen County, NJ. Created by Charles O'Reilly from public-domain images at the State of New Jersey Web site. {{PD}}". It was uploaded by User:CharlieZeb on 17:07, 9 January 2005.--v/r - TP 11:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right place to make such requests? I've always made such requests here (when logged out or on my alternate, non-admin account), because I can't think of any better place, but we have so many boards for this and that and the other that I wonder if we might have something dedicated to looking at deleted pages. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of one for that, but another means is to ask any admin on their talk page. Apteva (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio and discussion in Commons--Musamies (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry blocked TRS at Commons; I've asked him to come here and offer input. TRS hasn't done much here except a lot of userspace edits (not good ones, but not reason for sanctions); he created a couple of file description pages without files (I've deleted them) as well as making a few mainspace edits, but after checking every edit he's made here, I see no reason to block on those grounds. However, INeverCry blocked him at Commons as the sock of another account, and that account is currently indef-blocked for vandalism. If they're clearly linked, a sockblock is in order, but I don't know the situation well enough to judge that question; that's why I've requested INeverCry's input. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed I ran CU on Commons, and the 2 accounts are definitely connected. I didn't see any other connected accounts there. INeverCry (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the account here. INeverCry (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban or possibly site ban of User:McKhan

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

---

While looking at the Baboon43 situation above, I saw that both instances of edit warring of Baboon43 were against User:McKhan or his sock-puppet User:AmandaParker. While the latter was blocked indefinitely after an investigation, McKhan got away with a one month-block. Furhermore McKhan has a much longer block log. [34] (Why he was not blocked in 2013 given incessant edit-warring [35] escapes me; presumably he got good at gaming WP:3RR.) Given that nuclear options are so popular here today, I propose a topic ban on Islam as the de minimis solution for stopping McKhan's disruption. A full site ban should be considered as well. Note the unrepentant attitude and personal attack after he was caught socking [36]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - this seems punitive at the moment; the last evidence of disruption hails from March, and the last block was last year. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because there isn't an bunch of editors of the same religious affiliation to open a RfC/U on him? You have evidently not read the talk page archives of Al-Abash; people were getting fed up of the feud between him and Baboon 43. Please read the comments of User:Darkness Shines and of User:SudoGhost mid April. I think that in view of the block log, this cannot be allowed to continue year after year, RfC/U or not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

His last block was for this. Personally I support a topic ban on McKhan, she has been massively disruptive on the Abash article for years. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for that diff; that's a far more appalling personal attack than anything I've seen imputed to Baboon43. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeating Lukeno94's question, is there any current problem that we need to deal with in order to protect the encyclopedia from McKhan? As the matter stands, there appears to be no indication of sockpuppetry for (a few days shy of) a year now, nor any blocks on his record since that time. I agree that the diff Darkness Shines points out is appalling, but McKhan has already 'served his time' for it (I would – I will note with emphasis – strongly endorse an indefinite block if he makes any sort of remark like that ever again.) No one has offered any diffs more recent than that to support the assertion that this editor is a problem. As far as I can see, at Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), McKhan hasn't made a single edit to the article since March, and he hasn't edited the talk page since April. McKhan also did not participate in the RfC/U or ban discussion above regarding Baboon43.

Pretend, for a moment, that this discussion might involve editors who haven't been following this dispute, and that it would be helpful for us to have diffs showing a pattern of relatively recent, ongoing misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If eight years of disruptive editing (including socking, egregious personal attacks, and persistent edit warring) are not enough to impose a topic ban on someone to prevent likely similar further disruption on that page, how many years do you think are needed before a preventative measure is taken? 15? 25? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - As an editor who is pretty familiar with McKhan in regards to the the issues brought up here, I don't see a topic band or any kind of indefinite block being necessary. I don't see any evidence of recent disruption; if the previous behavior were to have continued I would have supported something like this, but there's no disruption to prevent, so I don't think there's any cause for a block right now. I certainly understand the logic that brought about this discussion, Baboon43 and McKhan both clashed in a less-than-productive way at the Al-Ahbash article, and McKhan's behavior has certainly warranted such a proposal, but that was months ago from what I can tell, and I think such a block would only be punitive at this point. If it continues or there's evidence I've overlooked that shows that it is still ongoing that's another thing entirely and I would support it in that instance, but I don't see that being the case right now. - SudoGhost 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me since I don't care about McKhan's main battleground article, although you being one of those striving for NPOV there, will probably regret this at some point... Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Candidates for Speedy Deletion Cleanup

I would like to draw administrator attention to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The category overfloweth (5x the Backlog notice level) and a lot are from the abandoned AfC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• And please, if you delete an abandoned AfC, delete redirects to it. Earlier this month I deleted ~1500 broken redirects from the former title of the AfC submission in userspaces. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's down to a manageable size now. And yes, you're right, I went back through the G13s I'd just done and found quite a few extra G8s. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced content

Hi, on the page List of massacres in Turkey there has been by User:Alexikoua a mass removal of sourced text added by me.[37] I think this is a case of deletion of information because of WP:JDLI. But that intentions is hidden under cover of the argument that it was added by a topic banned user.

User:Alexikoua is claiming that I violated my ban on Greek topics, however I do not think this is the case and I think this page is unrelated to Greek topics. I think it is about the history of Turkey. But I have a question, even if it was in violation of a ban is it allowed to remove huge parts of reliably sourced content? Furthermore all the sources are reliable but have again been falsely accused of not being so.

In this case, my edits were:

1. fixing a wrongly inserted internet link,[38]
2. improving a source, [39]
3. improving the location of two massacres [40] [41]
4. adding a source on an event [42]
5. adding two neglected massacres. [43] [44]
6. adding the total deathtoll of the war [45]
7. adding an image of casualties [46]
8. improving the date of a massacre [47]

Since a while User:Alexikoua is behaving like he has a vendetta against my user, constantly checking my edits, threatening me on my talkpage, discrediting me against other users, also often falsely accusing sources of unreliability, often distorting sources and doing original research, I complained to the admins before however I was unsuccessful as none listens or believes me, can admins help me, I feel his behavior like WP:HOUNDING.

Can someone undo this mass removal of sourced content and my harmless contributions, thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

At June 12, DTiger received a 3 month topic ban [[48]] from Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk, as a result of an wp:ae filled against him [[49]]. There have been a number of users that kindly adviced him that making edits such the above ones (I'm sorry but claiming that a subject about "Greeks that killed Turks" is unrelated with "Greeks" can't be considered a serious argument) can be considered topic ban violations [[50]][[51]]. Unfortunately this was ignored [[52]] and DTiger continues to edit on the same subject. I've informed the admin who imposed the topic ban to take action if necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please tell this user to finally stop pretending that I add "claims", they are facts based on reliably sourced material.

For example I showed User:Alexikoua multiple sources which describe the Turks of Moldavia getting massacred [53], still he is ignoring five sources and distorted them into "claims" [54], is this source distortion allowed? This is exactly the behavior which does not fit in Wikipedia, but User:Alexikoua gets away with it everytime. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Or for example in this massacre Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21) persistently doing WP:OR denying sources and lowering the number of civilian victims from 5,500 to 35(!) and only because the victims were Turks(!). [55] DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether these are 'facts' or 'claims' or whether there's any even definite difference in this case, I don't understand how you can not appreciate adding statements clearly referring to Greeks is in violation of your topic ban. Whatever problems there may be with Alexikoua's edits, it's going to be difficult to notice with such clear topic ban violations distracting the issue, so if you want to stop them 'getting away with it everytime' as you allege happen I suggest you start respecting your topic ban so problems with other editors, if they exist, are not lost. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I see two major things: 1) a violation of the topic ban of DragonTiger23 (with action required for that) and 2) a very arbitrary removal by Alexikoua. As far as I know (but I can be wrong) it is suitable to remove edits from sockpuppets, not topic banned users. The Banner talk 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

For #2, please read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Edits in violation of a topic/page ban may be reverted without question. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, learning curve The Banner talk 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

^Inefficient bureaucracy at its best: no justice nor investigation. DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed true that edits in violation of a ban may be reverted without giving any further reason than that the edit was made in violation of a ban. The rationale is that "even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." If other editors (not acting at the behest of the banned editor) believe the material in question is appropriate and decide to re-add it on their own initiative, that is permissible — good material does not become permanently tainted just because a banned editor tried to add it. However, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." — and someone reinstating material under such circumstances should (IMO) make it very clear in their edit summary that they are re-adding the material in question on its own merits and on their own initiative. Indeed, in order to minimize the chance that such a reinstatement might be misinterpreted as someone being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned editor, I would suggest it would be wise to discuss the material on the article's talk page before reinstating it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the AE report that got DragonTiger23 sanctioned, it seems he often makes useful, valid content contributions, but he was topic banned for personal attacks. Alas he is going to have to wait out his topic ban before he can resume editing, even if he is mostly correct on content, e.g. I see no real problems with [56]. Such are the rules of the 'pedia... Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(S)he may have to wait out his topic ban even longer. As a general rule, violating a block or ban resets the clock on the original sanction. If DragonTiger23 is quite a ways into their sanctions, they've just made it worse for themselves. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

History merge

Can someone complete a history merge of Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service with User:Nick-D/Drafts3. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you're asking for this without asking me about it first (it's my user page, and I'm an admin so I could feasibly handle this...), that's not sensible easy given that the user page has been used to draft material for several articles. I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be... Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant for a selected merge of only this part of that history. Sorry for any confusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like such a difficult histmerge - I'd be willing to do it if others think it's a good idea. Ian Rose did credit Nick-D in the opening edit summary at Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, which I think is enough to preserve the attribution, so a histmerge isn't absolutely necessary. However, I think it always looks neater if the history for an article is kept in one place, so I'd prefer that it be done if only for the sake of aesthetics. It's not too big of a deal either way, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am an adamant supporter of unified histories. I see no reason why the history should not be unified. That is why I nominated it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are better things to be wasting bytes over :) Everyone works in their own way, and on Wikipedia we have a strong history of allowing people to take their own approach without being bothered by those who prefer a different way for their own work. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This request belongs at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Apteva (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)