Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 19 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 88 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 47 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 2 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	41	0	41
AfD	0	0	20	0	20

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 50 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 294 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 10 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 5 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page[2]. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Article taken from sandbox

Without sounding overly dramatic, what is the process when somebody steals an article from your sandbox? I'm talking about Jack Harper (footballer) which has been entirely lifted (via C&P) by Meeneunos10 (talk · contribs) from User:GiantSnowman/Jack Harper. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still in your sandbox. The other fellow merely copied what you had & beat you to creating the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And in the process, 'merely' omitted to note the source, thereby violating copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my issue, Andy. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A histmerge should be performed. I've tagged the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of these two pages but I would like to hear GiantSnowman's opinion. You must have had a reason to keep the draft in your sandbox without publishing it, so maybe it should be moved back? De728631 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It remained in my sandbox because he is not (yet, in my opinion) notable... GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he replies. In all his edits he's only posted once to a talk page. I'm not fond of non-communicative editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I don't approve of copying content from other people's user space without asking for permission. As to notability, I'd say Jack Harper is borderline notable given that he's been covered by multiple reliable sources. But I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Could WP:CSD#G7 apply here? GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just move it back to your sandbox and delete the redirect? Number 57 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit flummoxed by this, so for clarification - Has this guy just nicked a draft article from Mr. Snowman and passed it off as his own? Are there no policies about this sort of thing? Can't we give him a good slapping behind the bike sheds? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was copyvio. I've been bold and moved it back (and fixed the categories so they show but don't add the article to the categories). Hope I haven't upset anyone but I think that's the best solution. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I thought should be done, but I wasn't sure (hence why I raised it here - and when it happened previously, with a different user, we went through AFD). GiantSnowman 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

NeilN left a good msg to him, I've upped that ante, so they should get the message. Dennis - 2¢ 20:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Doug. I think this is the best solution. But just like GiantSnowman I was thinking along the lines of an AfD. The latter should then preferably have resulted in a move back to user space. But if we can spare some bureaucratic act then that's all the better. De728631 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More generally, if editor A writes a drat in their sandbox, and editor B thinks it is ready to be an article, or that they can contribute to it, editor B is perfectly entitled to move it to user space, or to draft space, or to edit it further. Nobody owns an article. All contributions to WP in any space are irrevocable ,and anyone may use it for any purpose, including the creation of a wikipedia article. sandboxes and draft space are there for protection of incomplete articles against deletion, not to create a private space.

Attribution is of course necessary, and is best provided by moving the page. We routinely move drafts from user space to draft space (formerly, to AfC). I have a number of times moved user sandboxes or unsubmitted drafts to article space if I think they are ready, but the user is not working on them. (It is ofcourse courteous to inform the user if the user is still active)

If the move is by copypaste, the attribution can easily be provided inseveral ways ; a history merge is preferred from a sandbox, because the earlier material might be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is correct... but I think there ought to be a behavioral standard that calls for at least a user talk message prior to moving a draft someone's written entirely themselves to mainspace. Sometimes editors sit on drafts for awhile, for instance because of sourcing concerns, and may even start working on something else (while this has happened to me, I'm not complaining about any specific instance since I'm ultimately fine with the choice of the editor who made the pagemove). I just think that, particularly where the creator is active, and the draft isn't so old as to be G13-eligible, the creator's input (though not necessarily permission) should be sought before moving it out of userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on this thread, excuse the intrusion. Unfortunately the discussion has taken my rather irrational but troubling article creation phobia to a whole new level. It was my understanding that a sandbox was a private user space, a workshop, a garage, where one could create and tinker in peace on work. Editors may not "own" articles but individual editors create the article concept. That is an individual, not a collegiate process. So one could one be working on an article, have the cites, pics, text 90% ready, and then it is taken? How does this explain the scores of "Articles I have created" lists on the talkpages of some of our most prolific content-creators?. There does appear to be an original conceptual "ownership", until an article is released onto mainspace, where it does indeed become common intellectual property, to be worked on by all. I find this concept mildly disturbing. Irondome (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Irondome: is that a thinly veiled accusation of OWNership aimed at myself? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I quote the intro to WP:OWN — Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Yes, you have the legal right to copy someone's sandbox into mainspace, but you absolutely must attribute it, and if you don't (e.g. this situation), you've committed copyright infringement. Copying it to mainspace, with proper attribution, is legal, but it goes against our community norms, and in most cases it's definitely not respectful. The answers to "Is X legal" and "Is X appropriate" are very often significantly different. Nobody's likely to complain if you move content to mainspace from the sandbox of a user who's been inactive for a long time, but (1) you still ought to leave a talk page note, in case the user comes back, and (2) that's because good content ought not be forgotten simply because the user's no longer active. This is quite different from when the user is still active; even if you think its writer has forgotten it, you should simply leave a talk page note, not copy the content to mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the user's page, moving something from someone else's user space "is like a stranger walking up and eating food from your plate at a restaurant, without asking." Even if done with attribution, it is still a rude act. While it doesn't break any copyright policy if done properly, as a behavior, it should be discouraged. You should ask first unless you know the user is no longer active. While none of us owns our user space, there is no question that we each are granted a higher degree of control over it, and this should be respected. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something very wrong about this situation. Until the article is released/published by the author and placed into article space, it is not an "article", and thus is protected by copyright. If it's not that way here, then it should be. OTOH, if an editor is creating an article in their userspace and they allow other editors to help them develop the article, then they share in that copyright, but it's still not an "article" until released, and it is the right of the original author to determine the time of release. We really need to ensure that the author maintains control until they are ready, or they release control voluntarily. They need to give permission.

If a hunter, knowing a fellow hunter was stalking and about to shoot a deer, then shot the deer first, some blows might ensue, or even a grave found later in the forest for such a misdeed. Poaching an article or a deer is a very offensive crime.

We should make it a behavioral policy that poaching someone else's work is sanctionable. We don't allow legal threats between editors for such, otherwise illegal, actions, but we do have other ways of sanctioning misdeeds here. What is illegal and wrong outside of Wikipedia should usually, to some degree. also be considered wrong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I can't see any issue of Copyright since no user owns their talk page or anything else on WP. Also, since only free content can be included on WP then it is impossible to claim copyright on something that no one can claim to own. If I come upon your sand castle on the beach and knock it over, I am a jerk, but I haven't done anything illegal. It would appear that the only real problem here is the notion of who creates an article and who gets credit for actually creating an article. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a debating forum where we explore the meaning of liberty and ownership. The entire issue is that building the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community, and if an editor is slowly developing an article in their user space, then another editor is being disruptive if they choose to move the page or copy/paste it with attribution. Sure, if the author takes a long wikibreak and messages on their talk result in no feedback, it might be appropriate to move a draft from someone's user space. However, the issue here is entirely to do with fostering a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just bloody rude. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethical issue aside, it sounds like you don't understand the copyright situation. You're required to to dual licence all your textual contributions to wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. It doesn't matter whether something is an "article" or not. This includes anything you post to your user page, user talk page, and talk pages. Your comment that I'm replying to for example. This is a fundamental pillar and there's zero chance you're going to change our copyright requirements for contributions. People who want to develop content without freely licencing it are welcome to use their own webhost that allows that, remember wikipedia is not a webhost. (I should clarify I'm not suggesting people should move something someone's developing in a sandbox without asking, but simply that there's no copyright or legal issue. Although people should remember whatever we do here on wikipedia, there's nothing stopping someone using the content somewhere else if they obey the terms of the licence.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A similar situation

Please forgive me for butting in, but I have just discovered a similar situation and am not sure what I should do. I have had a page for a Japanese baseball player in my sandbox for a long time. The page is at User:Athomeinkobe/Kato. Most of it is my translation of the corresponding Japanese wiki page, plus some other facts I have found. It is not ready yet, as I have not finished the translation and want to find some further references, including english references if possible. But I have just discovered that the player in question is no longer a red link Kosuke Kato. I can see that the first version of the page is a direct copy and paste from my sandbox, including all of the untranslated Japanese text. I have advanced my work since then, but nothing substantial has happened to the main article. What should I do? Your advice is appreciated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the article will qualify for WP:CSD#G7 as I'm not sure that [3] quualifies as a substanial edit. Alternatively, perhaps a friendly admin will be willing to do a histmerge, moving the article back to your sandbox and deleting the redirect, e.g. @Dougweller:. As it stands, the article is a copyvio as it doesn't attribute the content to you. If no one does and you finish your sandbox in the meantime and it's ready to be moved, you could request a histmerge from any admin from your sandbox to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is technically a copy vio and you can CSD tag it for G12, pointing back to your copy. You could add a summary pointing back to your sandbox, but if you delete the sandbox, all attribution is lost. You can also histmerge it, which combines them. Regardless, you might point that editor to this discussion. What he did is flatly against policy. I'm not inclined to block over a first time mistake, but making a habit of it would get a block. Dennis - 2¢ 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. I will contact Dougweller when I (finally) finish the work. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [4], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account - User:Antandrus

After being around for 10 years, I now think that this admin account has been compromised. I'm sorry, but since yesterday, an IP wrote on somebody's talk page [5] [6] and reverted what seemed to be perfectly fine edits, it's a talk page anyway. He even replied to me as I posted a biting newcomers notice:

"He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too. But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)"

That link referred to a completely different user. Who must be unrelated to the edits I am talking about. He also said "You're banned - get lost" when blocking an IP. Can a CheckUser come in to see these IP's. In fact, how can IP users be banned under WP:BAN? How did he have any authority to ban someone, as an admin who is not part of ArbCom? Must be a compromised administrator account, check the contribs and you can see some evidence. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not template the regulars, and please do not make silly accusations at noticeboards, particularly when an explanation has been given. Making a fuss about WP:DENY reversions is a guaranteed way to encourage vandalism and long term abusers. Antandrus is one of Wikipedia's most respected admins, although I'm not sure where this report fits in at WP:OWB. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "defacto ban" component of WP:BAN — perhaps it's a frequently-blocked user who's never been unblocked and who will apparently never be unblocked; such a person would be included as "banned" even without an Arbcom discussion. Bans apply to individual people, so yes, we can ban people who aren't using an account. If you have spare time, look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors — we even had an arbitration case for an IP that just wouldn't stop being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The longer you are an admin, the more of these kinds of users you get to know. We each have a few banned users we know so well that we can spot them from across the room. And yes, sometimes we are blunt when dealing with them, it gets old, we are human, we aren't obligated to act saccharine sweet to known banned users abusing the system. Antandrus' behavior, as indicated here, isn't out of character or expectations, so I am pretty confident he hasn't had his account pwned. Dennis - 2¢ 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you Dennis. I regularly revert and block this particular pest. For those with long memories, he has been called the 'George Reeves Person', and there's a deleted LTA page about him. He's a serial harasser and particularly vicious off-Wiki. I have, however, learned his real name and where he lives, should we need to take more serious action. It's been a couple years since I've received threats of physical harm from him. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - death threats, etc.

Hi guys -- sorry to wake this thread up again, but I would like some advice. This person, who has been vandalizing, trolling, spamming, and issuing threats to anyone who opposes him, since December 2005, has issued an unambiguous death threat to me. I guess he didn't like the range blocks I laid down to shut down his latest spam-and-rant campaign. One significant problem is that there is no reliable way to get a message to him; he uses one-time-throwaway T-Mobile IPs now (ignore their geolocation: he's in Chicago, or very close, anyway). I am reporting all threats to law enforcement. I want him to know that I know his real name and his address (will not state it here) and I am not shy about giving it to the FBI, the Chicago and River Grove, Illinois police, and any other entity that might assist. If you have admin rights you can read the history of this guy here (note who deleted the page). I want to get the message to him, equally unambiguously. Has anyone had success contacting authorities in such a case? Feel free to contact me privately. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to contact the FBI, tell them you are an admin on Wikipedia and file a formal complaint with the info you have. I'll email you.--MONGO 01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which is allot harder to find than it should be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 FBI, and the sooner the better - while the data is still hot. I hope that this is resolved quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

It might be worth asking for a global block on that /23, for a week or so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

@Antandrus: you should contact WMF legal as well; I noticed that you contacted one of the stewards on Meta somewhere, but really it's the WMF who makes the call as to when the info should be released to authorities and such (and then they can give the info with a good claim to veracity) --Rschen7754 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Granada#Merger_proposal

Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion as am unable to enter into a dialogue. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster didn't attempt to enter into a dialogue. There was no consensus. The original poster proposed a merge, and promptly implemented it, and was reverted, and implemented it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster proposed the merge, and implemented it, and move-warred to implement it again. The claim that there was no attempt at dialogue is literally true, in that the original poster made no attempt to engage in dialogue, but moved-warred to implement a controversial move. (The merge is probably correct, but did require dialogue and consensus.) Recommend a short-term block so that move can be undone while proposed merge is discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There was no move at all; what are you talking about? There was a merger, involving a redirecting of the second page (Timeline of Granada into Granada), which Bye for now reinstated once. What we have here is a simple edit war in a very early stage, with both participants at 1R right now. The claim that Bye for now "made no attempt to engage in dialogue" is absurd – he proposed the merge, with all required notices, and then waited five days, during which no objections were raised. The poor conduct is on the other side: the other editor involved, M2545 (talk · contribs), reverted the merger with a pointer to "WP:CONSENSUS" and "WP:BRD", but in fact didn't point to any such consensus, nor to any attempt to establish such, nor did he make any contribution to the "D" part of "BRD". The failure to engage in dialogue is plainly on his side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do see now that five days did elapse. I don't see any discussion by either party. Was there a Request for Merge or a Request for Comments? Some method of Dispute Resolution should be used. Can this thread be closed with the issue taken either to moderated dispute resolution or an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple content disagreement that doesn't require outside intervention at this stage. If M2545 wishes to raise objections to the merger, they'll simply need to do so, i.e. actually state why they object to it; if and when that happens, the further path of dispute resolution can be considered. In the absence of any such reasoned statement, the issue is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I created the Timeline of Granada article on 5 November 2014. The article as of 11 November 2014 at 9:28 was still at the stub stage, and not given a chance to develop before it was "merged" into the main Granada article. -- M2545 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, on 6 November 2014 on the talk page I objected as follows: "Some events in a city's economic history may not be dramatic, but can be notable nonetheless. See Timeline of Paris for an example of a city timeline with lots of economic, political, cultural, etc. detail. Instead of simply deleting content, please use Template:Relevance-inline or similar tool. Thanks." -- M2545 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the editor Bye for now did not really "merge" timeline content into the Granada article (see revision comparison) but simply deleted it instead. -- M2545 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there are many lists like this (see Category:City_timelines) does not seem to me to necessarily be a reason to keep this one. In fact it might even be seen as a reason to merge/delete some of the other ones. My reasons for removing things like "1910 - Cafe Futbol in business" were explained HERE but they were reverted anyway so I'm not sure of the relevance. As explained on the merger proposal: Anything I consider useful has been transferred to this article from the "Timeline of Granada" so that a redirect to this article can now be implemented. If other editors wish to transfer more information to the main Granada article then I don't see that being a problem as long as they can can justify it to other editors there (sourcing/notability/relevance etc). Anyway we now seem to be agreed, in principle at least, on the merge. --Bye for now (PTT) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement. Timelines complement prose articles. The deleted Granada timeline stub should be restored and given ample time to develop, with contributions from mulitple editors. -- M2545 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe moved to a sandbox page until its creation can be justified? In particular, the Lead section needs to be addressed, as was brought up the the timeline's talk page. --Bye for now (PTT) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the newly-created page "Granada_chronology" should also be covered by this merger proposal. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That page is going to need a history merge with Timeline of Granada. The resulting page should probably be moved to Draft: space so you guys can work on it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - though it will need the agreement of M2545 of course. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, moving to Draft: should be open to discussion, but since Granada chronology appears to be copy-pasted from an old revision of Timeline of Granada, they have to be history-merged, to satisfy attribution requirements. An admin will need to do that, I don't have the tools. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone advise, please, on what happens next? Will an admin now make a decision as to whether or not the two list articles Granada_chronology and Timeline of Granada are to be redirected to Granada#History? --Bye for now (PTT) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I was just going to tag this for history merging, because I forgot that we could do that. Duh. But I see that the new page has now also been redirected (creating a double redirect). @M2545: What is your goal here? Are you abandoning the timeline idea, or do you (and/or Bye for now) want to work on it?

What I'm thinking is, after the histories are merged (important first step), the page can be moved to, say, Draft:Timeline of Granada, and you (both if you're interested) can build it out until it's ready to be moved back to the mainspace. Or submit it through AfC if you prefer, maybe that's not a bad idea. Or, if you're planning on abandoning it, then please tag Granada chronology for G6 or G7 deletion (admins' call) to solve the history split problem. Ivanvector (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivanvector and others, for your attention to this matter. Obviously I think Wikipedia would benefit from a Timeline of Granada article, but am reluctant to continue building it given Bye for now's unhelpful and destructive edits in the past week. I would rather spend precious time and effort working on content that will not be deleted. -- M2545 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a general consensus that these "timeline" historic events lists are a beneficial addition to the encyclopedia, and it looks to me like you're both generally agreed that it can be built out in Draft: space. I think any disagreements here can be chalked up to good-faith misunderstanding, but if I'm wrong about that, best to say now. I interpret that Bye for now has no opposition to building out the list in Draft: space in anticipation of it eventually being moved to mainspace to complement the Granada article, rather than simply being merged into it, based on the discussion above. Am I wrong about that? Ivanvector (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - I have no objections, in principle, to lists in general or to "historic timelines" (which I consider to be a variant of a list). The edit history shows that I did spend some time trying to improve the list but, in trying to reconcile the list creator's objections at Talk:Timeline_of_Granada and adding maintenance tags, I came across this: Ivanvector adds: from WP:LEADFORALIST:

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

and Is the article worth it?.

"Before placing templates on a page it is worthwhile to consider whether it should in fact be included in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Some articles can be tagged for speedy deletion or marked as an article for deletion."

The problem I have with this list is that the lead does not specify what should be included/excluded, leaving it wide open to becoming a magnet for unsourced and/or trivial material. This would inevitably lead to an unbalanced view of the history of Granada city's history wrt relevance/significance/coverage etc. If it were to go through the Draft/AfC process then I can see how these issues would probably be resolved. I can see that - if done well - a Timeline of Granada would then actually complement the article. However I can imagine that, once it were "released into the wild", it would quickly be modified to be the same as all the others. After all, it would be unfair that contributors could add their favourite cafe in Barcelona to WP but not one in Granada, etc. Consequently, unless these others (some examples are amongst this list ) went through the same process, it would probably be a waste of time for those involved. I raised this issue because I was looking for a decision/answer rather than as a job application. If the decision/answer is that these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP then fair enough - I'll just try to stay clear of any topic that involves the history of a city. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) edit: what I meant was if these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP in their current format. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, not to cut you off, you've got valid points, but let's deal with the history merge first, then we can talk about the issues with the article on the article talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation by user 37.53.192.157 on World Chess Championship 2014

Reverts #1, #2, #3 and #4. Note that #4 occurred after user 37.53.192.157 was duly given a 3RR warning. This edit warring prevents other editors from being able to see the two versions so that they can reach a consensus on the talk page.

Please note that 37.53.192.157 has only been editing since today, yet this user appears to be a highly experienced editor. On the article's talk page, I have asked him to properly log in to avoid the appearance of sock-puppetry.

Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• User ArtSmart already violated 3RR rule two times today. Five his reverts: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] He must be blocked because he added unneeded nbsp into the article. Note, no any consensus in favor of his source code. No such format in any chess articles (2012, 2013,...). I only removed unneeded "nbsp". It was unreadable source code with that nbsp. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I ceased reverting once I was duly warned. 37.53.192.157 continued reverting after he was duly warned. His reverts have prevented other editors from seeing both versions so that a consensus could be reached on the talk page. I don't care that much which version is adopted. I only care that other editors get a chance to reach a consensus. 37.53.192.157's edit warring continues to prevent that consensus from being reached. I have also asked him to log in properly, since 37.53.192.157 has been editing only since today. This gives the appearance of sock-puppetry. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• User ArtSmart can use sandbox in his namespace to show his own version to reach the new consensus. Now consensus in all chess articles to show moves without nbsp option. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• That last statement is false, as can be seen here, which is linked from within the referenced article World Chess Championship 2014. You can see that no chess moves are broken across two lines. But that fact is irrelevant to 37.53.192.157's 3RR violations. No action has been taken from this noticeboard to enforce the 3RR against 37.53.192.157, who not only continued edit warring even after I repeatedly requested that he take our dispute to the talk page, but also continued edit warring even after he was duly warned of his 3RR violations. Because of that inaction from this noticeboard and its lack of enforcement of the 3RR, I no longer wish to waste my valuable time and effort to give the referenced article a more professional appearance by eliminating awkward line breaks. More importantly, I am also loathe to make any improvements to the referenced article, out of fear that 37.53.192.157 will revert my edits purely out of spite. If he can so flagrantly violate the 3RR with impunity, then no one is safe from his vandalism, least of all me. He has successfully bullied me out of further editing. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 08:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• To admins. Please, give a mark to this edit by ArtSmart. [12] I think he must be blocked for this edit violated WP:ETIQ. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• NOT AN ADMIN: May I ask why this was brought here instead of WP:3RN? The latter would seem like the more appropriate place for resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible organised disruption

We have just received an e-mail at OTRS alerting us to this page:

http://pastebin.com/60iFkCX5

Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a continuation of known outside influence to attempt to sway an ongoing ArbCom case request regarding the Gamergate Controversy. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff which is likely directly related to this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is all connected. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this, but it looks to name/target specific editors. A heads up is probably in order: @Ryulong: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @Tarc: @TheRedPenOfDoom: @TaraInDC: @Gamaliel: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @RGloucester: @Dreadstar:. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't {{ping}} take multiple parameters? And we've known about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it's about ethics in video game journalism. Possibly my favorite part is the use of the word "collusion" as if working with other people to write a collaborative Internet encyclopedia is a punishable offence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Moved from WP:ANI

 – NE Ent 23:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There were many edits made after consensus.[13]-[14]-[15]-[16] I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Wikipedia by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 0RR seems unreasonably restrictive, as Fut.Perf. points out it gives the upper hand to the POV warriors. Wouldn't full protection have been better? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. I would ask anyone commenting here to take the trouble to read the actual restrictions I imposed, which are at Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. They are written in English, in plain text, so this should be easy to accomplish. If, after reading the actual restrictions and not the very poor summary presented above, anybody has any concerns, they should message me at my talk as stated there. Since the restrictions were placed on 20 October, a grand total of 0 editors have done this. Not even the two editors I have blocked so far have complained. Coming straight here to complain about my (successful) admin actions under a misleading summary is a strange thing to do. I am a little concerned that User:Arthur Rubin's actions (which include an out-of-process full protection) here arise from some more sinister motive than lack of competence but for now I will assume good faith and put it down to that. --John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple editors assumed that you would respond to the multiple requests for your involvement on the article talk page. This discussion on this noticeboard seems a good way to clear up the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John: I did read your wording of the restrictions before I commented here, and my criticism above does apply to them as worded. A "no reverts" and "no major edits without prior consensus" rule is a recipe either for slow degradation or standstill of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John, your snide and sarcastic "they are written in English, in plain text" is the sort of thing you would (rightly) have taken someone else to task for. Lead by example. 216.3.101.62 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• fwiw, i had just recently started editing the article when the 0RR was imposed. i objected, as did Bobrayner and as did] Yobol, and when John remained firm, I said I would not participate under a 0RR condition. I stopped watching it (although I did pop in to !vote in an RfC that I saw notice of). Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors raised concerns about the 0RR restriction for precisely the same reasons as noted above, with unfortunately little direct response. I have also largely ignored what has been going on on that page due to said restriction. Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem without driving off experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair I did not read John's restrictions before I commented above, but I have now, and I stand by my comment. Other editors' concerns about what's considered a revert are valid. If I'm working on a page where anons are repeatedly inserting nonsense claims, and any corrective action I take comes with a reasonable risk that some admin is going to interpret it as a revert and block on sight, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Besides, isn't WP:0RR meant to be applied to seriously edit-warring editors, not to pages? Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Arthur Rubin, under the circumstances, imposing 0RR was a mistake. Fully protecting the article was responsible a decision, and modifying the restriction to make it 1RR would remedy the situation. Alternatively, Fut Perf's restrictions could be be implemented instead. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• "No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR" is what User:John put in place. That is an unworkable restriction on most articles, and certainly not one about a pseudoscience. A 0RR restriction places the crackpots on an even footing with legitimate editors, and that prevents building an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about others, but this page has to do nothing with pseudoscience. I was notified about zero revert soon after I had edited. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me.[17]

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I get the picture. I see now that the ArbCom tag was added here on 30 October by User:Roxy the dog, one of the problematic editors at that page, well after I had become involved in keeping the peace there. I later had to block said editor for repeatedly insulting other editors there. Then just now I get an ArbCom notice from User:QuackGuru, (diff above) another problematic contributor who I have also had to block. The problems there, quite apart from any perceived COI involved, is that the question whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not is one of several things the two entrenched camps have been arguing about for ages. If the tag is to stick there, I might step back and let Arbcom administer this as that is what they are paid the big bucks to do. I wonder though whether Roxy and QG need further sanctions for this game-playing and battleground behaviour. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just about fell out of my metaphorical chair when I read that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Their 'thinking' cannot be found even among the smallest minority. Sadly if someone is convinced to think that 2 and 3 is 4, and keeps repeating the same miscalculation, we should seek solution. Page was created 10 years ago and there was no discussion about pseudoscience on its talk until last month. Only RTD believes and his intention is to plaster the article with 'this pseudo scientific claptrap', it is possible that he would receive some support from the editors who haven't researched. Bottom line is that they cannot really form any compatibility, nor there is any comparison with any other pseudoscience. No expert would agree. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That the current practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific would appear to be beyond doubt. Surely you aren't claiming that there is any sound scientific basis for it?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the person who described the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.... We are not here to discuss article content, but thank you for making your position clear on that. I myself am strictly neutral on the article content and will do whatever I can to enforce proper editing and decorum there. If 0RR is felt to be unhelpful by neutral admins such as Fut.Perf. and PhilKnight we can strike that. We can of course still block for edit-warring. The more serious question is should an editor who is involved not just in editing the page but in insulting those he disagrees with, be allowed to add this tag while the article's status is being discussed? Should it be allowed to stay? I haven't seen this situation before and am genuinely curious how other respected and neutral admins think it should best be handled. --John (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• e/c I find it rather sad that for the third time today I have found John to be dishonest in his edits. His actual reasons for my block, per the log, are, "harassment and personal attack" and as he himself stated in the discussion following said block ""when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"". For the third time this evening, we expect better behaviour from our admins. I might also add that a fellow admin of John's stated that "I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. - It is time to examine your own behaviour, John. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Roxy the dog, calling others a fringe editor is not personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Blades, just so you know this isn't a personal attack, it is very nice to see you here. I would just like to point out that I'm a fringe editor too. Best regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sounded like fringe advocate when you were referring to others. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Blades, what an interesting comment. If I may be allowed to make a polite observation on it, you do indeed appear to be advocating fringe theories both here, and on the Ayurveda Talk page. Would you not agree? Be safe. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes you have a point there. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, my position is quite clear: we are here to make an encyclopedia. We certainly have battleground articles, and it's important to make certain that some behavioural norms are adhered to. That does not include making it simpler for people to portray myth and superstition as if it were science, and that's what a 0RR restriction does: it treats the two as being equivalent. Our goal here is to ensure that we maintain civil discourse while ensuring that reality-based edits prevail.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you said it yourself, we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight pseudoscience. An article in a permanent state of edit-warring deserves 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ensuring that pseudoscience is not described as factual is an essential component of being an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would be best done on the talk page instead of turning the article into a battleground. -A1candidate (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problems could have been solved in a single day, if we were going to follow the consensus and the long discussions that have been made about hardly 4 issues. But what I have seen is that even if 10 people are in agreement, there is always one, mostly Roxy the Dog, who disrupts the process. John is actually correct if he claims that Roxy the Dog is gaming and battling. I would like to add that this page never had any edit conflict before 18 October, this year. One day, Dominus_Vobisdu had removed long standing content from this article, with the summary "This whole section is unsourced, but comparisons to real medicine are egregious OR and POV)",[18] yet there was no OR and POV and section was actually sourced, all he did was remove the translated terms. After I added more citations to each,[19] he reverted it again[20] without even reading the citation and said "Must be MEDRS sources", same thing was done by Roxy the Dog,[21] "None are WP:MEDRS". Though none of these required MEDRS, and when I brought it to talk page, I only had a one-liner from Roxy the dog, it was "e/c none of those comply," I had to bring it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, where the consensus was established to include these terms, yet, both Dominus and Roxy the dog had started to edit war, they were not discussing about the removal of this longstanding content. That is why the page had to be under 0rr restriction. Today Roxy tells that there was no consensus[22] but he is alone opposing these edits, at least since 18th October. Whenever Roxy the dog was asked about the reasons behind his opposition to this kind of common information that has been cited with reliable sources, he could done nothing about it but refer to comments of Dominus Vobisdu,[23] though they lacked any policy backed rationale, and approached Wikipedia:DONTLIKE. Roxy is ignoring that clear consensus on Medicine project, still pushing that irrelevant comment of Dominus Vobisdu and telling others(Jayaguru-Shishya) to "stop being disruptive",[24] right after coming from a block. I have never seen even a single edit from Roxy the dog, that could benefit the page. All he has done is revert others' edits and distort. Of course some kind of sanction is needed for Roxy the dog. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think sourced text should be in the article:

The talk page discussion is not helping. Click here to read the text and sources.

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as fr, Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected". In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead. Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects. Quackwatch states "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe." References

• The talk page discussion is going nowhere. Maybe a group of admins can decide what should go in the article. What do others think? The 0RR restrictions are not helping with improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• With the majority of editors disagreeing with those changes, including the last 2 newly proposed paragraphs that have been rejected a few times. It seems like you believe that consensus is based upon how much you have misused the noticeboards or how much you rebelled for your preferred version. That's why John highlighted your battlefield approach. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a specific disagreement with the proposal based on WP:PAG? I don't think so. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying what I said before. Because you are pretending that you have skipped every single explanations that has been provided to you by number of editors on the talk(page) and you need an explanation here, I wouldn't be copying that whole to this noticeboard. I have rechecked the relevant section and multiple editors were involved in building up a summary. You can help there, after reading and reviewing that discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lifting 0RR restriction

It's pretty apparent that the 0RR restriction has very little support. Since John refuses to lift it (see User talk:John#Ayurveda restrictions), what's the mechanism? Ivanvector, Arthur Rubin, Fut.Perf.?—Kww(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I think Philknight can suggest something good. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Though John really put the hammer down it does seem he had a call for action. How about mandatory BRD? After the revert don't add it back without a consensus. Bold, remove, and discuss to get a consensus, if you can't get a consensus on the talk page take it to one of the multiple venues for dispute resolution. That along with some of the other restriction John set in place: No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to an uninvolved Admin or to WP:AN/I. All business on this particular article. No trash talk, just content. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've got no objection to a "no trash talk" restriction, but enforcing BRD isn't very different from 0RR. The conclusion from our Arbcom decision on pseudoscience is that we needed to take measures to ensure that our policy of neutrality was not manipulated to favour distortion of reality.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• BRD seems very different to 0RR to me - BRD is effectively 1RR (it has an "R" in it), and that's a mile away from allowing quackery to be added and not reverted without discussion. Given that the onus is on the contributor of content to justify it, 1RR/BRD seems to me like the limit of what is sensible in terms of revert restrictions. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's agreement among neutral admins here that 0RR has no consensus, and John refuses to acknowledge or suggest an alternative, I think another admin is warranted in overriding John's restriction. Though I'm not an admin myself and personally haven't encountered this situation before. But what should it be lifted to? Full protection? PC/2 doesn't have consensus for use, and I don't think would help here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please lift it. John doesn't appear to be able to look at his decision to impose 0RR in an objective manner, nor look at options: User_talk:John#Ayurveda_-_At_your_request. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well how about 1RR with the additional restrictions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:The BRD isn't different from 0RR, except that the editors are able to edit the article. Challenged stuff goes out. It can't go in without a consensus. Honestly there will be little effective means to take measures to ensure that pseudoscience isn't used to as you say distort our reality(you made me laugh there.) There's stuff to do but none of it's guranteed to work and I'm not sure it's in our ability here to do them. Such as we could set up a review committee with specific instructions. It just seems to me though that we can trust some of the systems already in place. They ain't perfect. The main thing that comes to mind with that suggestion is that it ends the disruption, it encourages working towards a consensus, and it does give room to work. I lean to the presumption that if you can't get a consensus it might not need to be in the article. There are pitfalls to this presumption but we do have a consensus based system. The system has the potential for abuse but most any system does. The (for lack of better term) partisan fringe editors could go to a world is flat article and challenge the mention that it was once thought that the world was flat. Pretty much though that is Pointy and pretty much just a bad faith negotiation tactic. That would suggest to me that such an editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia to me. There would be enough rope here for one to hang themselves.But honestly I'm just offering an idea to forward this conversation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming John's restriction is under the aegis of arbcom discretionary sanctions, as (as far as I know -- someone please provide a link to policy if I'm wrong) an admin can't unilaterally place restrictions on a page unless it's under General or Discretionary Sanctions. As described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, an overturn discussion requires a clear consensus of admins here (on AN) or AE or ARCA. Rather than wikilawyer over whether "ANI" counts as part of the "AN" clause, I've simply moved the discussion here. I agree with Kww et. al. the 0RR should be overturned for the reasons they give but my non-admin vote doesn't count, of course. NE Ent 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent That arbcom sanctions template was added by Roxy the dog,[25] after 12 days when John had imposed 0rr.[26] Bladesmulti (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't determined whether an article is in the scope of the sanctions or not. It isn't required in order to issue sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct and article was always under Wikipedia:ARBIP because it has WikiProject-India. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to wikilawyer either, but technically all of the comments in this thread prior to NE Ent's at 23:27 14/11/14 were made at AN/I, not at AN. You just moved them here. Sorry, you brought it up. I'm also in favour of overturning as a non-admin, fwiw. I'm in favour of either the 1RR or enforced-BRD proposals, although I think they are functionally the same. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing there about 1RR vs. enforced-BRD. Since the discussion about what to do with the article is proceeding on the article talk page, and John is participating, let me leave this with a comment that I am opposed to 0RR in general per the above, and a suggestion that we close this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Close Review Media Viewer RfC

I request a review of the close at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I am the author of the RfC.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. No action had been taken on this outcome. Many people were demanding respect for consensus itself, and demanding this RfC reach resolution.

I attempted discussion with the closer here on his talk page. The closer immediately invited me to take it to Administrator's Notice board. Nonetheless I attempted to pursue positive discussio ns with him because Policy says that's what we're supposed to do. I even defended him when someone jumped in with a hostile comment. The closer simply decided ignore me, without even the courtesy of informing me that no answer was forthcoming. Brief discussion resumed after I accepted his invitation to take things here. I now understand he disengaged because of the intruding hostile comment, but he still should have shown me some common courtesy.

RfC Question 1 ended 64 Support 32 Oppose. This is an exact 2-to-1 outcome, 67%. The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

"Reaffirm June_2014_RfC": This involves evaluation of whether the previous RfC was valid and whether any intervening events had invalidated it, establishing that it was a standing outcome still awaiting resolution. If it is deemed to be a standing result awaiting resolution, then it is merely question of community choice to issue a statement of affirmation. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

"Implement June_2014_RfC": The RfC question and the RfC arguments were specifically requesting that the original RfC be resolved. This is significant. Many people were focused on the principal of respecting and resolving an established consensus, rather than focused on Media Viewer itself. This RfC explicitly contemplated that participants may have cast an Oppose on the issue of disable-by-default, while supporting this RfC because they insist upon respect for carrying out an established consensus. This RfC explicitly considered participants might have Supported on the issue of disable-by-default itself, while believing there was cause not to follow through with that RfC under the current circumstances. The issue of wanting Consensus to be respected and the issue of preferred media viewer setting are not trivially interchangeable. The RfC was explicitly intended to allow people to cross the lines on those two issues when participating. The questions invite different arguments, and those arguments need to be properly evaluated as such.

I want to make a comparison here. An anonymous IP can wander onto the talk page of a protected article, spot a standing consensus-edit-request that has gone unresolved, and simply go over to Administrator Noticeboard to request an admin grab their mop and carry out the routine maintenance task of implementing that still-standing protected-page-edit-request. Carrying out a standing RfC result is a routine maintenance task. Consensus was applied in creating that standing result. A request for implementation of a standing result needs no consensus, it can be a request by one person. This RfC is seeking a routine community-consensus to issue a formal call for an admin to step up and complete that pending routine maintenance task on the previous RfC. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

Any change to the close on RfC Question 1 clearly triggers a reevaluation of RfC Question 2. Question 2 should be consensus support, or consensus support except bullet point 6. Bullet point 6 was poor drafting on my part. 6 was not intended to have any effect itself, it merely intended to reflect the expiration of the 7 day hold on implementation from Question 1.

A final note on the situation. The June_2014_RfC is a standing result, which any admin might step forward to fulfill at any time. Given the percentages in the community there is zero likelyhood of establishing a contrary consensus in the foreseeable future. That result is going to stand indefinitely, until someone does step forward to implement it. An affirmative close on this RfC as a whole imposes a mandatory 7 day prohibition on implementation, and a mandatory attempt to work with the WMF on to resolve this. Alsee (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close This was closed a while ago and the close was within discretion. Moreover, there was no policy rationale that was given for the WP:Vote that was held by Alsee in her/his nominating statement or otherwise (see, WP:CONLIMITED), and it expressly contradicted the plain language of WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never participated in a close review before, is customary for participants in the RfC itself to be casting Endorse close?? And is it also customary for them to essentially copy-paste their RfC Support/Oppose comments here? I was hoping the process here might involve..... I dunno.... maybe consideration of why I assert the close was incorrect. Alsee (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

endorse close in this sense means endorse the closing rational in this situation. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understood that. What I was wondering is why we don't simply save time and copy-paste all of the participant Support/Oppose comments here. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. To overturn you must show an abuse of discretion, which usually involves a breach of policy but since your proposal had no policy rationale there, you cannot make any such showing. I certainly did not analyse the closer's discretion as a participant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was applying, but did not quote WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. For example this goes directly to "The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses", "Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold", and "close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated", and probably other points. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There does not appear to be a misunderstanding, nor does any of that cure the defect that the proposed vote had no policy rationale. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "abuse of discretion". No one is suggesting abuse of any sort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

What? "Abuse of discretion" is a common phrase, it means did someone act outside of their discretion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. When there's a 2:1 ratio against the close, the closer has an obligation to explain why the predominant conclusion had such a weak foundation as to be disregarded. There's no problem with closing RFCs against the popular count, but doing so with a vague handwave is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note Question 2 has been archived here.

Overturn close without prejudice. Speaking for myself I looked at that debate, and because I saw the overwhelming support decided not to vote on Q1 (IIRC). It seems to me that the Q1 would require a closely reasoned close to be "no consensus" especially when "no consensus" has the same effect as "oppose". It also seems (without close examination) that Q2 might reasonably have a no-consensus close, but it should be given a proper close, even if Q1 fails because it speaks to community resolve. In other words, we may wish to say to the Foundation "The community believes that due to changed circumstances it is now acceptable to have MV as the default, but we wish to make it clear that we still believe that we should have the final say on configuration done through wiki-pages." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

the main issue with overturning the close is that there is no possible result from doing so. Yes, we could ask the foundation to do so, but WP:CONEXEPT will come into play (as a policy on this sort of issue, I weighed it accordingly). If the close is changed, it's only to cause more friction with the WMF, and the accompanied dramafest. I've explained the rest of my rational for the close already in various places, if people want to know more, then I'll try and explain. However, if people get hostile, then I'm not going to engage further. This did include the events after last time, showing there is no positive resolutions to come out of this for either side. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann you say you explained your rationale in "various other places". Could you point me where to look, aside from your talk page? I would also appreciate it if you would explicitly address my Review Request reasoning. You have not even indicated that you disagree with it, much less given any reason you think it is incorrect.

The only argument I see you adding here is a desire to avoid drama. I would like to note that your closing statement explicitly contemplates another RfC and multiple Oppose statements explicitly provide justification to start another RfC extremely soon. This RfC had 67% support. Leaving this closed as no-consensus 'with a three percent justification simply imposes the drama of yet another RfC, making supporters even more pissed off at the repeated denial of consensus. Alsee (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes; A future RfC where there is a possible outcome. There is no outcome, nor any means to show one; The WMF responded to the oppose points, which is something else that affects consensus; If someone improves an article at AfD, to the point where the issues no longer exist, would it still be deleted? WP:ROPE seems relevant here - if they improve it, then it's for the better, otherwise we can discuss this after the latest rounds of improvements are finished. There is no way we can (or will be able to) implement the consensus. Also, please stop vote counting; This was an RfC, the clue is in the word "comment", so it is not a vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, the problem is that you are giving extreme weight to an argument that is completely bogus: if the software isn't in acceptable condition now, it shouldn't be default now. If the WMF actually comes up with something useful in the future, then they can discuss making it the default at that future time, but what they may do in the future has no bearing on what we should do today. Overriding numerical counts is certainly acceptable, but your reasoning for doing so is without merit.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, no. Mdann52 was required by WP:CONSENSUS policy to take the views of the WMF into account - so the characterization of 67% is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, a 2-to-1 outcome is a damn solid consensus and a closer needs a damn good reason to deny it. You cannot tell me to "stop vote counting" when your given justification for refusing a consensus close was that 2-to-1 was 3% short of bogus 70% threshold. I explained on your talk page why 70% was invalid, and you stopped responding. After filing my Review Request I indicated on your talk page that I was curious to hear your response to it. You didn't answer. I asked you above to explicitly address the review request reasoning. You have failed to do so. That is three times you have failed to deny it was clear error. If you do not state that you disagree with the cause for review and give a reason, then I am going to change my Overturn Close reason to "Closer does not dispute that he mis-evaluated the question and incorrectly applied a 70% threshold for consensus". Either change your close to reflect consensus, or participate productively here and explain how 70% is valid. Alsee (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

70% is a generally accepted threshold elsewhere (eg. RfA) for showing clear consensus. Here, as it is less than 70%, I looked into the reasoning a bit deeper than I otherwise would (this is standard practice I use elsewhere too). 70% is not a brightline, rather an advisory I use for working out rough consensus. Overall I base my closures on the discussion, not the ratio of !votes or whatever. In this case, including what the WMF said, there is not a consensus to do this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page you justified the 70% because "Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support". Maybe I'm reading waaay too much into your latest comment, but does your more general explanation for 70% here reflect an acceptance that the close statement should be directed to "Reaffirming and Implementing June_2014_RfC" rather than "implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer"? I would consider that a meaningful step up in accuracy. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you took CONEXCEPT into account and gave it significant weight, your close is defective. If you look into the rationale for the policy (which, by the way, was added by an employee of the WMF without discussion), it's to prevent the community from demanding something contrary to fundamental principles or demanding something with unreasonable technical costs, neither of which is the case here. CONEXCEPT has NEVER been applied in this manner before. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm presumably the alleged WMF employee being insulted here with implications of underhanded behavior, I will point out that CONEXCEPT was created two months before my first edit, and that it was discussed not only at the time of its original addition but also later, e.g., here, and always reaffirmed (and often improved).

I have never had any reason to edit any policy in my capacity as a non-employee independent contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation. What you are falsely calling my addition is almost word-for-word what Ring Cinema proposed on the talk page, and Ring's words were discussed here in Archive 14, just like my edit summary said they were. There were five editors involved in that two-thousand-word-long discussion (which is more than typical for a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS), and nobody involved in that discussion was working with the WMF at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. 70% threshold for consensus was not within reasonable discretion, and other reasons listed in review request. Alsee (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Clarification: Closing policy provides for things such as cause to discard improper votes and policy arguments to trump nonpolicy arguments. I meant simply assigning an arbitrary 70% threshold in a close that fails to provide a dang good rationale is not within reasonable discretion. Alsee (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overturn close It was closed against consensus and it doesn't appear Conexempt would apply KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn - I almost voted to support yesterday, as I tend to give a lot of leeway to the closer, but when you are closing against the count, you have to explain better. I've made the same mistake at least once, and I voted against this particular close, but my conclusion here isn't based on what his conclusion is, nor do I want a second bit of the apple, I just want a close that takes the time to explain itself, and supports itself in policy. Whether his conclusion is right or wrong, we really don't have enough information to know how he came to it. Closing a contentious debate like this needs a pretty solid explanation, particularly when it goes against very strong numbers. On the technical aspects alone, I think it goes against our expectations and should be revisited by someone else. Considering it spawned an Arb case, it wouldn't bother me if a panel of 3 closed it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely overturn close - I fail to see any proper reason to close it as "No Consensus", besides fear of or faintheartedness towards the WMF. I know, the WMF has acted quite forceful, one could even say very hostile, against the communities in enWP and deWP, without any proper reasoning, without any need for speed, just because they could. As long as they don't behave in a proper way, they should be reminded of their misconduct by the community, they seem to hope for it to settle without any consequence for the perpetrators. This was a clear vote to reaffirm the first one, no doubt about it. The WMF has to say something to it, it should not be made possible to hide behind improper closures. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ask the closer for a detailed explanation or overturn. "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio, however along with the arguments for and against, no clear consensus has emerged." is not an explanation (real explanation should be much more detailed). Somewhat more specific explanations in the closer's talk page include a claim "A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval."(Special:Diff/632836952) that looks suspicious for many reasons that have already been mentioned (66% is rather close to that 70%+; shouldn't enabling the MV count as "A major change in software" as well?). But more importantly, what was that "support after arguments"? Yes, I get it, it is not the vote count. But still - what was it equal to? How was it calculated? Can we recheck it?

By the way, " I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." (Special:Diff/632802362) looks especially wrong. The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community; opinion of WMF (or anyone else) shouldn't count for anything here, not just "have less weight". Other comments by closer (like Special:Diff/633909415) also seem to be rather inappropriate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "represent"? Even ignoring the plain language of WP:CONSENSUS, anyone with an internet connection may comment in the RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, did WMF actually comment in the RFC? It would seem to be rather hard, because WMF is not really "anyone with an internet connection". It is not an "anyone", a human being, as it is an organisation. And since organisations are not allowed to have accounts, I don't see how they can participate in an RFC.

Now if it was said that opinion of WMF representatives who did express it in or "near" the RFC was taken into account - as opinion of individual users - that would be different. But it was said that an opinion of WMF - an organisation that did not participate - was counted. And, apparently, it was given more weight than the opinion of many of participants. Of course, it is hard to say how much, since we have no detailed explanation, but I read that "less weight in my decision then the communities votes" as giving opinion of WMF just less weight than 100% of participants. Perhaps 90%, perhaps 80%... Anyway, I'd say that would be far too much weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents. The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law. 100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents." - well, in that case, what weight would you give to opinion of United Nations? Or of European Union? Sorry, but your position leads to too many conclusions that are questionable at best...

"The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law." - yes, they do make some decisions. It does not mean that their opinion counts as, let's say, opinion of 10 or 100 or 1000 users. It is true that in some cases consensus does not achieve much, but it doesn't mean that WMF opinion is the community consensus. And closer of RFC is supposed to find out what that community consensus is, not what will actually happen next. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other." - I am not sure what you are saying here... My comment about "90%, perhaps 80%" concerned the weight that was given to opinion of WMF. The statement I quoted might mean that opinion of WMF was given as much weight as 90% or 80% of participants would have. Although it might be that no weights were actually calculated and the closer just based the decision on his feelings (it would explain why no detailed explanation has been given)... That would be unfortunate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where. Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts. Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other. By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic. The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS. Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where." - well, if you meant that organisations mentioned in policy can have their opinion counted in RFCs, then you should have said that. Anyway, I do not remember any policy that actually says so. Nor do I remember some "precedent"...

"Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts." - once again - policy or precedent, please.

"Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other." - OK, what did I say and where? Can you cite it? The closest thing in this discussion is "The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community;", but that is not very close to what you are arguing against...

"By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic." - did I say it is?

"The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS." - which just so happens to be a policy that describes consensus as used in Wikipedia...

"Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy." - well, I guess we can look at the policy itself, but in this case the important point is that in that case "I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." is still inappropriate, although for a different reason.

In fact, I do not see how your arguments are supposed to support your claimed opinion "Endorse close". If WP:CONEXCEPT applies in the way you claim it to apply, the close "No consensus" is still wrong - it should have been "Consensus doesn't matter". Giving weight to both "communities votes" and WMF would still be wrong.

So, please, less outrage, more arguments. And more quotations (of policy, precedents, other users). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What outrage? I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia. The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What outrage?" - none, if you say so.

"I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia." - you have certainly linked to policy (although not to some precedents or something that would actually support your interpretation of it), but I do not see you actually quoting from it. Or quoting anything else. For, you see, I do quote you in each response for a reason. It does make it easier to avoid misrepresenting your views. And, since you did seem to misrepresent my views a bit too much, I would recommend you to try to quote me as well.

"The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter." - I am afraid that is one more case when you misrepresent my position. I am not saying that we have to "reclose" the discussion ourselves. I am saying that, if your interpretation of policy is correct, no close that is not equivalent to "Consensus doesn't matter" is going to be compatible with the policy. Furthermore, the close uses lots of reasoning that is incompatible with your interpretation of policy. Thus I think that if you actually care about the policy (instead of just avoiding the fight with WMF), it is rather inconsistent for you to endorse the close. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the policy, so WP:Consensus does matter. I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy and voting is irrelevant, so there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes. (also, look for quotation marks) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took part in the RfC, so I will refrain from putting in an official !vote on the closure review. But Mdann's comments in this thread cast a serious doubt in my mind as to his/her impartiality in the closure. His/her comments in regard to CONEXCEPT and relations with WMF rather blatantly suggests to me that Mdann's closure was a supervote, instead of an attempt to summarize the consensus of the discussion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, just about everyone who gave such opinion here participated in the discussion... In fact, I wanted to add "as a 'voter'" to my opinion, but then I noticed that and it seemed to be rather pointless... I'm afraid that there are no more truly "uninvolved" users left (not counting the ones who wouldn't want to have anything to do with such discussions in the first place)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read a lot. The close was very poor. If you are going to go against numeric consensus (and there can be darn fine reasons to do so!), you need a better explanation. I didn't get the sense that the closer had internalized and was able to explain the arguments on both sides, let alone that there was some overriding issue that made the numeric consensus worth rejecting. Note: this is not the same as saying the close result was mistaken. If this gets overturned and someone else closes it, the close might have the same outcome. But hopefully for a clear reason. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn The close seems to be an assertion with no connection to reality. When you're claiming there isn't a consensus, then stating immediately thereafter "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio" - and have literally no argument why there's no consensus, your closure is bullshit and should be overturned. That not everyone agrees is expected - otherwise, why have the RFC? - but doesn't mean that the viewpoint of a supermajority should be ignored with no other reason given. The closer dropped the ball badly here, and doesn't really seem to be able to defend his views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn per Hobit. If the closer is going against numerical consensus, he needs a good reason to. KonveyorBelt 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There is a backlog of 10 days (and eight templates) at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. It would be good if some admin happy in the template arena could look at these. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Note: I believe they are all implemented in their sandboxes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

CfD backlog, again

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is in serious need of TLC. We've got discussions there that are a month old and have had clear consensus for weeks that are still open. Somebody needs to go in there and close them. pbp 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Automotive lighting

Last 10 edits of the article automotive lighting appear to be initiated by lobby or personal interests enforcing an opinion against proofed and verifiable information. See last sections of the talk page: Talk:Automotive lighting. The issue may be caused in interests of manufacturers. It is about to remove information that differs between technical reliability and undecided acting by drivers. Articles in the WP do not have to rate, but have to provide information. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI query

I would like to archive all the closed request at WP:RFC/N but, I have either commented on or closed the remaining requests. Would there be a COI issue with me archiving them, doesn't seem to be but, just want to be sure before I do it. Thanx Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do it. I was going to do it, but it's a ridiculously bureaucratic archiving methodology. NE Ent 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

lol :P doing ! Mlpearc (open channel) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tag team uncivility by User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat

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

---

This is a continuation of the saga of the same three (?) editors again disrupting an article's talk page, this time for Stanley Kubrick's, with the same mockery and violation of various WP guidelines, including PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership as they did in a previous ANI. SchroCat and Cassianto have only recently made a few edits to Stanley Kubrick, apparently setting the stage.

• Similar ANI discussion in Sept. 2014.
• Recent continuation of violations in Stanley Kubrick's talk.

As Kubrick is a widely read article and an important director, I'm hoping this kind of disruption can finally be prevented. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: the previous ANI in Sept. was announced on their respective talk pages, but was immediately deleted. So this time I'll just add the notice to the Kubrick talk page instead. --Light show (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide difs for all these serious allegations? Reading the dispute on the Kubrick talk page, it seems like you are in a content dispute that you are losing in. Secret ^account 19:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the majority of comments by the three users violate one of more the the guidelines. I'd be diffing almost all their comments, which would take them out of context. None of the problems for this ANI are about content, they're about behavior. --Light show (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see on that article is the behavior of Light show. Bludgeoning, digging in, unwilling to consider other perspectives. All this gnashing of teeth and digging in when everyone disagrees with you is a waste of time and does no service to the reader. If you can't constructively edit an article, you shouldn't get in the way of those that can. Even dragging a content dispute to WP:AN (and not even WP:ANI), shows a desire to ramp up drama more than solve problems. You are right, there is a behavior problem on that page, but it seems the problem is you. And the backhanded sockpuppet claims simply because everyone agrees that Light show is wrong is an ad hominem attack. I would support a topic ban here, just to be done with it. If you can't work with others on an article, go work on something else. Dennis - 2¢ 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend some serious research into this matter. Okay, Light show isn't the good guy here. But it is a familiar pattern to me to see all thee show up when you have a conflict with just one of them. The Banner talk 23:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Research away Banner, I think you'll find three different IP address's which will counter your unfounded suspicions. And then you can look as stupid as Light show does now. Cassianto^talk 10:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing IP addresses is simple nowadays. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are you accusing one or more of us of being the same person, Lightshow? Please have the decency to stop making snide comments hinting at it, and just come out and say it. – SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this your only user name? --Light show (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not that it is any of your business, but yes, this is my only name, and my only account. I have also met Cassianto (along with four other editors, two of whom are admins). I have not met Doc Blogeld, but I know that he is neither me, nor Cassianto. – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP policy makes it everyone's business. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the admins he is referring to, I think. I am happy to confirm that SchroCat and Cassianto are not the same person. Wehwalt was the other admin present, on a trip to London earlier this year, and Tim riley and Brianboulton were also present for a very convivial drink or four. Light show: when in a hole, stop digging. If you want to dig further, then tunnel over to WP:SPI, if you really have any evidence. Otherwise you're just making yourself look very silly. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

By ignoring all the issues for this post, you and others imply that anyone requesting that teamish editors abide by WP guidelines to act civily, to avoid PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership, is going too far and looks silly. It's not silly, but sane, in my neck of the woods. --Light show (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Light show. Isn't it obvious? I'm not commenting on the behaviour of you or anyone else on that talk page because, knowing Schro and Cass socially, I don't think I ought to take sides. I'm certainly not going to give you a reason to complain about the growing consensus by joining in now. Your nonsense allegations about sockpuppets should have been dropped by now. Period. Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • When you make an accusation like this the "serious research" is up to you. If you don't, or can't, provide evidence to support your statement there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to it. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • [27]] for instance, And the saga around Kilmurry Ibrickane where a completely valid article about a Roman-Catholic parish was merged because the lads preferred an article about a civil parish but, to my opinion, had not enough content to do this. The Banner talk 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah I was wondering last night how long it would be before you turned up Banner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. User:Cassianto 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)" --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think that Cassianto and myself are the same person don't you? LMAO. I'm pretty sure Tim riley would laugh to high heaven at anybody who thought that. It's almost as nutty as thinking Tim and Brian Boulton are the same person... Would I review my own article here LOL. I don't think you honestly think that, you just find it hard to believe multiple people think you're a shoddy editor. Myself, Cass and Schro have a pretty similar sense of humour and generally seem to have a similar outlook on here. And we don't tolerate editors who don't know how to write articles and make those who do feel guilty about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been asked twice whether you use other user names, and both times chose not to reply. And again, this has almost nothing to do with content issues or even Sellers, who, BTW, was a great actor. It's about a blatant failure to act civily, as explained in the first sentence above. --Light show (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's about a blatant failure to act civily, " Exactly. And you blew it as soon as you started bringing up Sellers on the Kubrick article and assuming bad faith before I'd even begun. Virtually every post of yours had a personal attack on the work we put into it. Your attitude towards the hard work we put into the article is disgusting, even if you don't think anything of it. If from the get go you'd been like Masem or somebody none of this would have ever happened. You really need to take a long hard look at yourself. This is going to be three different bans now. Keep up the way you act and edit and I'm sure that before long it will be a full ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have enough evidence to take this to SPI, stop making accusations. There are more than 10 of us who have supported the proposal. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets too.... We hope (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Light show, shudder the thought, but have you ever considered that you may be related to us? Does that make you a sock puppet? Cassianto^talk 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this how you treat a long lost cousin - having them banished? --Light show (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about that before you brought your vendetta to the table and tried to put me off improving the Kubrick article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since I thought I was posting an incident in the right place, but it isn't, I can move this discussion if requested, or someone else can. --Light show (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's already here, we won't be slaves to format, but that doesn't address the issue that you present on that talk page, of being a combative editor who, if he can't have his way, will stand in the way of others. I've never edited that nor any article like it, and reading through that talk page, that is exactly the impression I get, someone using obstruction as a tool to get their way. And you keep dragging up this Sellers article, what is that about? Dennis - 2¢ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Light show would bring us to ANI over "behaviour" when he showed the worst kinda of bad faith towards my intentions to develop the article even before I'd started on it! I genuinely meant it when I say if he showed good faith and willingness to work on it together to the benefit of the article I'd be up for it and treat him more decently, but it's basically the fact that he takes a swipe at the Sellers article on every post that is terribly annoying and counterproductive towards development. He's obsessed to the point it's taken over much of what he does. It doesn't stand a chance while he's around. When I got to this article BTW it was a massive 190kb of mainly quotes. He's best kept away from Kubrick articles in discussion and in contribution. Any editor who thinks his Sellers article is superior to the current FA has no place editing wikipedia and is an obstacle to quality development. He just doesn't get what a quality article should contain and read like to the point I think he's not compatible with editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Light show from Stanley Kubrick related articles

There has been clear evidence of a vendetta targeted towards Dr. Blofeld that has carried on from the previous Peter Sellers' article. The following revisions suggest that Light show is unwilling to assume good faith whilst editing on this topic, and this is also suggesting that he is trying discourage Blofeld from editing it whenever he starts again.

• [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

He even removed 15 kb of the text Dr. Blofeld wrote on the Kubrick article recently. This appears to be part of his tactics in order to frighten away Blofeld from resuming editing. This is clearly disruptive behaviour and proving to be a major obstacle to the improvement of the article:

• [37]

One final diff here, this shows that Light show is attempting to sabotage another "good-faith" edit made by Dr. Blofeld through criticism:

• [38]

Light show also insists that Blofeld, Schro and Cassianto "totally ruined" the Peter Sellers article by taking it to FA and believes that his version of the article here should be restored. In comparison, look at the the current article! It's obvious now that there is a vendetta going on, and with that this will impede any development of the Kubrick article as well as labelling positive quality improvement as "ruining it". This behaviour is clearly disruptive, several admins including John and Masem have expressed concern with Light show's editing patterns (notably excessive quote farming). Therefore I propose a topic ban on all Stanley Kubrick related articles indefinitely (provisionally), however I think it's more suitable for a sysop to decide on the length. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef - I've been reading through more diffs, I don't think persuasion is going to work here, and my first duty is to the article, not his ability to edit it. Indef doesn't mean forever, just until the community decides it is wise to revert itself. Dennis - 2¢ 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I think this is the next step. --John (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef This is just part of a larger pattern- indef at Peter Sellers, indef at uploading images. Anyone who doesn't agree with him has to deal with this type of behavior from him. We hope (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I have no alternative but to support the ban. I tried to get Light show to collaborate and discuss the article but he can't avoid taking a swipe at Sellers and its contributors on every post.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef is the next best solution for now, Ofcourse as Dennis says indef doesn't mean forever so all can be changed providing you edit in a constructive manner but till then topic ban it is. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the knowledge that the ban can be lifted at request at some point in the future with evidence that disruptive editing has ceased. Also suggest that perhaps other articles being edited by the individuals involved be watched to see if disruptive behavior carries over into them. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef -- Wikipedia is a very difficult place to be when Light show is around, as this boomerang has proved. Dr. B has spent a long time working on Kubrick in his sandbox for the good of the project, and along comes Light show to get in the way. I think this ban is needed in order to allow Kubrick to develop into something good. Cassianto^talk 22:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. People should be able to work constructively on an article without such harassment: let Doc B do what he has to do, and then constructively help in polishing, tweaking and re-working a few bits, not engage in mass edits of his work and block any work being undertaken. I can't see that being the case here, as there seems to be a lack of good faith in Light Show's approach to Blofeld's work. Next time, please notify people on their talk page: I do not have Kubrick watchlisted, so it's only by chance I looked in on the talk page. I'm also troubled by the grossly unfounded and snidey accusations of sockpuppetry, which happened in the thread, and here: provide proof, or withdraw. Finally, if you're going to accuse people of their behaviour, provide diffs. You haven't done so, because there is nothing to report. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As with the Peter Sellers article there is far too much wikidrama and wikilawyering emanating from Lightshow. I am not sure when this theory that "consensus building is the same thing as tag team ownership" of articles came about but that simply is not the case. MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reviewing applicable talk page. NE Ent 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Open the pod bay doors, HAL. Er, support, per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• What's happening, there's so much drama and dust I mean, Support, also per above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that Lightshow is on his/her way to being banned from a second article. How many articles -- or groups of related articles -- is a person banned from editing before we consider a community ban? (I'm not advocating for a block of anyone at this time, but this is a possible outcome everyone -- especially the original poster -- should consider at this point.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. Interventions / sanctions should be the minimal possible that might do the job (WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment). Obviously if the behavior is repeated on a third article we'll likely be have a much shorter / quicker discussion. NE Ent 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LS does have a history of adding quote farms to articles and image problems of course, but the main problem with this is that he's unable to drop the Sellers grudge whenever he interacts with any one of us. I don't have anything personally against him but I think it's very clear he's attempting to put me off editing the Kubrick article and like Sellers I think it's more to do with OWN issues than real concerns about degradation of quality. It's not acceptable. He doesn't like editors removing quotes he's added or rewriting into a proper article with flowing prose. He's under the impression that wikipedia biographies should consist mainly of quotes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Update the ban discussion link for David Beals

Could someone update User:David Beals to point to the archived discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#David Beals)? I feel a bit weird making an edit request on his talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you —Soap— 04:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Need administrator eyes

It would be nice if more administrators could watch WP:GS/GG/E, and help respond to requests for enforcement of the Gamergate sanctions. Thanks for your potential future assistance! RGloucester — ☎ 05:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone close this please

The move discussion has at Talk:Blonde_bombshell_(disambiguation) has lasted 11 days now, instead of being closed after 7. Five say "support" or "rename", while no one has said "oppose". Dream Focus 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A move request or CfD being closed in a timely manner. LOL. That's been one of the casualties of the admin exodus of the last couple years. While we're on the topic, there are a couple of category discussions from October 12 I'd like an admin to close. pbp 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks

With respect to the confession here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I am... and the corresponding user talk discussion and SPI... I'm starting this thread to request a reversing of my past blocks (I think all except the first one but I am willing to dig in to histories and give diffs), a logged warning by ArbCom and retrospectively reversing of my (now removed) 1RR and IBAN sanctions with respect to Darkness Shines. This is because all these were made in deliberate hounding, baiting and disruption for about a year or more. From the first article Taliban I edited with an editor "The Last Angry Man" [39] (why is TLAM still unblocked?) and this editor who was not much active in my topic area jumped in to support (I should have reported right then but I did not have a lot of evidence; and later all my reports would have been rejected due to history with DS), he eventually was hounding me to every single article I edited (including the brand new ones that I created); obviously from my contributions history. Whatever attempts I made to take this to ANI, DR, ArbCom were disrupted and eventually resulted in an interaction ban and 1RR which I got reverted the hard way by regaining good standing inspite of all this hounding by a sockpuppet who was thought to be a 'genuine' editor. I am starting here as I want to raise the least drama but I am willing to go to ArbCom if the community is not even willing to appreciate an administrative failure for years. I am not asking for any apologies here, I just want things acknowledged to bring my own editing at a better standing. These are my main concerns that I want reversed where applicable or acknowledged to be wrongful where already reversed:

1. IBan with DS (now removed).
2. 1RR restriction due to baiting by DS (now removed).
3. Rollback removed due to a block due to this baiting.
4. Final warning logged by Seraphimblade (ArbCom) (standing and needs to be reverted).
5. My block log looks like hell - all but my first block involve DS; mostly directly reverting / Iban vio or at the very least (for maybe one case, he was influencing consensus / tag-teaming with any other editors opposing me).

All this because admins were wary and were not ready to swiftly block on behavioural evidence of disruption, hounding and mess that resulted in finally creating WP:ARBIPA and later DS got himself topic banned from the area. His sockmaster account's blocklog rivals his current (apart from all the intermediate prolific socking) and by the looks of it he was under 1RR and sanctions similar to his current ones even then. I can safely say that a major part to play in this was by DS. It is unfortunate to see recognition on his talkpage by even administrators given that he had been nothing but trouble.

This is a rare case, but administrators who initially volunteered to work with us as uninvolved including Magog the Ogre‎ and Salvio giuliano‎ and the editors who were working over the main content disputes (Mar4d, TParis) would know how deep rooted this mess was and I can not find enough space to even list the damage that's been done to Wikipedia. Here are some archives remotely pointing to the history:

You might say that I should have acted differently assuming that it was not known that he was a sock, but it was deliberate baiting and hounding by a sock with no fear of indeff (because guess what, he's already indeffed and a sock). This revelation changes everything and all my blocks / sanctions were wrongful because you can not have an iban / sanction / block because of a block evading sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)