Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:48, 12 February 2013

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 91 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 70 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 67 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 62 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Closed (for now). I missed this comment above by voorts while closing, WeatherWriter, could you clarify if the talk pages were notified? I'm not sure what is usually done if the RFC is not advertised broadly elsewhere. Soni (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy pings: Voorts and Soni). The two most recent pages affected (Tornadoes of 2024 and Tornadoes of 2023) were talk page notified. The discussion started over 2 months ago, so if I recall correctly, 2023/2024 were the only articles actually changed at that point in time. An IP-user changed several articles (2011-2022) after the discussion was started. I may have that timeline wrong, but either way, the 2023 article and 2024 article have way more views than any other article, with 2024 actually having over 100k views in the last 30 days. Notifying those, even if 2010-2022 had already been changed would have still caught the same editors as 2023/2024 notifications along with WP:Weather talk page, which was also notified. Even a check on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024 showed it was viewed over 7,000 times (not the article, the talk page). I think it was broadly notified. Plus, it was an RFC, which notified non-tornado editors as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the two talk page notifications is good for me. Soni (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MOSLAYOUT was not notified. I finally found the original discussion in the WikiProject Weather archives (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3#Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric). There wasn't a real consensus at the time to change any article except the Tornadoes of 2024 article. 2023's article was changed for a "here is what a completed article" looks like vs the 2024 article, which is obviously still in construction due to 2024 being the current year. Months later (it looks like 8 days before this discussion started) the IP user notified the WP:Weather talk page about planning to change previous year layouts (pre-2023 ones) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4#Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier). So my timeline was a little wrong, but even looking at the IP-users notification, editors started not liking the format which was used on 2023/2024's article. To me, pre-2022 didn't even have a consensus to be changed, which is why all the 1946-2010 articles weren't changed and this discussion was started. Hopefully that clears up the timeline. That let me dust off the old memory as well (lol). So the two articles with actual consensus to change were notified, as well as the place where they new layout format was discussed/gained consensus in the first place. MOSLAYOUT was not notified for that discussion nor this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 49 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	12	4	16
TfD	5	5	10
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	4	0	4
AfD	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 46 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 139 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{not done}}~~ per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 44 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)[reply]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is pv-magazine.com reliable?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 July 2024) A discussion about taking a source off the spam blacklist. Probably needs a formal close for it to be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

indian castes and CSD:A1

Hello, been away for a while, need 2nd opinion. I declined to speedy Komati Caste. Looks like no context does not apply, but sometimes it's better to ask, etc. Dloh cierekim 03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nowhere near being an A1, good decline. Courcelles 06:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought. Dloh cierekim 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not A1 but it needs some important fixing. I'd suggest somehow moving the content to replace that at Komati (caste), which is the more usual titling and currently contains information that I pretty much guarantee you cannot be supported per WP:V. I can sort out sources for the content of the declined CSD when I'm back editing properly - I'm User:Sitush, currently using someone else's PC. Mail me using the link on the Sitush userpage if you need confirmation. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just restored the redirect that was at Komati (caste) until recently. If someone wants to move Komati Caste to that title over the redirect then that's fine by me, and I can dig into it further when I am back on my feet. My suspicion is that the redirect is correct and there is some POV-pushing/forking going on but I'm not in a great place at the moment to follow through on that.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also needs to remove the sole section at Talk:Komati Caste because it seems to be extensive ~~copyright violation~~ close paraphrasing. I can't do it because a filter kicks in when I edit as an IP.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFER accepted, your input requested

Dewan357 (talk · contribs) sought my talk page to request an unblock; see User_talk:Drmies#Dewan357. They have an extensive SPI archive, having been blocked and socked on for instance Mughal Empire (still under protection because of Dewan's IP editing, last seen possibly August 2011). They claim not to have edited since August 2012 and I am inclined to believe them, but then I also dug a bunker in my yard and wore a tin-foil hat through December 1999. I don't know if accepting their request can come with conditions, like not editing those areas that got them in hot water in the first place; I have not identified those areas, but a discussion here can clarify and specify. It's up to you all. Also, I'm not sure if it's kosher for them to respond here at AN if needs be from their IP address; I don't have much of a problem with allowing a blocked editor to comment on their own talk page, my talk page, and this discussion, but that's up to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on block or unblock, but I thoroughly agree with your final sentence. Block evasion is a problem because it's generally disruptive, and commenting here in a reasonable manner isn't. Of course, doing anything else (or commenting here disruptively) is a comlpetely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the user is blocked. We have a convention to cover instances in which blocked users wish to comment on this forum. Tiderolls 08:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A convention that as many people seem to dislike as like. King of Hearts even sometimes does that trick where he sets up an edit filter that blocks them from editing anywhere but their talk page and AN. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The normal process is for the blocked user to post what they want copy/pasted to AN/ANI on their talkpage, plus a {{helpme}} request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the normal process {{unblock}}? NE Ent 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed the procedure laid out in WP:OFFER. Can we get to discussing the actual topic now? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock. NE Ent 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to lift restriction

RESTRICTION REMOVED

NE Ent 13:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am here again, three months after my restriction was enacted. During the last three months I have dedicated myself to learn from the mistakes I did, and to try to improve my understanding of the deletion policy and the non-admin closure guidelines. I recognize that I made several errors in judgement in my closures, and that I did some I shouldn't have. My intentions were always to help, as much as I could, but I understand that while doing so, I violated the spirit of the NACs, and caused problems I could have avoided. Also, I have tried to do my best to become a better Wikipedian and to not make more mistakes like those I did, and to help other users not to make those same mistakes.

Therefore, I am here, asking the community if enough time has elapsed since my restriction was enacted and if it could be lifted now, three months later. I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures (although I may seek guidance from an admin, likely Elen of the Roads or Mark Arsten, if I decide to perform a close); I believe that I have learned from that restriction: I have changed, and I hope I did it for the best. Finally, I'd like the community to consider this request as an apology for what I did, and as a commitment that I will do my best to improve further from that experience I had back in November. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support lift of restriction, as Hahc has really improved his skills and knowledge in the past three months. The restriction is no longer necessary. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be relevant. Crazynas^t 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the linked discussion where the restriction was enacted, you described the complaint as "Such absurd claims these are" and "As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme" - have you changed your mind about this, or do you still believe the complaint had those issues? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why my opinion on the original compliant has any relevance to its request for being lifted. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contradicts with your statement here which implies that the restriction was at one point necessary Till 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction was made by consensus; not everybody involved in a discussion must agree, but if there are more "support" than "oppose", it's so. That doesn't make a difference. Per the consensus (not my own opinion on the matter), the restriction no longer applies. Simple. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IN B4 "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that here you said the restriction is "no longer" necessary (which means it was necessary at 1 point), but in the original thread you said that it is not necessary at all. U can't go by 2 statements which contradict each other like that. Perhaps you meant "the restriction is not ncessary"? Btw—the restriction was not entirely made by consensus—Hahc agreed to it Till 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was basing my comment on consensus, not on my own personal opinion. I never said "I feel that it is no longer necessary." Per the consensus of his restriction, it was deemed that it was required because he hadn't known enough about policy. Clearly he has improved on such. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much of a "consensus" if u agree to it, duh Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Till: this thread is for discussing the lifting of a restriction on Hahc ... this thread is not about Status, and certainly not about Status' state of mind a few months ago. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who brought that issue up. Till 05:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support lift of restriction - I have seen Hahc21 around quite a lot and I would be quite happy to put my opinion towards lifting the edit restriction. This vote made by his alternative account is a good argument and matched closing consensus as did this one. This was not as extensive as I would expect but it does weigh a bit and matched closing consensus. At this article for deletion he picks up and give a good depth. I can not see at the moment a valid reason to keep this user under the restriction, Granted they now understand the policy that is responsible for AfDs. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support lift of restriction - Hahc21's been doing some fine work recently, and his apology seems sincere. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Hahc21: I think it would probably be a good idea to relax the restriction, but before I commit one way or the other I would like to see how your understanding has improved. If you are willing, could you pick any three AfD discussions that are currently open and that are eligible for non-admin closure, and tell us how you would close them? (Please understand that there is no need for you to answer this question if you don't want to; if you would rather not, that is absolutely fine.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not willing to do more NACs, I'd be glad to answer your question. Give me a day to find and evaluate three discussions and come here with a response. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: I have found the next discussions that may be considered for NAC:
  1. Moncton Christian Academy: It has only Keep votes, and all of them are based in policy and previous outcomes regarding high schools.
  2. Jenny Hill (politician): It has three keep votes. Although I'd prefer to see this relisted, the first Keep vote relies on a note from the notability guidelines for politicians, and the two subsequent votes echo this.
  3. WS FTP (2nd nomination): This one has four Keep votes. The first two stated how the topic may meet notability guidelines, and provided sources to back up these claims. The third and fourth votes echo this by stating that reliable sources are found and notability has been achieved. I don't expect this to receive any delete votes, and relisting it may not be necessary.
- I took those three from the February 6 log, which means that 7 days have yet to pass. I did that to avoid having them closed before you check them. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. One of the underlying problems in the original thread was that Hahc could not admit to his wrongdoings of making poor and problematic NAC closures. Now that he has acknowledged these errors it appears that the restriction does not seem necessary as it was before. However, I just hope that we won't see that kind of judgement in the form of closing discussions in the future Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to support. Have fun! Till 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support - I am inclined to think the user has learned from his mistakes, however I would be slightly worried about letting him resume doing NACs freely when the community has previously agreed he shouldn't; however, if Stradivarius' question above is answered successfully I see no other obstacle to the lifting of the restrictions. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Salvidrim, in case you missed it but in the openening paragraph Hahc21 stated 'I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures', Which should address your concern. Should that be the actual concern unless you are pointing some else out. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either he doesn't plan on doing NACs, in which case lifting the restriction is pointless, or he plans on doing NACs; the amount and regularity of them have no impact on the restrictions themselves. However if he agrees with Elen's offer just under to run the first few NACs by here, then I would personally have no other concerns about lifting the restriction. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉

It's not all about the act, you know. He is listed on a restriction list. And who would want their name there? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full support considering reply to Stradivarius with examples of potential NACs. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support lift of restrictions. Hahc21 has had considerable discussion with myself and also I believe with Mark Arsten about what went wrong and how NAC is intended to work. He has also shown himself very competent as a clerk trainee, which is way more complicated to pick up. I've suggested that run the first half dozen he thinks might be suitable for NAC past either myself or Mark, as a backstop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hahc21 made some mistakes and learned from them. We all make mistakes, it is part of the learning process. Time to move on. With Elen and Mark in the wings, the likelihood of a major mistake is pretty low. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he can be trusted to be careful with the closes from now on. Note that Hahc contacted me off-wiki about giving guidance if this is lifted, which I plan on doing. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there's an issue down the road it can be restored, but I don't think there will be. --Rs chen 7754 22:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user has obviously learnt from previous mistakes. -- Cheers, Riley 23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and exactly what Rschen7754 said above ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ending restriction. There wasn't either evidence of a massive problem or massive participation advising the restriction in the first place. AfD needs closers, although Administrators would be preferred. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting restriction. No longer needed, as many people above have said. Vaca tion 9 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support See how they go this time... (Should be OK, I think.) Peridon (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy close

FMPP'ed due to move-warring during discussion; I will decline the speedy close request, but will urge for discussion to continue. I have closed the unnecessary MRV and converted the existing discussion into an actual RM, which should've been done initially IMO. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a speedy close for this discussion. 5 editors support the move while only 1 is opposed. Pass a Method talk 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "require permission" to create things in the "Wikipedia" space -- It doesn't need a speedy close, it needs an admin move back over the redirect -- there was no justification for St. Anselm to unilaterally move it out of Wikipedia space -- if they felt it was inappropriate they can Mfd it. NE Ent 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a move is reverted it should be discussed. I based my objection on Category:Wikipedia essays, which says "User essays may be moved categorically into the Wikipedia namespace and this category if they are frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors." Clearly, that is not yet the case with this essay. In any case, I don't want the essay deleted - I just think it should stay in user space. Actually, it survived an MfD discussion a while ago, and many of the keep !votes were predicated on it being in user space. But this is the discussion we should have been having on the essay's talk page. I presented these arguments, and no-one has responded to them. St Anselm (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't care about the essay one way or the other, but this is setting a dangerous precedent -- if you don't like another user's Wikipedia: space just unilaterally move it into their userspace without going through the normal move process. Move requests are used for intranamespace moves, not internamespace moves. NE Ent 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for interaction ban-lift

This is an extensive discussion, and this decision is based both on that discussion and the behavior of one of the parties before and during this thread. User:Tristan noir is indefinitely topic-banned from any articles related to Japanese literature, broadly construed. User:Tristan noir is also subject to an interaction ban with User:Elvenscout742. Although Elvenscout742 is not subject to the same interaction ban, they are warned that poking the bear is not recommended (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[1] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[2][3] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[4] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[5][6][7] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[8] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[9] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[10], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[11][12] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[26], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[27] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[28] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[29][30][31] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[32] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[33] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[34] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[35]

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to Mokichi Saitō, Drmies told me off and reverted my edit, even though that edit had been both accidental and non-controversial. In reality I think it was more of a breach for him to be closely following my edits and to immediately complain when I did something he didn't like. But the technicalities of this ban means he is allowed do that and not get blocked, while I am not allowed to edit any of the above pages unless I want to get blocked. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for wikihounding and gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nyttends proposal. Pass a Method talk 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.
So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to Mokichi Saitō was not a "reversion" of TN's edit.[36][37] I mostly just cleaned up the refs. This is why I complained when Drmies reverted my edit, although I understand that TN was probably the one who misled Drmies into believing my edit had been in bad faith (it wouldn't be the first time). My edit was not an "interaction" with TN. TN's more recent edits, however, were obviously made in direct response to mine. Therefore, it seems reasonable that their edits should be taken as at least as much of a violation as mine. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we are going to count GregJackP one way or the other, we need clarification. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as neither of us was ever under a de jure TBAN, but my main problem now is that Tristan has been creating a de facto TBAN for me. GregJackP, though, seems to be in favour of a TBAN for Tristan. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Wikipedia before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support lifting of all bans on User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at WP:ANI. That troubled me briefly, as it seemed effectually to grant Elvenscout 24 hours to build a consensus while I struggled to dislodge the gag from my mouth, but c’est la vie where, in love as in war, all is fair. Nevertheless, let me attempt a summary, in good faith, of the situation as I see it.

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”

2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.

3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.

4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.

5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Wikipedia; all editing is voluntary.

6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.

7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Wikipedia is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.

8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?

9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.

10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Nyttend, how in good faith you may have misinterpreted the editing situation with respect to Mokichi Saitō and judged at that time that your 24 hour block was just. However, Drmies, with this edit two days ago, informed you that the situation with respect to that article was indeed as I described it and contrary to how Elvenscout has misrepresented the facts here. And yet you continue to impute bad faith (immediately above) to me on this score and continue to believe that the block, despite the clear history that Drmies offered you, was justified. More disturbing, however, is that you limit your comments to points I made about you and ignore the substantial evidence I provided above of Elvenscout's questionable edits and behavior.Tristan noir (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.

- - The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
  - The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[38] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
  - One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me.[39][40][41] Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82], in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe[83]). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari [84], and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[85][86][87] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
  - Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
  - Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
  - Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
  - Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
  - The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[88][89] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[90][91][92]
  - Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year.[93] So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post.[94][95][96][97][98][99] It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the above complaint of a “massive diatribe” from yours truly, my friends, is further evidence of Elvenscout’s hypocrisy. Read the prior ANI at your own risk and you will discover how Elvenscout can, by sheer doggedness, talk friend and foe alike to death.

Or look at the simple evidence before you here. Elvenscout has contributed eight posts and nearly 3000 words to this ANI thread. This is my third post and I’ve yet to hit the 1500 mark. True, he did have the minor advantage of a 24 hour headstart. How has he used it? To argue in self-serving fashion that Japanese literature “broadly construed” is his “preferred field” and one that others should not be allowed to trespass. One might humor his flawed logic if he were not on the verge of convincing others here that Japanese literature as broadly construed is indeed his personal possession.Tristan noir (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break for convenience

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since everyone should be treated as equals, I decided to respond to the situation on Tristan's terms. I would have hesitated anyway if I'd not been convinced that Tristan was editing in bad faith. Can we declare right now that Elvenscout is unbanned and then return to Tristan? Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that consensus was already pretty-well established. I am sure Tristan doesn't want to see me unbanned, but this isn't his decision. How does unbanning work? elvenscout742 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We say, "you're unbanned," and you are. Since I think I'm right in saying that all commentators so far have accepted that elvenscout should be free to edit again, I think it's safe to assume that the consensus is precisely that. You may freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working (although use your common sense and try and avoid getting into another spat with him - if you find yourself heading that way, ask for help). If anyone disagrees, this would be a good time to say so. As for Tristan, I've already said my piece, but the consensus seems to be to allow him to edit under some sort of ban - I'd propose a broadly-construed topic ban on articles relating to Japanese literature, myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems good. No one has been arguing for a narrow TBAN, but Nyttend mentioned Japanese "poetry" a few times. Banning Tristan from only poetry articles seems inappropriate, though, since of the thirteen articles I mentioned above, only three or four could possibly be taken as "poetry" articles. Japanese literature (broadly-construed) sounds like a good idea. I am also worried that without an IBAN (and I agree a one-way IBAN is problematic), Tristan might follow me to, say, Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain#Requested move 2, but a Japanese literature ban would prevent this. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misread what you said originally about Japanese literature, thinking that you'd said just poetry. No objections. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, Elvenscout sought to assure Drmies here, contrary to my assertion in point 2 of my Response above, that he had never violated the interaction ban by referencing me on Wikipedia by name. His exact words there are as follows: Additionally, he has claimed that the other edit mentioned him by name: you will notice that nowhere in the prose of any past version of User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal did I use TN's name.

This is typical of the misrepresentation of fact practised by Elvenscout and is further reason why participants here should look closely at the diffs I offered in my response. Elvenscout, as I reported to Drmies in my original complaint and as I reported on this thread, did indeed violate the ban not only my mentioning me by name but by launching a personal attack here on Jan. 19. His exact words in that edit, contrary to his denial before Drmies, were: This is a reference to a dispute I had with another user, whose activities on Wikipedia were limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars. The user had also continuously worked to undermine my edits to numerous articles on Japanese poetry and art, and continuously relied on ad hominem attacks against me rather than reliable sources. The hyperlink leads the reader directly to my contributions page and the whole remark is placed conveniently, lest the reader not get Elvenscout's point, under the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir.

In a similar spirit, Elvenscout, in edits to his own talk page on Jan. 30 here, here and here, again violates the ban by referencing me directly while recycling for the thousandth time his old attacks against me.

These four instances, and the vitriol of the remarks made by Elvenscout in them, seriously call into question Elvenscout’s good faith and veracity.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Tristan mentioned my name four times in his block appeal, so why is he allowed mention me by name and not vice versa? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through contributions and followed links carefully, not knowing whether to trust Elvenscout or to disbelieve him because I'd never heard of you or him. This includes edits that I checked because I felt like it even though nobody had linked them; if Elvenscout were trying to frame you, I would have caught it. Yes, Elvenscout's comments are rather long, but why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Elvenscout's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to him, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from his eye. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize this logion of Yeshua’s from my visits to Sunday School, Nyttend, and I will thank you for reminding me of it. We are all sinners. I wish, however, that you would address my remarks immediately above, since they, like my initial response which you seem largely to have ignored, are pertinent to any argument being made about lifting or modifying an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Wikipedia were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on Haibun [100], Haiga [101], Tanka prose etc.?? If so, I apologize, but you really shouldn't have posted those links to Wikipedia in the first place, as WP:SPAM and WP:OVERLINK, as well as WP:ELNO, are quite clear on that. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout, I’m sympathetic to the straights you were placed in by Joshu Sasori’s real-life threat and I agree that his indefinite block for making that threat was justified. What was not excuseable, and what was a direct violation of WP:IBAN, was your dragging my name into your conflict with another user and, while doing so, taking the opportunity to attack me personally yet again. So, I’m sorry about your problem with the other user. Beyond that, my above comments stand.Tristan noir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Tristan well knows from reading the page, I did not "drag his name" into anything. What he above calls "the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir" is not a sub-heading and he knows it. The page does not have original sub-headings as JoshuSasori's attack page did; it consists of a series of alternating quotations from JoshuSasori's page and my responses. The headings in the article contents are all JoshuSasori's original headings, but any other text he used has been marked as a quote. Since Tristan brought a specific edit I made to the page to the attention of Drmies, he must be aware that the code for the "sub-heading" as he calls it was "<blockquote>[[User:Tristan noir]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvenscout742#Personal_Remarks]</blockquote> ".

I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits.[102][103][104][105][106][107][108] THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.

Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a pointy edit[109] to Tanka, a couple of spammy edits[110][111][112] to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.

elvenscout742 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that you, Elvenscout, were directing traffic here. I thought you were merely another participant like me. Your "explanation" of your edits above, before you enter upon your Tristam Shandy-like digression, is amusing and disingenuous. Nevertheless, this discussion is open and ongoing. No one has formally closed it and no one has issued a ruling one way or the other. So, like it or not, your conduct, like my own, is open to review.Tristan noir (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since not one commentator on this discussion (which has now been open for four days) has so much as suggested that elvenscout's IBAN be retained, I stand by my earlier statement, which I reiterate here for clarity: Elvenscout is, by community consensus, no longer banned from editing pages which have previously been edited by Tristan noir. The question now is whether or not to impose a topic ban, continued one-way interaction ban, or indefinite block on Tristan noir. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir

Okay. I'm summarizing the above results in a table. If I can be forgiven for reading GregJackP's initial vote as being in favour of a TBAN (since he said "topic ban" twice, and seems to have simply misread Nyttend's proposal), and taking both Nyttend and Drmies as now supporting "any of the above" (whatever the majority consensus otherwise would be), it goes as follows:

One-way IBAN	"Japanese literature" TBAN	Indef block	Any of the above
Pass a Method	GregJackP	Yunshui	Nyttend
	Nathan Johnson	Stalwart	Drmies
	Boing! said Zebedee		Zad68

-- elvenscout742 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted GregJackP for his approval on my above interpretation. He did say he supported Nyttend's initial proposal, which was specifically an IBAN, so I guess we shouldn't count him out for an IBAN just yet. Also, can we take the TBAN topic as being "Japanese literature"? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed count myself (is this a community consensus or, being AN, an admin thing?), but I must admit to an ulterior motive for being in favour of an indef block: if Tristan noir weren't still around, this redirect could finally be dealt with. It only exists because Tristan noir unilaterally derailed an AfD, and despite his promise he has made no attempt to perform the merge that was suggested. Thanks to Drmies's fixing the page, a merge is likely no longer possible. But none of the proposed solutions (other than indef) address this minor issue. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #14 (and counting) by E. to this thread. I doubt that anyone here will object, Elvenscout, to your liberal offer to count yourself in the tally. Why not add your vote (or 14 votes, if you prefer) to your table above?Tristan noir (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding in a new heading since Elvenscout has had their topic ban lifted and the discussion has moved on to a discussion of sanctions that are to be applied to Tristan noir. I have no view in this matter, just merely making the threads easier to track. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban on Tristan, in the area of Japanese literature, broadly interpreted. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support some kind of action, elven shouldn't have to put up with nonsense, especially as elven is doing content development in an area that really requires a rare skillset on en.wp, consider my !vote to support any/all of the above. Zad68 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block. I proposed the original mutual bans because the content disputes were distracting both from content creation. The lifting of bans for Elvenscout has been well explained and dealt with. As soon as the ban was imposed, TN disappeared after only two more minor edits in early December. With no further contributions of his own (but obviously all the while keeping a close eye on E's contributions) TN suddenly re-appeared out of the blue at the end of January to report a "gotcha" breach to Drmies. There's been a spurt of editing activity since to suggest a "contribution" but I'm not convinced. The hounding alone is concerning enough. Time to shut this down and move on. Stalwart111 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are quite simple. E and I both volunteered for an interaction ban that Stalwart111 first proposed. Further, E, as I’ve demonstrated in the diffs in my Response above, violated that ban by referencing me (and negatively) in his user’s space and on his talk page, contrary to WP:IBAN. Elvenscout also violated the letter and spirit of the ban by following me to five articles he’d not previously edited, contrary to the specific terms of the ban as stipulated by Drmies, and he did so within days of being directly warned by Drmies that such activity would lead to a block. All of this is documented in my Response, and this evidence remains unaddressed by E’s apologists here.Tristan noir (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You hadn't made a single contribution since 9 December. On 19 January, E linked to your contributions to give a current dispute some context. A breach of the IBAN? Sure, maybe. But the very next day, you popped up again, having just happened to log back in the day after he made that edit? And you just happened to be looking through his edits? And you just happened to find the "gotcha" moment you reported? So my questions are these - how is that not hounding? And, how many times did you have to log in during that month-and-a-bit of zero edits to constantly trawl his contributions for mentions of you? Your 24-hour response time suggests at least once-a-day. But it doesn't really matter. Your wiki-stalking is far more serious and disruptive than a taken-out-of-context, context-giving link that might have breached a voluntary IBAN, in my opinion. And the other editors seem to agree, to the point where E's part of the ban has been lifted. Serious enough to finally confirm you are WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. Serious enough to warrant a block. Stalwart111 08:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle

I have never brought a situation to AN before, but the situation with User:Born2cycle cries out for a remedy. He is the very definition of a tendentious editor as described at WP:Consensus#Tendentious editing: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." The section WP:REHASH might also have been written with him in mind. His main interest at Wikipedia is article titles.

For background, Born2cycle has been brought before the community on two previous occasions that I know of. The first was a case at AN, specifically about him, January 19-21, 2012, suggesting that he be topic-banned from discussions about requested moves; the result was that he promised to improve his editing pattern, and the request for a topic ban was suspended. The second was an ArbCom case about a larger issue, opened in January 2012 and closed in March, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision, with one of the results being "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." I was not involved in either of those cases and was not aware of them until recently.

I have engaged with Born2cycle about the convention WP:USPLACE on numerous occasions. He is determined to overturn this convention and replace it with a "no unnecessary disambiguation" policy, and for years his relentless pursuit of that goal has dominated every related discussion or move request. The current case is here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Request for comment. A very recent previous example is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names. An example from last August is at Talk:Beverly Hills, California; he didn't notice the discussion until after it had been closed, whereupon he declared the close "premature" and immediately launched a new discussion on the topic so he could participate.

In the current case, as in all previous cases, he has dominated the discussion both in terms of number of posts (hopefully someone with the necessary tools can provide statistics) and in terms of number of words. He challenged commenters who disagreed with his position, arguing with their rationales and demanding that they respond to his criticisms. If someone did respond to his points, he dismissed their response as "WP:JDLI",[113] [114] no matter how reasoned and policy-based their response was. If someone wanted to discuss something other than his points, he dismissed their responses as "filibustering".[115] He insists that his interpretation of titling policy is the only correct one, and repeatedly says that the issue will continue to be "contentious" and "unresolved" until it is decided in accordance with what he believes to be policy.[116] [117] Numerous people at the current discussion found his attitude problematic.[118] [119] [120]

The requested statistics showing B2C's domination of the talk page in question are here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He disrespected editors who disagreed with him. Example: "I realize no change is possible here also until enough finally realize how silly their position is."[121] He later attempted to "apologize" for that comment by saying "If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it."[122] He also remarked that "blind conformance with the City, State convention" is the "hobgoblin of the little minds" who support the current convention.[123]

After he had a particularly contentious exchange with another editor, I posted a reminder of his past issues and his promise to change his editing style. (Full disclosure: I also called him "insufferable".)[124] His response in its entirety was "And... we're back to more filibustering!"[125] He then posted a note at my talk page, where he accused me of "disruptive editing," and copy-pasted all my contributions to the discussion (which I welcome anyone to review).[126]

Somebody suggested that he "take a breather" from that discussion,[127] and when he did, the discussion immediately dried up. There have been ~~two~~ ~~three~~ four additional !votes, but no further discussion. It was obvious that his participation had been the only thing propelling the "controversy". (Later comment: the fact that people are continuing to !vote, without additional discussion, since B2c stopped posting suggests that this kind of RfC works BETTER without all the verbiage and argumentation.)

At the same time, he has apparently been engaged in similar behavior at an RM discussion, Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2. I was not following that discussion, which resulted in a note about "unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part", posted on his talk page by User:Huwmanbeing. The comment deplored "your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own", and concluded "Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind."[128]. Born2cycle's reply did not acknowledge any problems with his behavior, and implied that the only basis for complaints about him is "people who are involved in disagreements with me".[129] Joining the conversation, I warned him I was considering taking him to ANI, and he replied by once again accusing me of disrupting the USPLACE discussion. His second reply to Huw was to deny any disruption on his part, and express puzzlement as to what Huw could possibly be talking about.[130]

He has written (and links to in discussions) an essay, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, in which he dismisses as "stonewalling" virtually all arguments in defense of the status quo (in his view, even good faith arguments in favor of the status quo are likely based on "denial" and "rationalization"), and pre-emptively defends himself against accusations of tendentious editing and TLDR posting.

It seems clear that he has NOT changed his editing style from the problems that brought him to AN a year ago and caused him to get a warning from ArbCom, and he has no insight into why his approach to editing may be considered problematic. The question is, what to do about it? There are various options.

OPTION A. Topic-ban from move discussions (and possibly RfCs at policy pages as well, such as the discussion I described above). This was the original proposal made at AN last year, suspended when he promised to change. I am reluctant to propose this, because titling is his main focus at Wikipedia, and he has done productive work in this area. However, it may be that nothing less will solve the problem.

OPTION B. Limited topic-ban for move discussions (and possibly for policy RfCs as well). This could take a form such as: he could make ONE comment, stating his opinion on the proposal at issue and his rationales. But he could not follow up or engage with other editors, because that is when he gets tendentious.

OPTION C. Warning and promise to change. That didn't work last time.

OPTION D. Warning and promise to change, with supervision. One or more admins would keep an eye on his posting patterns, and if he continues his problematic editing they could issue a topic ban or other recourse without further discussion.

OPTION E. No warning or finding against him.

I apologize for the length of this nomination, but it's a longstanding problem and I wanted to be thorough. I solicit the community's consensus with regard to this editor and will respect any decision. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I were to choose one of the options above, it would be option B, a limited topic ban where he could express his opinion but could not challenge the opinions of others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty TLDR opening statement, but I would suggest to you that noticeboards generally do not do a good job at handling long-term behavioral issues and they certainly don't do a good job at picking between five differebt options. I would suggest WP:RFCU, a process developed specifically to handle complex issues with user conduct. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN's coming here is partly due to me - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Advice?. My general view of RFC/U is not especially favourable, largely because it has no power to actually do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option B, or A as second option -- since he's already been warned at ARBATC that his contributions must reflect "higher tolerance for the views of other editors", and your diffs above show this has not occurred, action should be taken. I don't see anything wrong with having the discussion here, but you might want to consider WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should the discussion not determine a strong consensus in any particular direction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, or B as second option. When you're persistently disruptive in a field, avoid being banned by promising to start behaving, and continue being disruptive, we should implement the ban that was avoided in the first place. Someone who persistently advocates a bad idea against consensus is attempting to harm the encyclopedia, and someone who persistently advocates a good idea against consensus is trying to game the system. Regardless of which it is, the disruption needs to be stopped. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A as B2C's behavior is long-term, per Nyttend above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept Option B as well, if that's where consensus is going. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option F - if you're bothered by B2C's comments, ignore them. There is no consensus at WP:PLACE, especially with WP:USPLACE. I did not raise the current RFC proposal. The results of the survey so far clearly show, again, that there is no consensus (while a few more currently oppose, over 10 editors support the proposal - it's not like I'm the only one). Last I checked, the way we develop consensus on WP is through discussion; discussion among those who are interested in whatever issue it is. That's what has been going on at the RfC. When it was suggested that my contributions have been too much, I immediately stopped participating, as requested. My last edit there was last month.
As to Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2, the only complaint has been from the one person most heavily involved in the position that disagrees with mine. Please review it. My behavior there is not out of line. Just because I express disagreement, does not mean I do not listen to or do not respect the views of the others. To the contrary, I listen carefully, I explain what my understanding is, and why.
Is the purpose of WP:TE to muzzle people we disagree with? I ask, because that's how it's being used here.
On my talk page I asked how WP is being disrupted by my behavior[131]. Instead of anyone answering there, this AN was started, still without an answer to my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "filibustering". It's used several times on this very page, and I believe you're familiar with the term already. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're not conflating "any large amount of discussion" (regardless of purpose or motivation) with "filibustering". Filibustering is using discussion specifically for the purpose of delaying or avoiding decision-making. That's disruptive, of course. If you have an example of me actually doing that, please show me where, and identify what decision I was trying to delay with discussion. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm conflating nothing, your attempts to blow smoke notwithstanding. Your "question" -- such as it was -- was answered, and, as is usual with you, you didn't like the answer and thought that a blizzard of words would obscure that. Pretty much a good illustration of your problem, actually, so thanks for helping. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to "filibustering" to the question, "What, exactly, was disrupted [by my behavior]?", conveniently without specifying what progress was impeded where by the alleged "filibustering", is like responding with "granite" to the question, "What is the largest mammal on earth?". It's not an answer to the question. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, please see my response to your "question" on your talk page. (Full disclosure: my response was posted there AFTER B2C raised it again here.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, given that one of your bits of bad behavior is constantly demanding to be told what you're doing wrong over and over again, indulging in your latest round of WP:IDHT would be a mug's game. Especially since your opinion about whether I've proved anything to YOUR satisfaction is completely irrelevant, since it's not your decision to make here. But tell you what: you explain, exactly, how progress was "impeded by the alleged 'filibustering'" where YOU used the term, then I'll think about it. But not very hard. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option A. Given that B2C's behavior is long-standing and repeated, and that previous warnings, a threatened topic ban, and even promises of reform have failed to curb it, I think that option A is the only path likely to avoid further continued disruption. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Period. Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, reading the pages is also the only way to fairly evaluate the situation. Are you encouraging people participating here to not do that? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a reading deficit? Because it would take a massive one to generate that conclusion.
  - To help you out: 1) the statement "Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed" is a description of the problem. 2) You are the cause of the problem. 3) Therefore, topic-banning you will solve said problem.
  - If that's not clear, I could translate it into Pig Latin for you. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me for saying something, Calton, but I don't think this approach is helping the discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not playing his game here: if wants to make up stuff about the plain English I wrote, he can expect pushback. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A would certainly help WP work more smoothly. B2C's usual mode is essentially filibustering, and generally acting on the assumption that if his voluminous points are not all refuted to his satisfaction, then he should get his way. The energy he pours into titles and related policy therefore requires a greater effort from others to try to restrain him. I don't know what Melanie means by "he has done productive work in this area", as I consider all the things he managed to push through at WP:AT over the last several years to be destructive, diminishing the consideration of any of the titling criteria besides conciseness. He's at it again, attacking WP:USPLACE shortly after losing a big RFC there, trying to make all city article titles as concise as possible. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I have sometimes asked his opinion on how to title a particular article and found him helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, prefer Option B over option A. But in Option B, allow a brief specific answer to any specific question, with answers to questions requesting elaboration to be made on the questioner's usertalk page. Brevity in responses and followups is a likely helpful solution for someone accused of verbosity and tendentiousness. I advise B2C to commit to attempting this voluntarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but FWIW, option D sounds reasonable, though it requires that someone "mind" this editor to some extent. Option A might work better, or a variant of it that focused on particular article naming topics that B2C has been tendentious about. (an expandable list, should the tendentiousness spread). Option A, while probably frustrating at first, would be less likely to feel oppressive/creepy, since B2C wouldn't be being followed around by a watcher. Option B, even as clarified by Smokeyjoe, sounds complicated. I have basically nothing but a vote of no confidence in AE, an ArbCom more generally, on AT/MOS topics until the applicability of and sanctions available under WP:ARBATC are clarified, either in the ongoing WP:ARCA request or otherwise (nothing against the arbs personally, of course; it's a procedural clarity problem). So AN does seem like the right forum. The problem here, to me, with B2C is that this editor was already a WP:AE and WP:ARBATC named party and subject to restrictions, and also the beneficiary of a reprieve from some restrictions, but only on the basis of promises, that are now broken. Lots of people at lots of pages have been more than patient enough with Born2Cycle's pattern of WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOXing/WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, however you want to look at it. [My stalking and harassing WP:WIKIHOUNDs take note: I have said nothing personalizing about B2C, and am addressing the user's editing pattern, as presented by the evidence above, not the editor personally.] — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However you want to look at it? Is that another way of saying surely there is some rule somewhere that B2C is violating; let's not bother with finding out exactly which one and how he has breached it?
  It is my understanding that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX are about discouraging importing external politics into Wikipedia. To apply them to internal WP politics (what guidelines/policies should or shouldn't say) makes no sense.
  I categorically deny WP:BATTLEGROUNDing - I normally pay almost no attention to who is commenting, only to what is said.
  I think this illustrates that there is no actual guideline/policy to which my behavior does not adhere. That does not mean there is no problem, but that sanctioning me is unfair, until that behavior is properly recognized and described in writing in a policy that can be fairly applied to everyone. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I obviously mean by "however you want to look at it" that all of those policies and guidelines (and more besides, e.g. WP:GREATWRONGS) address the same behavior: tendentious editing (which has already been pointed out to you is not just an essay, but part of WP:CONSENSUS policy itself in shorter form) to advance a personal agenda that one is championing. Doing so is a violation of WP:Disruptive editing policy. Do you agree that you are not magically exempt from that policy, or did you have some more wikilawyering to browbeat us with first? Also, the abundant evidence already cited shows that you do in clear fact have a tendency to criticize the editor not the edit, so your main defense here is already contradicted. Simply repeating it as if it hadn't been is fallacious. The fact that you've responded to virtually everything here with haughty, dismissive denials and tortured rationalization, as if all commentators on your behavior are just crazy, is itself problematic. So is the fact that your editing is so agenda-based that you feel compelled to post a FAQ about your agendas. Try editing from a neutral point of view instead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too would prefer D, but I can't see much chance of it working (and am not volunteering for the job). Otherwise, I'd go for Option A with B as second choice. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Discussion is vital, of course, but it is very difficult to have productive discussions with B2C, and this is a longstanding problem involving many editors. About 73% of his nearly 20,000 edits are on talk pages -- which in itself is not necessarily negative, as all editors are different. But considering the difficulties that have frequently appeared on his own talk page over several years, and the fact that a year ago he promised to change but doesn't seem to have done so, I am not sure what would really help aside from option A. Omnedon (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option B: I don’t think silencing B2C is appropriate as suggested by Option A, but I do think limiting him to stating his position once without the license to challenge and essentially berate anyone who disagrees with him is warranted. The following is typical of his style: Note to the closer: If you are about to close this discussion as "no consensus", I urge you to review the sordid history of the debate over the title of the main article, and to not make the same mistake that multiple closers made there year after year - ignoring the strength of the arguments supporting a move, and instead essentially counting !votes, and closing such discussions as "no consensus". That happened at least 7 times over at least 8 years, before logic and reason finally prevailed. Don't let that happen here. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [132] He thus threatens any closer who makes a decision contrary to his position. In my experience it is not an idle threat either, as he will take follow-on actions to essentially bludgeon admins and the community to comply with his position. Giving B2C continued license to behave this way will continue to disrupt the community.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option B (broadly considered; i.e., if the same matter comes up again, he is not allowed to comment even once, except perhaps to refer briefly to a previous comment.), or possibly Option A. It's been shown options C E F do not work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option B as first choice, Option A as a second choice. B2C has shown that he's not willing to accept consensus once it is decided and is instead willing to overwhelm Wikipedia with his feelings on matters of article titles, especially as it relates to U.S. placenames, until through sheer power of will, he can discourage participation from others rather than change consensus. That's the definition of tendentious editing, and while I don't see the need to prevent him from giving is opinion, once, on any discussion, the incessant badgering and WP:IDHT repetitiveness of his involvement in these discussions needs to cease. --Jayron32 17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option B. I'd prefer D but who's going to do it? b2c makes good points in move discussions. But, unfortunately, he does have the tendency to keep making them :) Hopefully, option B will give us the best of both worlds. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading some of the comments below (ErikHaugen, PBS, etc.), I should add that I agree that B2C generally makes good points and should definitely not be silenced. The caveat is that he can be excessively persistent, almost (if not quite) to the point of tendentiousness. There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view but, if you keep doing that after a consensus has been established, that can be very frustrating. If b2c voluntarily agreed to back off when he's losing an argument, that would be perfect. But, I note that that's already been tried. With some trepidation, I'm willing to serve as his "time to shut up" mentor for option D if that's something people are willing to consider. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option B which should hopefully allow him to comment without the IDHT and filibustering problems, and only if that does not work, then Option A. Black Kite (talk)
Option G, trout-wacking all around. As can be seen here, the vast majority of the comments come from B2C and the three next most prolific contributors. Surely blaming B2C alone for tendentious editing is not the most fair approach; the opposition is guilty of the same sin just as much (actually, slightly more). If any measures are to be taken against B2C, they should be applied equally to his most vociferous opponents. But I still think all-around trouting is the best outcome here. Heck, trout me as well for the good measure—I certainly could have made fewer (and shorter) comments there!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 19:18 (UTC)
- Or not. Defending policy and guideline pages against concerted POV pushing against already-established consensus is not what is meant by tendentious editing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
1. WP:TE is an essay and is not grounds for sanctioning.
2. WP:DE, specifically WP:IDHT, applies to situations where someone has "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". I realize many responding above believe that applies to me. Please let me explain why I believe it does not.
  One of my long-held positions is that US city titles that require disambiguation should be disambiguated with parentheses (e.g., Portland (Oregon) instead of Portland, Oregon). However, I have not argued this in years because I know community consensus disagrees. I know that arguing that would be disruptive, so I don't.
  Discussions at Talk:Yogurt persisted for years and years (and started long before I got involved; see Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory, which I wrote). Every time the issue was surveyed there, the result was, apparently, "no consensus". This went on for years, and so did the endless discussions, until all the arguments were presented in a way that they could be weighed against each, and I presented the history of the situation. Finally, the article was moved, and the issue was resolved. My point was I did not perpetuate a dispute there (or anywhere else) by sticking to a viewpoint "long after the consensus of the community has decided [to move on]", because there was no such consensus about that in that situation.
  The situation is similar at WP:USPLACE. I never bring up the issue there. Others do. And every time I am not the only one who favors change. Yes, there is no consensus to change, but there is also no consensus to keep, so there is no evidence that community consensus is to move on.
3. People don't like how much and how often I participate in some discussions, especially (but not only) if they disagree with my position. I get that. But unless and until that, and just that, is explicitly recognized as disruptive behavior that is not tolerated by the community, I should not be sanctioned for it.
4. I would be delighted to participate with any and all of you in an effort to add something to WP:DE that would describe the behavior that you seek to discourage, stated in objective terms, and get consensus for its inclusion in WP:DE. It could be as simple as saying that posting more than a certain number of times to a given discussion is a sign of disruption. I will of course abide by any such consensus supported general rule; but it's entirely unfair to expect me or anyone else to adhere to "special" unwritten rules invented specifically for that person, and not generalized and specified in writing for all to follow.
Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Born2Cycle: Small note regarding your first point. Although, WP:TE is indeed an essay, it is elucidating a point in the consensus policy:[133]

The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Crazynas^t 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Crazynas. I admit to having editorial goals (see my user page and FAQ linked there). But I deny that the pursuit of these goals is continuous. For example, one goal of mine is to bring uniformity to USPLACE consistent with how other articles are titled, particularly other place titles (disambiguate only when necessary). But my efforts towards that goal are not continuous, which is a necessary characteristic for this section to apply (imagine if it simply said "the ~~continuous,~~ aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive" - WP talk pages would be riddled with violations - that is, the "continuous" aspect must be present for the goal pursuit to be problematic). There are breaks in my editing towards that goal that are multiple months if not years long. It's true that whenever someone else raises the topic, I usually if not always jump in, and, arguably, with passion (comparable to what I'm bringing to this discussion now). But I think "aggressive" is overstating it (am I "aggressive" here?).

I also would like to bring your attention to these key words: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except...". Do you believe that there is a "consensus" which I refuse to allow? If so, what consensus is that, where was it established, and how am I refusing to allow it? Again, even at the RfC proposal in question, it's still open, and there are substantial numbers on both sides... no consensus there... Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Clarification about "continuous". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was really just pointing out that editors that argue that you are tendentious have a policy basis. My comment wasn't intended to show bias either way regarding your behavior, although from my brief look it takes (at least) two to tango. Crazynas^t 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My point is that merely being "tendentious" (in the pure dictionary sense) is not enough to establish policy basis, not that that means there is no problem. Besides, TE is obviously intended to apply to inappropiate pushing of external views - like someone who tendentiously promotes a pro-life or anti-abortion view on WP articles and talk pages. I don't think it was intended to apply to views about internal political issues. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that consensus is a principle intended to support the fourth pillar. Crazynas^t 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think consensus and related concepts are fairly well defined? I do.

As to the fourth pillar, I intend for all of my interactions to be respectful and civil. I know some do not agree that is true of all of my interactions, but I find I'm usually misunderstood when people hold this view. And some people seem to react to the expression of almost any disagreement as being inherently disrespectful or uncivil. It makes it very challenging to develop consensus once you're viewed as being disrespectful or uncivil. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E—I'm just not seeing it. I've read over several of these pages that MelanieN linked to and I don't see anything terribly objectionable. B2C obviously cares about these issues and is willing to comment on them whenever the opportunity arises, but everything is on-topic and helpful for the flow of the argument, etc. B2C is not starting the same SNOW discussion over and over again in different forums, wall-of-texting, or doing anything along those lines that is terribly objectionable or disruptive. A lot of the responses from B2C are in response to attacks, so those oughtn't be sanctioned. Sheer volume isn't something we're going to ban for, is it? . What I *am* seeing in these discussions is MelanieN needlessly confronting B2C, personalizing the dispute and adding heat to the discussion. HaugenErik (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sanction or restriction Born2Cycle is disruptive for commenting on an RFC started by TBrandley (talk · contribs) which isn't even close to an obvious consensus??? Lots of folks support the RFC, and, as HaugenErik mentions above, multiple editors are addressing B2C personally; so personal replies are the logical response. NE Ent 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to elect to comment for now. B2C getting involved in a topic tends to limit participation by others. Add to that the lengthy discussions and many editors find it impossible follow and comprehend. That can create a case where decisions are made without many really understanding the discussion. Or maybe a better comment is most editors don't have the time to read a novel to make decisions. I must acknowledge that over the last few years, B2C and I have been on opposite sides of many issues. If some type of edit restrictions were decided on, it might make discussions on policy and guidelines shorter and allow better participation by other editors. If that is a desirable outcome, then so be it. Does anyone know what percentage of B2Cs edits are in article space? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15.19%. The largest part of his contributions are on article talk pages (38.66%), followed by Wikipedia talk (25.92%). [134] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A, or B as second option because of filibustering across countless move discussions. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option E - While the recent discussions regarding US place names have been quite long and frequent, I don't think silencing Born2cycle or otherwise limiting his ability to contribute to discussions is a good option. The repeated discussions (which are rarely started by B2C) go on and on because B2C makes points over and over again and a few other editors respond to (and disagree with) all of his comments over and over again. I completely agree with Ezhiki's point above; if these discussions are getting "out-of-hand," it is because of B2C and other prolific editors who mostly oppose B2C's views. As someone who has participated (albeit briefly) in many of these RfCs, I have noticed that B2C has become an easy target for the opposition - silencing him just doesn't seem like a fair or necessary option. Cheers, Rai•me 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option E See here (it is in a collapsed boxYog(h)urt), here and here. I have found over the years that whether B2C are on the same side of an argument or different sides, he is responsive to arguments based on policy and guidelines. His arguments are usually based on guidance and policy and his verbose mode is engaged when he is addressing arguments of the "ME TOO" type, where the persons saying "me too" are supporting a position that comes down to "I don't like it", and it I think it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. One of the problems that we have is that closing admins too often close RfCs, AfDs and RMs by treating opinions as votes, and while that continues to be the case, interested parties that hold different POVs will continue to question the opinions of others in the way that B2C does. -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have become very concerned over the last year in the number of cases I have seen (usually after they are closed) where parties to long running disagreements are trying to get people they disagree with banned. There is a quote in the Terrorism article that I think is appropriate when slightly modified:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: tendentious [sic] is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

As I have said several times before I think that Wikipedia processes such as this AN is an area where Wikipedia is badly broken. It can deal with new editors quite efficiently, but for high profile editors such as B2C, it is nearly impossible for an AN or ANI to deal with them fairly. This is because an AN, ANI (or user RFC) process involves editors acting as prosecutors judges and executioners, or defenders, judges and exoneraters. The current process reminds me of Members of the House of Lords trying one of their peers, before the committee of the Law Lords was created (Lord Clifford's trial (1935)). -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option E: Agree with PBS. LittleBen (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note that all but one of the expressions of support for B2C came after he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Shall B2C be topic banned? . --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN As it happens I am an administrator. Does surprise you (or any one else?) if I had this page on my watch list (along with severl 1000 others). But even if I had come here from the link you gave, would that be a reason besmirching my good faith? If not, and you have already said "he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way)" why bring it up here? Given that you initiated this section did you consider that others would see your posting as neutral? Did you read what I wrote above about "prosecutors, judges and executioners", or are you just being tenacious in presenting you POV about B2C? The last phrase was inserted make the point about tenacious being used on Wikipeida talk pages like terrorist is in the popular press -- it may be true, but even if not it is a really good attack word with the advantage of a woolly fussy meaning As you have made this comment, I now think you have opened the door to my commenting on your initial posting to this thread. Do you really think that natural justice is served by the prosecutor listing and thereby framing a set of options as possible sanctions against the accused? Or would natural justice be better served if you had brought you complaint and the a list of possible sanctions was constructed by a disinterested third party? -- PBS (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly happy to see options proposed by any disinterested third party, or for that matter anyone (Born2cycle himself offered Option F, "ignore me", and Ezhiki offered option G, "trouts all around"). I simply thought it would be a useful way to frame the discussion to offer a complete range of options, including "topic ban" (which I did not recommend, but which was the recommendation discussed and suspended at ANI a year ago), three less drastic possibilities, and "take no action." If you think I left out any options, or would prefer a different framing entirely, feel free to propose. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option E. Erik Haugen's and PBS's comments above ring true to me. Yes, B2C comments a lot, but a reading over his comments there shows them to be largely reasonable and on-topic. If he initiated these discussions all the time, rather than simply participating in them when they occur, that would be one thing, but that doesn't appear to be the case. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Space Agency

Dealt with on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There has been a lengthy discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Space_Agency#Moon_program_claim) about a claim that Iran will send astronauts to moon by 2025.

Some non-Iranian media have stated a target date (2025) for the project. None of the articles has mentioned an Iranian source for the date. There is not a SINGLE credible or official Iranian source for the date. So I added a sentence that "the date is not mentioned in local Iranian media or official sources." Now a user User:Darkness_Shines continuously removes the sentence.

There is no source that mentions the date (2025) in Iranian media. I have searched carefully and asked (in the talk page) for the editors to find such a reference if any but no-one has been able to provide any Iranian source.

Please comment. Sarmadys (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining that I am removing your OR from an article? That is most certainly a new approach. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. As it says at the top, "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." If you want an Admin to do something, go to WP:ANI but I'd strongly advise you not to do this as your edit was original research. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking admins to advise and stop the specific modification. It is in regard to verifiability. I suggested that we add a statement that there is no reference in Iranian media until a single reference is found. The official website of Iranian News Agency (http://www.isa.ir/components1.php?rQV==wHQyAkOklUZnFWdn5WYMJXZ0VWbhJXYw9lZ8B0N3QDQ6QWStVGdp9lZ8BUM4ATMApDZJ52bpR3Yh9lZ) announces the program but does not mention a date for it. It does however mention a date for sending astronauts to lower orbit (2020). Sarmadys (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to WP:ANI Sarmadys (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as another editor has reinserted that OR I would appreciate an admin going over to that article and explain policy Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge being discussed in three places

This doesn't require urgent admin action, but I just thought I should draw someone's attention to it. The article Christopher Jordan Dorner, wanted suspect in the 2013 Southern California shootings, is up for deletion. The entire discussion has not been about deleting the article, but about whether to keep it separate or merge it into the shootings article. The same merge discussion is also taking place at Talk:Christopher Jordan Dorner and Talk:2013 Southern California shootings. The first two discussions seem to be tending towards a 'keep separate' consensus, while the third is tending towards a 'merge'. I don't envy the admin who tries to close this lot and decide what the overall consensus is. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator, and no-one else has !voted delete, so IMO that discussion should be speedy-closed as keep, with a comment about where to discuss keep-or-merge. Strictly speaking that discussion should be the one at at Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect since that article is the target of the proposed merge. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the AfD has been closed more or less as you suggest. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Dzerigian

Can you please check Ashley Dzerigian? I think there's a copyrigt violation from user Romansbarbie. Thanks, --Delfort (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. In the future, please find the source (in this case, it's http://www.fender.com/artists/profile/ashleydzerigian/; google is frequently a good tool for this). Secondly, remove the content from the current version of the page; and thirdly, place a {{Copyvio-revdel}} on the page (see on the template's description page how to do this). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! --Delfort (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or if there is no salvageable copyright-free content, tag it for G12 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Sounds

I intend to relaunch this process; it was going fairly well up until my long wikibreak, when the people I had entrusted to do the things that would have ensured its survival - for instance, one arbitrator had promised me he would make sure the already-voted-and-agreed-upon presence on the main page, which would have given it enough prominence to attract contributors, as well as the incredibly useful bargaining chip that Featured Pictures has used very effectively to get companies, institutions, and individuals to release material, in the interest of exposure. There were also problems with a few people who insisted that it had to have impossible standards from the start, before it had time to collect the community that allows featured pictures to have such high standards (For comparison, consider the first year of Featured Pictures or the first few Featured articles to today's. All other featured processes have had a gradual building up of quality.)

But, never mind. I intend to relaunch this; I suspect it doesn't really need much more than people willing to participate, and more exposure. Anyone interested? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is required to relaunch it, I believe. The talk page is the obvious place for this. Tony (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan

The question about deletion procedure has been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs)

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

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted Falsification of history in Azerbaijan article, without even nominating it for deletion. He claims that the article was "a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content".

I find this unacceptable. As long as I know, Wikipedia is a community and admins don't have the right to delete articles without even a little discussion. The article was mostly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and the article there [135] was created in 2008 and as you can see it still exists. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(This is also in reply to your similar message on my talk page.) Yes, administrators do have that right, under the circumstances described at WP:CSD. You can contest the applicability of the speedy deletion criteria at WP:DRV, if you want. But after a very brief review of the (poorly translated and therefore difficult to read) article, it appears very much possible that, if remanded to a deletion discussion, the article would be deleted again for the reasons Future Perfect at Sunrise gave. Be advised that editors who misuse Wikipedia articles to pursue real-world conflicts related to Armenia or Azerbaijan may be made subject to sanctions according to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2. Sandstein 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, you find no reliable sources there? The fact that the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life isn't my fault. Why you are advising me not to document their vandalism? What is Wikipedia for? There are numerous cases of Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists trying to present Armenian cultural monuments as Caucasian Albanian and even old Turkic. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the deleted article speaks for itself. It is a WP:Attack article, and as such has no place in Wikipedia. The fact that it referred to some sources does not mean that one can create a blatantly POV article to attack a certain nation. Grandmaster 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The title "Armenian Genocide" might be questioned by you as well. Here are some third-party sources calling it falsification [136], [137]. Now what? And even if the title was POV, as you claim, it could've been just changed. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite a million sources using the term "Armenian terrorism", yet we have no such article here, even though there's an article with that title in the Russian wikipedia, and you object to the use of the term in various articles describing attacks on Turkish diplomats. And the Iranian source that you quoted is not the best to be used here, Wikipedia does not base its articles on partisan sources. Grandmaster 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, this is the administrators' noticeboard. Content discussions are offtopic here; they belong on article or project talk pages. Please do not prolong unproductive discussions by engaging in content discussions on this board. Sandstein 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this thread be closed. The article was obviously and flagrantly written to do nothing but disparage and degrade the subject. It made absolutely no attempt to portray a balanced view point and as such is the definition of an attack page. Ranting attack page=CSD. Take this somewhere else and move along. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest recovering the article, tagging it as POV, while we can clean it up and rename it. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is enough. Yerevanci, you have already been notified previously about the possibility of discretionary sanctions under the authority of the Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2. By seeking to add this sort of content to Wikipedia, and with your arguments in this thread, you are misusing Wikipedia to argue in favor of your views regarding the political conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I have no opinion about these views as such, but Wikipedia, and this board specifically, is not the place to air them. As the Arbitration Committee established in the abovementioned decision, "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable." Furthermore, the Committee established that "Editors with a national background" – such as you, judging from your user page – "are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view." Your conduct here is at odds with these instructions, and with our principle of WP:NPOV. To underline the importance of these rules and prevent a contination of such conduct, I am considering to ban you from editing anything related to the topic of Armenia and Azerbaijan for the duration of a month. Is there anything you wish to say about that? Sandstein 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dear Sandstein. Look. There are numerous third-party sources that prove that the Azerbaijani government falsifies the fact that Armenian cultural monuments exist in the territory of Azerbaijan by "making" them Caucasian Albanian. In other cases, like Armenian cemetery in Julfa they simply destroy the Armenian cultural heritage. Let's forget about the article. Where should this info go? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the topic. I suppose there are articles about the conflict between the two countries, or about culture in Azerbaijan, in which such issues can be addressed, if they are covered by reliable independent sources and there is consensus for their inclusion. However, that's not a topic for discussion on this board. Because the initial question has been answered, I'm marking this thread as closed. Sandstein 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overdue PROD

Deleted by User:Joe Decker. Crazynas^t 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure where to put this. So there is this page(Irene Lombard) that has this over due PROD. So can you delete that page. Thank you.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comical (sort of)

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

First look at the ~~garbage~~ ~~drivel~~ wonderful Jackpot article. Then look at Muffeiy's contributions (and deleted contributions), who seems to be intent on creating articles for each of the strips supposedly in the comic books. I'm not sure if the comic book is notable, although I tend to doubt it, but the strips? And, just like the writers of the article, Muffeiy has trouble writing anything coherent. I get tired looking at it all. Who wants to do something about it (lazily passing the buck), assuming others agree that something should be done? Tag the articles for speedy deletion? Delete them without tagging? Have a good talking to to Muffeiy. All of the above.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there —Rutebega (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the right age, gender and nationality to remember all of these comics. Jackpot is just about notable, and if not it can certainly go as a footnote pointing towards Fleetway in Jackpot (disambiguation) - it's not as well remembered as Whizzer and Chips or Buster, and nowhere near as notable as The Beano, but as a comic available for general purchase in most newsagents when I was young, it probably qualifies. As for the characters, since CSD A7 doesn't apply to fictional characters, your best bet is to PROD or redirect them. Anyway, this discussion belongs on Talk:Jackpot (Fleetway comics), not here. This doesn't require administrator action. I would suggest we all take a deep breath, send him off to the teahouse, and put our super sized comic fangs (available free in Cor!! issue 42) away. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree with you (not about the A7), but it doesn't seem to be grabbing anyone, so it appears that I'm in a minority. I deleted one article about a person (A7), and I deleted one of the strip articles (A1) because it was so confusing I didn't understand what the subject of the article was. Having since explored the editor's contributions, I now do know what the article was about. In any event, I'll just let it go. One piece of good news: it appears that the editor is talking to more experienced editors, and her comments sound constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP range block

I have been reverting edits by an IP user from Colombia, who persistently and repeatedly vandalizing football related articles for last several months, such as Colombia national football team, Japan national football team, North Korea national football team, South Korea national football team, etc. in the same way by adding false match information on. IP addresses recently used are such as 181.154.213.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.157.213.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.157.164.24‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 181.157.213.218‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 180.253.30.210‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), etc. Nothing seems to work to stop the vandal although warnings were given and those above IPs were temporarily blocked. I would like to ask administrators if you could enforce the range block. Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editor Brews Ohare - is there any solution?

I am having trouble with user Brews ohare, and am seriously concerned with his capacity to edit Wikipedia. I am suggesting a permanent ban on user Brews Ohare. Does anyone else agree with this proposal?

Complaint: It is unwise to have this user editing Wikipedia. He can write quite well (dangerously so), but his comprehension is atrocious - including his knowledge of those subjects contained in the articles that he is modifying. This often results in multi-layered Talk discussions, which involve correcting his misinterpretations infinitum. I don't have this amount of time, and think it is better spent in service of Wikipedia in general rather than administering one particular editor.

I have spent nearly a year now cleaning up after Brews Ohare (I cannot even estimate the number of hours spent - well over 100). I have tried my best to direct him personally towards a more constructive and reflective editing path. He doesn't seem to have an appreciation for the serious nature of content inaccuracy (including the importance of communicating perspectives commonly held in the literature), let alone the fact he is editing an Encyclopaedia. The total cost of time laid upon Wikipedia editors here cannot be justified.

Here are just some examples of content inaccuracy which exceed my time to administer (note it may be more worthwhile reviewing some of the content which has had to be reverted instead). Note he is in the process of continually deleting one or more of these notices;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_mental_causation Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causal_closure Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_determinism Importance-section|date=February 2013

A current example of his ability to function professionally as a editor is here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physical_determinism

Thanks for your time.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from participating in physics, broadly construed, which physical determinism certainly falls under. There has already been one trip to arbitration since his return from a block, resulting in a final warning over his behavior.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes here: (Keep in mind that I have never worked with either of you, and consider myself wholly impartial in this matter.)

CBAN requests are very serious. They require a LOT of evidence, and should ideally contain as few inflammatory terms as possible. Starting your complaint with It is unwise to have this user editing Wikipedia. He can write quite well (dangerously so), but his comprehension is atrocious really doesn't help anything. (Btw, what does it mean to edit "dangerously well"? Whatever it is, sounds cool! What do I have to do to make my edits so good they're dangerous?)
You have, according to Popups, 788 edits. Brews has 36,255. Now, his history with ArbCom shows that there are clearly some issues with his editing, but I don't think you really get to claim that he's wasted a huge amount of your time. To spend "over 100" hours dealing with him, you'd have to be spending an average of 7 minutes on every single edit... if you are doing that, you might want to give WP:TL;DR a gander.
I don't know what you did wrong with your diffs, but please fix them. I hope you can appreciate the irony of complaining about somebody's competence and then making formatting errors in the complaint.

So please clean this up if you want it to go anywhere. If you don't, I'm just gonna close the thread, since at this point it's nothing but some vaguely substantiated personal attacks. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Brews is Long Winded/Handed for sure but he is here to help this project. I'm not here to say that this doesn't cause some issues but if we boot him because he wants to spend his time explaining himself that is ludicrous. he isn't trolling, and he is lending his considerable knowledge and expertise to Wikipedia at no cost, we should be thanking him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Banning/blocking is the last resort. Have you tried mediation? Conflict resolution? Seeking a third party to offer help/advice? A little unsure of how one can edit dangerously. Dloh cierekim 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is actually one of the first resorts if an active ArbCom remedy is violated, which is mentioned above. If the ArbCom remedy is indeed being violated, then an ArbEnforcement should be applied and logged as appropriate in the right areas. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I didn't realise he was banned from participating in physics (which would surely benefit at least some editors on Wikipedia). Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of geonotice

Resolved

I don't know the best way to highlight this, given that {{Edit protected}} only works on talk pages, but someone may want to remove a geonotice as requested here. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any clue what page needs to be edited to remove it? I went to remove it, but I found that I have no clue where to go. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is MediaWiki:Geonotice.js. Lookin' at it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guessed that it would be MediaWiki:Geonotice, which obviously doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my first instinct, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of possible conflict of interest

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 472: / Line 472: @@
 :'''comment''' Banning/blocking is the last resort. Have you tried mediation? Conflict resolution? Seeking a third party to offer help/advice? A little unsure of how one can edit dangerously. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font>]] 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 ::Blocking is actually one of the first resorts if an active ArbCom remedy is violated, which is mentioned above. If the ArbCom remedy is indeed being violated, then an ArbEnforcement should be applied and logged as appropriate in the right areas. [[User:gwickwire|<span style="color:#3D0376">gwickwire</span>]]<span style="position:absolute"><sup>[[user talk:gwickwire|talk]]</sup></span><sub>[[special:contributions/gwickwire|edits]]</sub> 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
+: Thank you for your support. I didn't realise he was banned from participating in physics (which would surely benefit at least some editors on Wikipedia). [[User:Richardbrucebaxter|Richardbrucebaxter]] ([[User talk:Richardbrucebaxter|talk]]) 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 == Removal of geonotice ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards