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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 133 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to mention that there has been discussion at AN to attempt to resolve the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

My headache came back just reading that. Thanks, I'll extend my wikibreak a little longer --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done (Special:Diff/1250934591) by User:Sandstein -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 65 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:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 58 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry. The outcome of the Commons DR and subsequent discussions have raised more difficult questions than they answered that I'm struggling a bit to sort through. I've requested input at WP:DfD; depending on the feedback I receive, I may settle on an outcome or punt the whole thing to someone more experienced with images. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke#RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 September 2024) Legobot removed RFC tag 2/10/2024 TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	3	0	3
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	6	0	6
FfD	0	1	3	10	14
RfD	0	0	0	18	18
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Interwiki link templates - inline

(Initiated 37 days ago on 6 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 10#Category:Fictional witches and wizards

(Initiated 33 days ago on 10 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#By-state law citation templates

(Initiated 30 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 15#Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories

(Initiated 29 days ago on 15 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hurricane Kirk (2024)

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 October 2024) Active for over a week and the draft is submitted, would be nice if we can close. Crete44 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Explicit. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 23#Template:Appalachia-stub

(Initiated 21 days ago on 23 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Category:Selena y Los Dinos

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 28#Category:Medical doctors in British media

(Initiated 30 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 30#Category:Jewish American legal scholars

(Initiated 22 days ago on 22 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 139 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

(Initiated 61 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(2001–)#Requested_move_22_August_2024

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 49 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan_Whitney#Requested_move_29_August_2024

(Initiated 45 days ago on 29 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stanisław_Potocki_(1659-1683)#Requested_move_30_August_2024

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Moggy#Requested_move_4_September_2024

(Initiated 39 days ago on 4 September 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 37 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

(Initiated 24 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I request a restructure of my current TBAN

Preamble

This is a request to change, not remove my restrictions. I understand that I cannot use this request as a means to re-argue the ban that was placed on me, further, I have notified the banning administrator User:Fluffernutter already and have provided a link to this discussion. Per the conditions of that ban I may appeal at The administrators noticeboard or The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard . I am choosing to use the Administrators Noticeboard so as to get the maximum input of the community involved. I am also aware that once I post on the AN board, my conduct goes under a microscope and I may be subject to flat, airborne, returning objects flying in my direction. I appologize , in advance, for the length of this report. I felt it necessary to detail my behavior and those involved so as to give a fair report to both sides of the issue. I have sub-divded the argument so as to avoid the "Wall-O-Text" effect. I have further {hat} / {hab} 'ed the details to make reading this request easier.

Brief history of the ban

* I was topic banned for 6 months on October 1, 2013 by Fluffernutter.

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

* On April 14th , 2014 I was indef banned by Fluffernutter.

* The exact nature of my ban is : topic banned from "all pages and discussions related to transgender issues, broadly construed" .

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

More details are here .... condensed and hatted for easier reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
History of the disruption * My disruption (the one that initially got me topic banned for six months, and blocked), consisted of my [leaving an edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter]. Even though I never did edit war, I understand and accept that my edit summary very much constituted disruptive behavior, and therefore my block and six months TBAN was fully earned .. * This incident started with a vote on the page that was at that time named Talk Bradley Manning. It's since been renamed to Talk Chelsea Manning [| this is the original version of my vote ]. [| This is (named admin's) edited version ]. * My original vote consisted of an oppose statement and my rationale, rather than just a straight "Oppose", as it's been my observation that just stating "Oppose" or "Support" is treated as an "I Do Like / I Don't Like " statement. Rationale matters. * Pretty quickly, my talk page filled up with requests to re-word my rationale, which I declined to do as I saw nothing wrong with my statement, the page asked for an opinion on a move, and I gave one and included reason in policy for the move. None of my post violated BLP, V, POLEMIC, nor could the post be considered Vandalism , nor could it be considered Copyright violation, nor even trolling. Therefore, I saw no valid reason to remove or refactor my post. * Fluffernutter took it upon herself to alter my post . Note that talk page comments can be removed if they contain libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, violations of blp or banning policies , personal attacks, trolling or vandalism. My post contained none of these, therefore removal of my comments violated TPO which states: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. Fluffernuter did not do this, she simply removed my comments, changed the meaning of them and refused to accept that TPO was ,in fact, being violated. She instead used "Discretionary Sanctions " as a rationale, however, TPO doesn't allow editing or removal of comments for "discretionary sanctions", nor does discretionary sanctions give any admin the right to remove or alter talk page comments, except for the exemptions given in WP:TPO. * At this point, I went to Fluffernuter's page to discuss and as you can see here I wasn't alone . I will state for the record, I didn't invite anyone into the discussion, those that were there came of their own free will. As you can also see, consensus was against this admin's change 3 to 1. The admin dismissed consensus and in fact, referred to it as a "consensus among cohorts", This is not the case, as I invited none of these people, they came of their own free will, and are certainly not cohorts. My history will show, they have not interacted with me regularly, nor I with them, especially not in any way that shows any kind of friendship between us, therefore her claim is invalid, the consensus was indeed neutral, and thus should have been accepted. Consensus is, after all, primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. Further, this admin, in no way, backed up her claim that it was a "consensus of cohorts" with anything, thus making her claim a claim of bad faith. * During the time I was discussing it with her, her actions were reverted [| by MzMcBride ], and the [|admin promptly reverted] him. [| Also by Dolescum ] who was again, reverted by the same admin. [| Here] , I didn't revert Fluffernutter however, by this time, it had become clear the this admin was not going to accept consensus, nor TPO, but was going to do what they wanted irregardless, and I was pissed off, so I changed her redaction message, and no , it wasn't at all helpful, yes, it was me being a dick, no if, ands or buts about it, and no excuses either, I was a dick and flat wrong to alter her comments. [| A different admin] reverted. [| At this point ] I'd had it, to my eyes, policy was being ignored for admin preference and I did revert here (note I'm at 1RR, the original admin at 2 RR ). Yes, my edit summary was wrong, and yes, I promised to edit war with her, and yes, any such edit summary has to be treated as disruptive. Bear in mind that at that point, I'd done BRD, ANI, pretty much any dispute resolution that was available to me and even had other users supporting my position (both at ANI and on the admin's page) and the only response the admin would give anyone is that they can take it to arbcom. So as you can imagine, I was pretty incensed at that point. I don't say this as an excuse, merely as explanation for my actions. Either way, my actions counted as disruptive. [| At this point] Fluffernutter reverted placing her at exactly 3RR. At this point Fluffernutter then topic banned me for six months. * An ANI request was opened up on the same day, starting before my ban , again, with consensus against Fluffernutter. Fluffernutter's response was to say , essentially, "Take it to Arbcom" thus ignoring (once again consensus ). To be sure, my responses were not civil, however, bear in mind, I believed then, as I believed now that my vote was legitimate and did not rise to the level of having to be edited or partially removed.This was not taken to Arbcom, as Arbcom is the court of last resort, and before Arbcom would accept a case, all other avenues would have to be exhausted, and they were not, therefore, had I or anyone else did what Fluffernutter asked, Arbcom would have rejected the case, and would have kicked it back to ANI. An appeal was filed on my behalf at AE, which was declined , I believe this appeal was handled impartially and fairly. My ban was over in April, and yes I did edit the page I had been topic banned from (since it was over, there was no more topic ban ), it was to respond to a discussion [| here]. I started a topic called [| consensus check] and when it was determined that consensus was against me, per my agreement with Floquenbeam [[[| I voluntarily] dropped the subject and stayed away from that page. I'd also started a discussion on MOS:ID, and again, [| three people disagreed with me ] so I dropped it. After I dropped it, Fluffernutter dropped [| this ] on my page advising that I had been topic banned indefinitely, thus creating a punative block, rather than a prevantive one, in the form of a TBAN. Salient points My disruptive conduct in Talk:Chelsea Manning (and yes, this really was disruptive, no question about it ) consisted of 1RR with an edit summary promising to edit war. I never did edit war with Fluffernutter, and yes, I was blocked after that edit summary, and I definitely deserved it. That I didn't continue the edit war was beside the point, any promise to edit war is , even if not done, disruptive, and therefore, my block was fully deserved fully earned . However, this only happened on one specific article, not a whole swath of like (or even dissimilar) articles, thus the only disruption so far (either then , or within my history from day 1 to this moment ) existed in that one article only, for that one subject only . Thus it can be shown that I have no history of disruption across the topic of (to be filled in when this goes live ). Fluffernutter unequivocally violated WP:TPO in removing a chunk of my comments, and was further wrong to ignore the consensus on her talk page and on ANI, and even further, was wrong to advise the community to "take it to arbcom". She claims "Discretionary Sanctions" as her defense, and while there were Discretionary Sanctions on the page, in no part of the guidelines for Discretionary Sanctions does it state the admin can ignore consensus, nor does it say that the admin can violate TPO. Further the admin's actions were not neutral, the actions supported only one set of beliefs and nothing else Lest there be any dispute as to whether the votes on that page were re-written to subscribe to one set of beliefs on the subject, note that there were (and still are ) comments on that same page that give an argument counter to what I gave,(and note, per my ban, I cannot state what my argument was, but if you'll look at the references I'll provide momentarily, you'll see the counter argument still on the page and from that you should be able to deduce my argument ) and Fluffernutter not only let them stay, but failed to take any action on those comments, showing her to be partial to one side. Combat Wombat made this point clear to (admin's name to be inserted later ), and note that on the page in question Comments remain to this day (Specifically, "Support" # 11,14,17 & 25, "Oppose" # 1,7,12,14,16,36,37), that show the counter argument I mentioned a moment ago, any that were made were with a counter-argument similar to my own were removed by (admin's name to be added later) and still remain as such on the page to this very day, proving partiality to one side only, rather than her suggested aim of .... my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. Her next sentance is even more telling denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, (emphasis is mine ) which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue. . (Combat Wombat's comments and Fluffernutters are on the same link, referenced above on the comment "...Combat Wombat made this point....) The first topic ban was far-reaching and had little-to-no evidence of any conflict except in one section of one talk page, in one article, there the ban was deserved. However, rather than ban me from participating in that one article, I have been TBAN'ed - broadly construed from ( will be filled in just before I file ) thus the ban reached beyond the article in question and is punative, not preventative. The second (indefinite topic ban) was placed after I'd agreed to drop my argument, thus this ban was also punitive and not preventative.

My proposed outcome

I am , again, not requesting that my topic ban be lifted, but rather, restructured. Specifically:

* I request that I continue to be topic banned, broadly construed to only the topic of Chelsea Manning , my edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter cannot be construed any other way other than disruptive, even though I never carried out such a promise, as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that in that article, and solely in that article, I demonstrated disruptive conduct, as such a topic ban was clearly earned on my part.

* Fluffernutter has also topic banned me from MOS:ID under the same discretionary sanction. I ask for it to be lifted with the understanding that: I am to avoid MOS:ID for 6 months, broadly construed, after 6 months time, I may revert obvious vandalism only, six months after that, I can request a lifting of sanction from that page completly, and if consensus is that it be lifted, then good, otherwise, let consensus dictate what restrictions, if any should be given to me.specifically on MOS:ID.

* I would request that I be allowed to edit any other articles relating to transgender issues. There never was any history of disruption across that whole topic of transgender issues or people, only on one specific topic in one specific article, thus a topic ban for all such articles is punitive and not preventative.

KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as Proposer KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• TL;DR If you want any support for this proposal, please shorten it (or provide a summary). You know as well as I do that a lot of people aren't going to slog through this wall-o'-text. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment OK... a bunch of stuff's been hatted up - creating a brief summary. Thanks for the suggestion. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Question - How would any disruptive behavior on transgender related articles be handled if it occurs? Would you expect it to be treated like any other editor with incremental warnings (which for inexperienced editors amounts to a 5-strikes-you're-out policy), or would you expect to be under a higher level of scrutiny with fewer (or perhaps no) warnings? Just curious how you envision this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

*Answer EvergreenFir Per my agreement with Floquenbeam I would be on 0RR on Transgender articles (I'm by default on it anyway ), also per that agreement, any discussion that I get involved in , where at least 3 users in good standing disagree with me, I would need to drop what ever it is I'm discussing and leave it be, so this would take care of disruptive behavior. However, if I screw up , because I've been topic banned I'd fully expect a higher level of scrutiny. I'd say 1 warning only, if I fail for whatever reason to heed that warning, I get TBAN'ed again. I'm not a newbie, I know what 3RR and NPA is, so I would have no excuse. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a reasonable restructuring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose User has history of recommencing disruptive behaviour directly after bans/blocks. Behaviour on Manning was particularly egregious. Not encouraged by the appeal the second the moratorium on appeal expired either, unless the user can show us some edits they think need making so urgently. Begoon ^talk 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Look down at the next topic, I think this is a retaliatory strike against me for my comment on unbanning Peter Damien. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) _{Struck out as a good-faith move. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}

No Kosh, it's a genuine analysis. I looked through your talkpage archives shortly after you posted this, long before Peter's appeal was ever mooted. Not everything's a battle, even if you want to treat it as such. AGF, y'know. Fix the sig, please, it's ugly. Begoon ^talk 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, tell you what, just like I offered to below, if consensus says I'm wrong, I'll strike my comment. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't care. You accused me of a "retaliatory strike". It's bollocks, but strike it or leave it as you see fit. No skin off my nose either way. The sig is an eyesore, though, did I mention that? Begoon ^talk 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've got to agree that the signature is both a bit of an eyesore, and, well, at this point, kind of dated. Nimoy's been dead a month and a half at this point, and keeping it for this long does look, well, weird. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, I love the Nimoy tribute, it's the "look at me, I'm the biggest, most noticeable, blurriest thing on the page" thing that makes my eyes sore. Anyway, that's a discussion for somewhere else, and Kosh has had it drawn to his attention many times before. That's the kind of stubbornness that makes me uneasy about this request, actually. Oh look, we're back on topic. Begoon ^talk 21:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

2 users have asked me to change my signature, so , consider it done. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lose. the. shadow. I'm a huge B5 fan, so yeah, shadows. But lose it. It's visually offensive. That's an opinion, and I do acknowledge your willingness to consider change. Just consider change to something that doesn't overwhelm people's eyeballs. That's a request, nothing more. Begoon ^talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the sig, fix it for real. You're not exactly showing a lot of cooperative and collegial spirit for someone who wants a topic ban adjustment. BMK (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lose the shadow. It's distracting and unclear. Try to listen to your colleagues when they raise a genuine concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Heck yes, kill the shadow and make the whole thing less huge. IMHO, even your revised sig does two things, both of which are bad for you. It makes you look egotistical (ME!ME!ME!) and it distracts from what you're actually saying. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I like artistic signatures, sorry about that :) I did change it again, no shadow this time. Hopefully this is a bit better. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Now, part of it is so faint it makes me think my eyesight is failing even as I read it. BMK (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing colors is pretty easy.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks cool and I was thinking of making a sig like that but I won't. Don't want to hurt others eyes. Popish Plot (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that the signature's settled. Let's get a consensus on my proposed outcome :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, let's. I'm still opposed, for the reasons I gave above, but open to persuasion. You didn't answer the question about what edits you want to make that you're currently prevented from making. Maybe I didn't phrase it that well. I'll rephrase it: What edits do you want to make that you're currently prevented from making? Thanks for adjusting the sig. Begoon ^talk 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Begoon Sorry, I missed your question the first time. At the moment, there are no edits that I need to make, however, I do vandal runs and my restrictions prevent me from removing vandalism on any transgender articles, also, my restrictions make it impossible for my to participate in any way on any issues that touch transgender issues. If allowed I to edit and particpate I would observe the agreement I have with Floquenbeam (0RR, no hatting anyone's stuff except mine, 3 users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop it ). Thank you KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon Tagging on to the response of 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC), How frequently are you hitting TG articles during your vandal runs? What is the mean time to someone else noticing the vandalism (after you've spotted it) to being reverted? What specific topics would you have participated in had the restrictions on TG issues not been in place for you? I'm trying to establish a feeling for your influence/impact before I give my view. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur I don't hit a lot of articles on my vandal runs, I can sometimes go a few runs with no Transgender topics being hit. Keep in mind, it's not just articles I'm restricted from, any place on Wikipedia where a transgender topic is mentioned, AN, ANI, BLP, V, etc... I literally can not say a word about it. As to your second question, what topics would I have participated in? Well, Leelah Alcorn, specifically this section in the talk page comes to mind, also this talk page discussion on Leelah Alcorn as well as the very next message in the talk page, also here on a BLP board message called Women and Video Games. If you're asking , would I continue the same argument I had before, no, in fact, I'm still asking that I be banned from the topic of Chelsea Manning, broadly construed and I'm also asking that for now, I remain banned from MOS:ID, also broadly construed to prove that I'm not looking to re-hash the same argument. Does that answer the question ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why the restriction should be relaxed in the face of the few incidents in which your restriction is prohibiting you from participating. Given that there's a great amount of volunteers who can (and would handle the issues you raise as the justification for relaxing). Seeing that the case was decided a little under 2 years ago, and you were warned again less than a year ago about the ArbCom case I see relapses of poor judgement. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kosh, I'd like to ask you a question. It's a long time ago that you made that agreement with Floq. Why, instead of moving past that, and growing to a point where that kind of thing would be unnecessary, are you still the kind of editor that needs such a restriction? It's been a long while. Sorry if you think that's presumptuous, but I often wonder why people don't basically change and grow. This should be a thing buried in your past by now. Yet it's not. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Begoon I kept the restriction because it worked well for me. I'm a believer in the phrase "If it works, dont' change it " :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm going to stay in the "oppose" camp, for now, then, because "If it works, dont' change it " [sic]. I think the restriction has been working quite well, but I encourage you to appeal it again, after a reasonable time, if there are good edits which it is preventing which are not getting done. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Nadirali is unbanned since last year, he has violated his topic ban on numerous occasions.

• In this edit, he changed the title of a section from "Ethnicity and language" to "Nationalities/Ethnicities and languages", and right below that section, the article reads "..Indians in the United Arab Emirates|Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates|Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates". He also spaced between "[[Bengali language|Bengali]],[[Sindhi language|Sindhi]]". Editing the section title was clearly a major edit because section titles changes the basic meaning or even conclusion of the part that is written below. Most of that section concerns the backgrounds of the people coming from India and Pakistan.
• He made a page move[2], where we can read a major section about India.
• He added a new section to Astrology,[3] where we can find major sections[4][5] about India.
• This edit was major, the article mentions India about 8 times and mentions Pakistan about 7 times.
• [6][7] He has also disputed the factual accuracy of this article[8], that has section about India and he has also participated in the discussions.[9][10]

There are just more to mention, but I think that these few are enough. I have discussed this issue with both Worm That Turned and Dennis Brown.[11] One had unbanned him,[12] while other had blocked him for a month[13] after he had detected some of his topic ban violation upon returning from the site ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your final point first, since it's the only one I've investigated. Editing and discussing a broad-topic article that merely has a section on the banned subject, without editing that section, without discussing that section, and without editing or discussing the subject elsewhere, is not a ban violation. See the discussion about weather at WP:TBAN; if you're banned from weather, you're banned from editing the weather-related parts of the New York article, but you're allowed to edit the rest. Of course this isn't the case if the whole article is related to the subject, but child sexual abuse is definitely not just a South Asian issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the penultimate bullet: Shia Islam is a topic too broad for a ban from "articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed", and Albania definitely isn't included in it. This ban is for the country articles, for people and places originating/located in those countries, and for topics closely related to them, e.g. caste, as well as I/P/A-related components of other articles. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Astrology and public alcohol consumption are worldwide topics. A pagemove isn't relevant to the ban unless the entire page is affected, and neither this content nor its source is at all related to I/P/A. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is a violation only if he has edited about those countries and not the articles? Still, at least 2 of the diffs are topic ban violation. Per topic ban, he cannot contribute to these articles because these articles goes on to explain some of the important aspects of those subjects that are related with his topic ban. He made an edit on Liger[14] and the source[15] has mentioned "India" at least 5 times as well as its other locations. Not only once, but at least 2 times[16][17] he had been told not to contribute on those articles that have significantly covered these 3 nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

The article Anti-Pakistan Sentiment had been proposed for deletion and nobody has been contested it, so somebody please delete it Ankush 89 (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, where is discussion going on? I deleted "deletion tag" from article. Article is already well sourced, we can improve it further. Kindly mention or ping me if you want to say something. Thank you. --Human3015 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Title itself is incorrect. Hajme 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Interaction Ban between OccultZone and Zhanzhao

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

---

I'm raising this at the suggestion of @Yunshui:[18]

OccultZone and I as well as a few other editors were previously involved in a content dispute on the Rape in India article. My brother's barely-active account, DanS76 chimed in twice, and was identified as a sock of mine. An SPI was raised, during which we admitted our relationship, after which DanS76 retired his account to prevent any such issues in the future. I have also tried to keep away from the article since I saw how aggressive OccultZone could be. The problem is that OccultZone has it in his mind that I was still active there, and as a result, he was:

• blocked twice for edit-warring against a sock he thought was me,[19]
• raising 2 new (failed) SPIs against those same people in an attempt to link them to me [20][21] as well as an ANI,
• accusing other admins (some of them are mentioned below) of incompetency when they did not rule to his liking, and got told off for that,[22][23][24]
• threatening to action against them in ArbCom [25] (other admins have weighed in to say their sanctions against him were justified),
• admin shopping both on-and-off-wiki without success with his list of so-called "evidence" against me,
• and still trying to pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment.

Most of which I documented on my userpage but had hoped not to bring up. He was told repeatedly by many admins to move on after his ANI and 2 SPIs as well as other interaction with the admins i.e. (@DoRD:@Worm That Turned:@Callanecc:@Bgwhite:@Salvidrim!:@Mike V: off the top of my head), and he has found no new evidence against me that he had not previously declared. Some admins even explicitly warned him about his behaviour against me [26]. After he did not get the results he was looking for, he has upped his game from admin shopping to approaching an arbitrator Yunshui directly.

I don't even know what he hopes to achieve now that its been proven that all those other accounts (which were indeed socks but of someone else) were found to be unrelated to me, and my one alleged "sock" DanS76 is already retired. If he had found some new evidence of me allegedly socking, I would at least give him credit. But he's basically just taking the same closed cases and the same evidences, and going around looking for someone to finally agree with him. I've barely interacted with him or talked about him after the last SPI, but OccultZone doesn't seem to want to quit. As such, I would like to request an interaction ban between the both of us. If he finds new evidence of new socking activity that goes beyond the scope of the previous ANI and SPIs he previously raised against me, he's welcome to supercede the interaction ban and raise a new case against me. Else, I would like for him to just leave me alone. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support in the strongest possible terms. I'm amazed OccultZone is still on this, I've put of effort into looking into this case over the past few weeks. I can name another half a dozen Admins and checkusers that OccultZone has contacted regarding this. What's more, this is at least the second time that OccultZone has made accusations about Zhanzhao and then complained when Zhanzhao has defended himself. OccultZone needs to drop this and an interaction ban seems like the easiest way to make that happen. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Gets my vote. The encyclopedia is not well served by these two editors arguing with one another across multiple venues. (caveat: I was the editor who suggested Zhanzhao pursue an IBAN in the first place, so slightly involved.) Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So two votes already? Okay I hope that my below comment would clarify that how we should view this case.

In last 12 days, I discovered and found a lot of things in this case that I haven't even seen in long term abusers. How evident it is that this account was created for evading 3rr, after he could not edit war with IP anymore. Control + F, "eight years have passed" and check his IPs edits [27] [28], and then he created the account and continued the edit war, [29] [30], [31] [32][33] this sort of scenario has been a major factor in his small contribution history. Yes he admitted this IP in question to be his after few months,[34] after he had reverted with it[35] and the page was protected.

It is easy to accept that Zhanhao has abused multiple accounts policy since he joined en.wiki years, he was blocked once for evading his block with IP as well.[36] He explicitly states to have read the the WP:SOCK#LEGIT on an unblock request that was declined.[37] When I made an appropriate attempt to expose his on going abuse of multiple accounts,[38] he insisted that "it was my brother", and a problematic and a non policy based decision took place.[39]

And more recently I also found a few diffs that should overturn all previous decisions. Here he has clearly warned against recruiting any "family members", so even if his unbelievable notion of "my brother" has to be taken seriously, then his abuse of multiple accounts was 100% intended. See no way how we can reject an indef block for a case that was inappropriately closed just a few days ago. Per policy and standards, only indef block is appropriate for 6 years+ violation of WP:ILLEGIT. We cannot support sock puppetry.

Again, abuse is also evident with socking with IPs,[40][41][42][43] and proxies.[44][45][46] This range was recently rangeblocked by Mike V. He admits to to have abused this San Francisco range.[47] He has also reported suspected socks,[48][49][50] in every sense he has abused the policy.

• Apart from the talk pages and the articles, he has abused his two accounts across many namespaces. That would include multiple AfDs,([51][52], [53][54] critical RFC/UA ([55][56]) that saw de-sysopping, deletion review,([57][[58]), topic ban discussion of User:La goutte de pluie.[59][60], ANI,([61] [62], [63],[64], accepting own article for submission.[65].

• It also includes tag team edit warring, for evading 3rr. a)[66][67][68](account signed in after 58 days) b) [69][70][71] [72](this time 45 days after), Zhanzhao [73][74] and many more, list is just too large.

This account has only 2036 main article edits in 8 years and has saved at least 13 evasions of 3RR that can be confirmed. That means he has saved at least 13 blocks for violating 3rr rule through socking. If en.wiki has banned very productive editors for socking, why we have different rules for this editor?

His tendency is to bother, irritate many productive editors, often by using multiple accounts. Such as Lee788[75][76][77][78][79], Ahnan,[80][81][82][83][84] etc. That is how he has managed, I am his current target.

• Even now, he uselessly reverts my edits[85] and says that it was his brother who did it.[86] I never hound his contribution history. There is no doubt that we need indef block for this WP:NOTHERE case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am sure this [87] was a coincidence. As I said, which you showed on your 2nd link, That was one singular edit, and I have taken steps to prevent my account from being compromised again. Practically all your evidence are either from years ago, used in the previous SPIs/ANIs, and/or you've already shared them with other admins who ended up disagreeing with you. As for using a VPN service, its the nature of my job as I need to look at US websites that might have content blocked by location. I am sure a verification of the CU data will show that when I am logged on to it, it stays the same throughout and doesnt jump around as if I were trying to keep switching my IP. If I was really socking, I can easily abandon this account. Why would I even want to draw attention to my other so-called available accounts and risk them being linked? Your logic fails here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How many hours or days later it came up? You tried to misrepresent yourself only when you saw that you are going to be raided. Actually they just said nothing. Now that you agree with the you have greatly socked, now you tell that you will abandon this account and start a new account as technical details also match? Funny honestly, no wonder why people believe that you are gaming. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Original report looks like a fallacious attempt to troll and lacks rationality. He reported you on SPI and you gamed some admin. Now you cannot sock because you believe that he is watching you and that's why you want interaction ban? That is just ridiculous. Delibzr (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I even doubted the existence of WP:Deny recognition while I was reading. Delibzr (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Totally missed it. Yes he has made only 53 main article edits since the SPI, he wants to resume edit warring with the accounts and IPs like he always did? Yeah that seems better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And I made only about 60 edits btw October to February combined. In fact, the only reason I'm so active nowadays is to deal with your hassling me. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment One way or another, this dispute needs to end. It looks like an I-ban is the most likely solution with a prohibition on both users from filing more cases against each other at AE, ANI or SPI. If there are abuses on either side, another editor can file a complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is the first anything I filed against OZ, and only on the suggestion of the arbitrator that OZ approached. OZ has filed 2 separate SPIs, one ANI (which the first closing admin re-opened after receiving a mail from OZ, only for it to get closed again by another admin). Zhanzhao (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Which closing admin you are talking about? Have you got any proof about it? Mdann52 is not an admin. I am surprised you didn't notified VictoriaGrayson, Human3015, M Tracy Hunter, etc. who have been affected by your actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose IBAN unless actual evidence of disruption is presented. I'll give the OP this: I appreciate the bullet-points. To address them in order:

1. Looking only at the linked block-log (i.e., all the evidence presented), both blocks were repealed within a few hours without coming to term, apparently for being inappropriate blocks. This is not evidence in favour of OZ, but it certainly isn't evidence against him.
2. What is the definition of a "failed" SPI? One was endorsed for CU because the clerk agreed the activity was suspicious, the other appears to have warranted a CU. The fact that both those CUs turned up negatives is not a reason for an IBAN, since apparently the SPI clerks shared OZ's concerns: are we to IBAN all SPI clerks from interacting with users they had wrongly suspected of sockpuppetry?
3. This point is confusing. Of the three links, only one is a diff, and that not a post by OZ. None of the three pages have the word "incompetent" anywhere on them, so it's difficult to make out the problem. Additionally, if OZ was accusing admins of incompetency, what does that have to do with an IBAN with the OP?
4. He accused a blocking admin (who had apparently, per supra, made a bad block against him) of making other bad blocks and needing to be restrained. If mentioning ArbCom counts as a threat that merits and IBAN ... why not IBAN him from the admin he was talking about, rather than some random user who doesn't like him?
5. The non-transparent off-wiki contact is concerning, but unfortunately an IBAN would not solve this one way or the other, since emails are not as far as I know actionable (as long as OZ was careful and only emailed users who agreed with him). There also seems to be nothing in the diffs to suggest that these emails were about the OP, which seems to be at best a minor AGF-violation on the part of the OP.
6. The last point presents no real evidence and is valid if the OP is in fact a good-faith contributor; if as OZ suggests the OP is in fact a problem editor who should be blocked, then this point is essentially invalid since OZ is right to "pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment". Which brings me to...

I have no opinion on whether the OP should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Given the OP's long history of editing articles in a wide variety of areas, it seems a bit inappropriate to accuse him of NOTHERE.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

*Yes the blocks were overturned, but he warred against what he assumed were my socks, as seen from the SPIs he raised. Also, Bgwhite who overturned the first block, explicitely said that he regretted it[88], while Worm That Turned said that both blocks were not wrong as well[89]. Other admins have weighed in on it too, if you look at OccultZone's talk page.

*I was actually referring to the results of the CU and behavioral analysis of the SPI clerks before they closed the case against his claims. I in fact welcomed them to do the CU if it would convince OZ he was wrong, which didn't work.

*These admins would also be the ones to tell him to move on, which he refused to.

*Just pointing out that he seems to think everyone is against him when he though he was edit warring with people he though were me, even admins giving him advice.

*I would welcome OZ to declare how many emails he had sent out about his case against me, and to whom. I don't see how there could have been an agreement, since he did not mention me at all to them on wiki before emailing them.

*He has raised 2 SPIs and one ANI against me, and this takes me away from contributing to wikipedia. As you pointed out, I edit on a wide range of articles. But my range and volume dropped significantly after this happened. And I'm not the only one affected. Even uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta[90]. Not to count the time wasted by all the SPI clerks and admins he has approached who have to go through the same "evidence" repeatedly case after case. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that the first admin to undo a block was the one to implement the next block. Doesn't change the fact that that admin was also immediately overruled. As for your request that I look at OZ's talk page: sorry, but when other users diligently provide all the evidence in a concise and comprehensive manner and are still ignored by admins who don't click on diffs, why should I be expected to go out and search for your evidence for you?
• I know what you were referring to. I fail to see how it is relevant to your IBAN request, though, when the clerks were apparently just as suspicious as OZ was.
• ...What?
• Yes, and how is that relevant to an IBAN with you in particular if he has been having disagreements with other users who he accused of being sockpuppets, and the admins who didn't block them? Most of what you're saying seems to be just a general smear campaign against OZ, rather than providing evidence of harassment against you that would merit an IBAN.
• Sorry, but that's not how it works. I genuinely wish people who admitted to engaging in potentially disruptive off-site email-contact were obliged to divulge what and to whom they wrote, but that's not how the game works. And if you don't know what was in those emails, you are treading a thin line in assuming that they were about you (you admit above that "he did not mention [you] at all to them on wiki before emailing them"). Emailing other users is not a violation of any policies or guidelines per se, and it seems to be something OZ does regularly and peaceably on a variety of issues. You are perfectly free to think that he is talking about you in the emails, but it is not a valid piece of evidence in favour of an IBAN.
• That seems to be something of a misrepresentation: according to the fourth chart on this page, if your edits decreased in number at any given time it was in mid-2013, and in the last month or so you've made the same number of mainspace edits that you had in the preceding eight months. If OZ's recent behaviour is distracting you from contributing to the encyclopedia, it certainly isn't reflected in your account's edit history. Your reference to "uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta" is curious as well: if Bgwhite wants to ask for an IBAN with OZ they are more than welcome to do so, but this thread is about an IBAN between you and OZ, so Bgwhite's time being wasted is not a valid piece of evidence for you to bring up. If Bgwhite feels that their time has been wasted as a result of the feud between you two, that is for them to decide and to state, not you. If they choose not to post in this thread after being pinged, then we shouldn't just assume they are in favour of an IBAN. Same goes for all the others.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn. Just noticed Salvidrim's post below. If this dispute can drive a user like that to swearing then I'm staying the hell away. I won't directly support an IBAN for the same reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm legitimately sorry if my vociferousness scared you off this discussion -- although to be brutally honest, I'd probably recommend to anyone who asks me to avoid this shitstorm too, so for your own peace of mind, you might want to steer clear of getting involved. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support IBAN, and I would even support a one-way OZ > Zhanzao IBAN if it came to that. OZ has been repeatedly warned by CUs (at least Callanecc and DoRD) to drop the fucking stick after arguing with us repeatedly and questioning our competence, and that he was venturing deep into harassment territory. OZ's total inability to move on when he is proven wrong by numerous CUs/admins agreeing that there are no sockpuppetry violations going despite repeated warnings is disheartening -- we've privately discussed the possibility of blocking him if he kept at it and luckily haven't had to yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't mislead others Salvidrim. Yes your judgement was highly innappropriate. Sad thing is that you even want to fix it, even after having compelling evidence that the abuse was intended. Have you checked those violations through IPs, proxies? Callanecc and DoRD already knows that I have proven the remaining suspects to be blatant sock puppets.(also check [91]) What a silly misrepresentation of outdated "warning" you have made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You shouldn't try to mislead others, yourself. Those accounts are clearly unrelated to Zhanzhao, and they aren't even related to the account you thought that they were, so why are you even mentioning them here? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) In addition, I don't see any evidence that Salvidrim! is trying to mislead anyone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes they are not related to Zhanzhao but Salvidrim is referring to the advice that was made in relation to these accounts.(of stillstanding/sonic) Though the matter is already resolved. Had I shown other diffs that time? Not. Salvidrim is treating like nothing has been changed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh fuck off, you've got your fingers buried deep in your ears and relentlessly refuse to hear anyhting we're saying. I'm walking away from this energy-sucking vortex that you're pumping and I'm not interested in engaging in renewed "discussion" with you. Attempting to respond in any logical or diplomatic manner will just allow things to devolve even further and enough time has been wasted by many admins/CUs trying to try to convince you that ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRATBLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPPETRY POLICY, a fact which you obviously prefer ignoring entirely. I hope you're at least enjoying yourself, although I can't imagine anyone being this wrong and obstinate and not feeling totally miserable. Cheers! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That essay is not supporting any of your assumptions. Cite the evidence/policy not speculations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• So much for that "brother", haven't we have heard many brother stories before? I agree with Hijri88 that there is no evidence of disruption, no personal attack, no wikihounding, just nothing from Occultzone. Interaction ban is not for suppressing the exposure of your dirty works such as socking even if someone wants to stick to that. Furthermore I believe that this request should be closed and requesting user should be indefinitely blocked, as long as socking is a matter of seriousness. SamuelDay1 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. I've been one of the clerks/CUs asked to review the Zhanzhao sockpuppetry case and I was not convinced with the behavioral evidence presented and the technical evidence did not support his claims. I'm growing concerned that OccultZone will continue to make sockpuppetry claims towards Zhanzhao, despite findings to the contrary. This is rising to the level where an interaction ban would be quite helpful. Mike V • Talk 15:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• How come you could not count 2 articles then? You counted "one article" and you were there to support "some of" the evidence, not even whole or half. And then you are citing a wrong SPI. Why you didn't even replied to what had been posted on your talk page? I had asked for the policy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support iban, even a one way OZ-->Z iban as proposed by Salvidrim!. I have, unfortunately, been in the middle of this since near the beginning, and if it takes an iban to separate these two, then so be it. OccultZone, after being told numerous times, by numerous people, that there is nothing actionable at this time against Zhanzhao or DanS, continues to pursue the case with an almost singular focus. This needs to stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? Wrong. I have made over 11,000 edits in last 16 days. No idea what you are talking about. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• 11,000 trivial edits to categories, talk pages, and the like don't obscure the obvious. Anyway, it appears that you are open to Begoon's advice, so I suggest that it would be best if you were to take it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are counting the last 50 edits or all 11,000 edits? How come you ignored thousands of edits to main the article? All of these edits are major. Though I wouldn't find it amazing since your miscalculation was also evident in the case of Resaltador. Since the matters make no sound it is generally better to leave. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support views of OccultZone --Human3015 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. Those two definitely don't go along, this whole thread speaks for itself. RE: Hijiri 88 "unless actual evidence of disruption is presented" — whatever else this post may not prove, it certainly proves disruption. Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. I've followed this, because OZ is an editor I recall from previous interaction. I like OZ, he's a well meaning editor, and dedicated, but boy do sticks adhere to his fingers... OZ, as many have told you, you need to leave others to deal with this, if there is anything to deal with. Your involvement has become obsessive, and I'm supporting this IBAN because I'd hate to see the block you are rushing towards become a reality. Please disengage entirely. Right now. Begoon ^talk 15:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are actually correct. Looking at the views of others, and everything else that is happening around I really find this all pretty lame myself now. Lets see... OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it alone, please. Don't reply here, or anywhere else about it, at all. The IBAN will still probably pass, but that won't matter, cos it'll be a dropped stick, right? This way you can maybe avoid major sanctions over this, and continue with your other valuable contributions. Begoon ^talk 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is nonsensical on so many levels.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Proposal is withdrawn by the requesting user per discussion below. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated: See next 2 subtopics Zhanzhao (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Thanks everyone for their votes. I not only agree with the oppose but also with the support votes. The reason why I didn't gave up, well it is because he continued to watch over my contributions. Yes the interaction ban is one choice, but there are clearly better things to try in this case. Had he said that he would not watch over my contributions, there would be no such circumstances either. He even considered my edits to Lee Kuan Yew to be related to with his dispute, and significantly reported to another admin. Though he might have knew later on that I was there only for fixing a factual error and I didn't even knew if he was there. Can be because of the popularity of the article.

I have also realized now, he is probably correct that he was not really a problem anymore for me that had been started since 23 March, unfortunately he became the target. That can be also a reason why he watched the contributions. In that case we can just return to our normal form. Having content dispute is one thing, but unnecessarily raising the conduct issues is different.[92] But hopefully, I can agree now. Normally how 2 editors act, that is what we will have to prefer from now. I am writing this not only because of a few realizations but also because of the seriousness that has been shown above by others.

So what anyone has to say about this? Indeed, if problems arises anywhere near to this level, we will find here ourselves again. Although I can really assure that it is not going to happen at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is only one question. Will you now drop this issue, entirely, and completely? That's what experienced editors, functionaries, and friends, have asked, no, begged you to do, for your own sake, and ours. It's a simple "yes/no" question. I suggest a one-word answer. Begoon ^talk 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I have stated above, especially the 2nd paragraph. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that as an assurance that you will not raise this issue again, at all, in any way, anywhere, and that sanctions may result should you do so. But then I worry...Begoon ^talk 17:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Declaration: If I can get his word here that he will stop continuing to reopen closed cases based on old evidence, I'll step away from his way. Thats what I've wanted to do since all this started. Again, IF he does find suspicious new socking activity thats clearly related to me (good evidence, not just tagging my name to another random SPI investigation), I have no problem with that. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Zhanzhao: I have already clarified that above. In the light of your latest agreement there is no need to make any SPI that would resemble the previous one, you can forget what happened before and from now it is like a new start since your recent agreement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Accepted. See my reply at bottom of next subtopic. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Can someone help me close this? Per the opening discussions above and the "Arbitration Break" subtopic, both me and OZ have agreed to clean start and move on. Plus the spill-over "Socking" subtopic has already been closed. Sorry for the time and trouble. (Message also copied at top of thread). Zhanzhao (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Socking

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

---

So, what do we do about the rather obvious sock puppetry by Zhanzao?

Incidentally: from my Quackford English Ducktionary, "Suck puppetry: Sock puppetry, but done really badly". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got it right. It looks like that was the sole reason why Occultzone even bothered. Actually anyone would if a serious report confirming violation of so many years and supported by every necessary evidences would had been rejected and socks were treated were so greatly. I fail to find if any rules that would justify such abuse, or even a prior sock puppetry case. Automatically, I feel discriminated because I cannot sock even for one edit, while Zhanzhao can for every edit. Delibzr (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't encourage him. Sockpuppetry has only continued to be disproved by CUs and other admins since you yourself told OZ to drop it, JzG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That was before the WP:BROTHER comment above. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Occult had asked Jzg to see this set, and Jzg told him "that it's unlikely" per CU, but these socks are also blocked now and we are back to the convictions of socking where you found brother excuses, and now again questioning the heroic release from sock puppetry, though he really wanted to sock. If I have definitely told one to "stop using your family relatives, friends for socking", while I sock all time and upon conviction I tell that "I didn't socked, my brother helps and stalks my contribution history", would you believe it? How dense it would be. Delibzr (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TO Delibrzr, actually the context was totally different back then. If you looked at the thread where that about me supposing to know about meatpuppetry [93], it was quoted by DanS76, not me; it was from years ago; and the offending editor Ahnan was actively going to off-wiki forums to recruit people to come into Wikipedia to editwar on his side. When that policy was mentioned years ago, I didn't even think much about the family angle, it was just looking at the "off-wiki" part when I saw that. And you'll observe from the conversation that DanS76 was riling Ahnan up while I was trying to calm Ahnan down to prevent prevent escalation (yes, we don't always agree, which I pointed out before in the old SPI).Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That means that the named account still socked along with you, while warning others not to do the same. Hypocritical. I don't care how much you both were bullying Ahnan or any other editors you have. I am just saying that it all looks so fake, and unsupported by any rules. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• As the result of several SPIs, numerous CUs/clerks/admins have determined (both with behavioural and technical evidence) that: ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRABLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPETTRY POLICY.
  I don't know how much clearer this can be made. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• That barbaric shout is clearly unhelpful and it comes with no evidence and contrary to they have written above. "both with behavioural and technical evidence" definitely share mutuality when they are also admitted by the suspect. Why you are deceiving? I just asked if you will take same kind of heroic decision when anyone else would be convicted upon socking, which is still not answered by you. Delibzr (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Salvidrim! I reduced your 100px red rant down to 20px, which is bad enough. You're an admin, you should know better than to do shit like that. Please don't do it again. BMK (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, BMK. I dunno if OZ is contagious but it seems I am also having some trouble letting go of this -- how ironic that I should fall prey to the same pitfalls I am accusing OZ of digging himself in. These are hopefully my last words on this whole shitstorm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I understand precisely what you mean. BMK (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Declaration: As mentioned, I would not find any issue if a new SPI was raised against me by OZ based on suspicious new socking activity. The WP:BROTHER angle is no longer in the equation as DanS76 has quit. At risk of self-outing, I've even sent OZ and another 2 admins info about me and my family which shows that I actually have 2 brothers. However I can reveal that the 2nd one is overseas long-term, and (I asked) he does not edit on wikipedia. So even that is a non-issue. Its a waste of me, OZ, and everyone else's time to repeatedly defend myself again and again over the same evidence. I'm not afraid of continued scrutiny since I don't sock. I just want to move on and not have to continually return to a dead-horse-flogging-party with everyone else. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You have warned others against such meat puppetry as well and you clearly knew what can happen when you told others not to make such "mistake", lobbying one admin is not going to remove the heinous breach that you have done. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not lobby anyone. I only sent out the personal info to 3 people in response to OZ's claims I was making up the fact about having brothers - him being one the people I sent it to, and 2 other admins who volunteered to look at the info. And for that 2010 case, I repeating a warning to the other editor about recruiting someone fresh from outside wiki to help him in his edit war: I was not the one who posted the Meatpuppetry policy, so I only read a few lines above that thread about the quoted policy and was focused more on the "recruiting people from the outside to participate" bit, and barely though about that after the incident. I did not fully realize the implication of having someone who is also an editor in the same family and would edit similarly would face. Once asked about our relationship, I clarified it immediately, the admin suggested that we should make clear on our individual accounts that we were related/editing from the same IP, which was done. And that DanS76 has retired his account makes it doubly certain this would not be an issue anymore moving forward. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zhanzhao as multiple editors have raised concerns over your actions they want some outcome. I would propose that you should agree to restrict yourself to one account from now. No IPs or any accounts, any other violation can lead to indef. Any other account that you used before can be blocked now, as you have also confirmed that they are of no use. So would you agree? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SamuelDay1, I have no intention of violating any rules. Anything I have done, I did with the best of intentions. Anything I did wrong, I am prepared to deal wih it. If I intended to sock, I would have just abandoned this account which has so much baggage. But I continue with it, warts and all with all the SPI and block history, because I have always been transparent about everything I have done. Even OZ pointed out above of an instance when I accidentally edited while logged out, and logged in just to clarify it was me. So again, this was, is and will be the only account I use on wikipedia Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So I may consider that you have accepted my above proposal already? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes with a strong emphasis. Because irregardless of what others believe, editing with one account is what I have always done. You can also include a furter note that if there is evidence of meatpuppetry, WP:FAMILY or WP:BROTHER, that counts against me as well - if anyone else in my family begins to edit here, I think I will really just quit Wikipedia totally to avoid all this drama again. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zhanzhao has now agreed that he would restrict himself to one account and any other accounts(namely DanS76) can be blocked. Closing admin should log this entry as restriction to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Worm That Turned, OccultZone, Begoon, Hijiri88, Yunshui and others can also see that he has taken these concerns and is willing to move forward. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with it, thank you for your efforts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATED: As OccultZone has made it clear on my page that he would not be filing SPIs against me again, I will take his word for it since he has also promised Begoon the same. As mentioned repeatedly, I leave the door open to him filing a new SPI against me if he should notice new suspicious activity from me. This has always been my desired outcome. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is a good choice to limit with one account and leave other accounts behind. Both have agreed too. Delibzr (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Request alteration of WP:EDR entry's wording

Hey, about two years ago Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was banned from editing Japanese literature articles and interacting with me. The precise wording by User:DangerousPanda was A mutual IB between them and User:Elvenscout742 (now renamed to User:Hijiri88) was originally in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IB for Tristan. They are also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed. Although the IB was lifted for Elvenscout, they have been warned to neither poke the bear nor "grave dance".

The last sentence was actually not supported by anything in the thread except a statement by User:Zad68 that I should continue refraining from interacting with Tristan noir as I already had been doing. The latter user's later comment makes it impossible to interpret the earlier statement as an accusation that I had been at fault. I didn't oppose the addition of a warning to me initially, since it didn't have any negative consequences, but that has now changed. The gender-neutral plural wording "they are also topic-banned" has also been misinterpreted as applying to me, which is the exact opposite of the consensus of that thread.

This, on top of the fact that I've gone over two years without either "poking the bear" or "grave-dancing" with regard to Tristan noir (who hasn't even edited in over a year), inclines me to ask for the last sentence of Tristan noir's IBAN/TBAN to be removed, and for "they are" to be changed to "they [Tristan noir] are".

I was going to just message DangerousPanda, but that user hasn't edited in four months, apparently as a result of ArbCom desysopping him. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make the change myself.

So I'm here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• First thing: I support clarification of the pronoun "they" to something equally gender-neutral but that doesn't cause potential singular/plural confusion. That seems noncontroversial. As for the note of the warning to you, I think it was 100% appropriate, but is no longer necessary to keep it displayed one year later, especially since there does not seem to have been further issues and Tristan has been gone for over a year. I am also uncomfortable with the word "fabricated" because of its connotations, but a wording change at this point seems like a bit futile, so we could leave it. My new proposed wording: "Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. Tristan is also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed.". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that Tristan has also expressed unease at the use of the verb "fabrication" (see my talk), I'm looking for alternative that would still accurately describe the events without imposing the overly negative connotations. Perhaps "initiated" might be better? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Following an incident initiated by Tristan" works. TN doesn't seem to mind it either. By the way, it's technically inaccurate to say he has abided by the ban since February 2013. Just to clarify, since the "incident" in question involved TN not editing for an extended period and emerging immediately when I mentioned them in order to present a skewed picture to an admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Instigated by"? Squinge (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Given it's the admin noticeboards, "ignited" is probably the best word. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Squinge + Blackmane: Technically the incident was that once the earlier mutual IBAN was put in place the user stopped editing, then after close to two months I edited an article he had previously edited, and he immediately complained to the admin who had closed the previous thread. He then started editing a large number of articles on my favourite topic, in which he had never edited before, and then when I responded I was blocked for violating the IBAN. The general consensus was that TN had violated the IBAN by closely watching my edits while not editing himself, and baiting me with the Japanese classical literature edits. There was no admin noticeboard activity involved in the "incident", so Blackmane's "ignited" argument doesn't really work. :P

@Salvidrim: I am not opposed to any of the verbs that have been presented as alternatives for "fabricated". Looking back on it now, I think what DP meant was that the "incident" I had supposedly instigated was in fact made up by TN, which would explain the choice of words. All of the options change this meaning, but it's not really a problem. I don't think anyone would oppose you changing the word to "initiated", so if you wouldn't mind doing the honours and changing the "they" to "Tristan" and removing the last sentence as well?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My "ignited" comment was meant to be facetious as every regular to the admin noticeboards that "incidents" have a tendency to devolve into fiascoes, debacles or perhaps even conflagrations, hence "ignited". Salvidrim's edited text is and explicit wording avoids confusion. Blackmane (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since it's been five days with no opposition, and no comment for three days, and this thread is therefore in danger of getting archived without a close, I'm making the changes, in accordance with User:Salvidrim's emendations, myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not so fast, Hijiri88. I propose that, if we are to follow Salvidrim's suggestions, that we let said user and admin Salvidrim adjust the wording. And since you just commented (and I did), this won't be archived. Ping Salvidrim... Drmies (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• No objections, so I was about to update the wording as proposed anyways, so whoever implements it matters little. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog of 35 XFD items at WP:ANRFC

There are 35 XFD items at WP:ANRFC, including Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Plowback retained earnings, whose discussion started in February 2014. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because it is impossible to read that RfC to the end and retain your sanity, or indeed the will to live. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So after reading JzG's comment above, I had to go look.

So I read through it about 15 times or so. Checked the references (apparently OED removed theirs). Read the other past discussions. And just decided "there's always another admin"... - jc37 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply - At some point, it may default to No Consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

never heard of 'default to no consensus', not to mention then it'll be back in 2 months again and back here in 4 because everyone involved looks obsessive. This needs to close with a definite outcome, keep or delete doesn't matter (imo delete's the obvious outcome, but I lost the will to live halfway through so what do I know - and befoer some adminwit calls the emergency line no I meant this figuratively, so put that phone down ok? good boy) Anyway if admins spent less time abusing innocent IP users and more time closing discussions we wouldnt have these crazy backlogs what d oyou have to say about that? 134.208.33.104 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply -@134.208.33.104:. When users cannot agree on an outcome, it often defaults to No Consensus. With that said, I have not read the discussion, but hopefully we can come to some type of conclusion on this issue as well as others. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?

With 63 threads of its own at the time of this writing, transcluding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure onto this board makes it unduly long and cumbersome. Wouldn't it make sense to dispense with the transclusion?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It also gets them done, albeit slowly - which is hardly a surprise since they would not be on the list if they were easy. As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I read the board backwards, from the bottom up, so when I hit the closure section I just stop reading and go to my next task. BMK (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep them transcluded per the first bullet point at the top - "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (my bolding). Otherwise the RfC backlog will be logged here as a normal incident that will then disappear off this page in a couple of days with no action. Maybe if a few admins actually did something about the backlog, it wouldn't have a massive transclusion... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the problem is, was, and probably will continue to be that stuff gets listed there that does not need a formal close by an uninvolved admin. The difficulty is establishing some sort of uniform standard for what should and should not require a formal close. Not sure what to do about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice you've repeatedly asserted that funny belief at this noticeboard over time, but in all reality, it does not improve anything at all and often doesn't gel with reality. Even using your excuse, it takes a few short seconds (or minutes) to specify those items which don't actually need to be closed - I've certainly done that, but it hasn't changed the inordinate delay for the discussions required to be closed by an administrator to actually be closed by an admin. The actual problem which brought the listings here in the first place is that an inadequate number of duly elected administrators properly participate in this task (which is perhaps ironic given the number of promises made during RfAs promising to clear backlogs). It was hoped that more eyes would improve that situation by transcluding the discussion here, and I can say it certainly has improved since the listings were brought here, though not nearly as much as was probably hoped at the time. Of course the other reality is that many of these closures take a significant amount of time to do properly and are sometimes too complex or difficult for the administrators who are less experienced at this type of thing. That said, it is also very convenient to blame everyone else except the numerous users who voluntarily sought tools but at the same time will not do what it is they were elected to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some doesn't, some does, but like it or not, we have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit. If you don't want to, then fine, but I think it's a basic courtesy that when people launch RfCs and such they should be able to expect that the time spend discussing the issues will result in some form of closure. Yes, in many cases it doesn't need an actual admin, but it seems to make people more inclined to draw a line under things if it is. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • But sometimes the discussion reaches a natural conclusion, and a formal close is just that, a complete formality and totally unnecessary. Unfortunately, the difference doesn't seem to be recognized by Cunard, who is basically the editor compiling the list, and thus it grows like Topsy, with the discussions that really do need to be closed mixed in with the petty ones that have run out of steam, with everyone basically disinterested, or actually in rough agreement. BMK (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • And contributing is the fact that when admins like me remove items that don't need to be admin-closed, Cunard and others restore them, even undoing an edit that says "this won't be done by an admin, so stop wasting our time". When you're asking for admin action, and a passing uninvolved admin says "no action is necessary", don't go and revert him: you've gotten your admin response. Either it's a suitable response, in which case you need to drop it, or it really needs action, in which case you should make a bigger request (e.g. laying out reasons why a closure is necessary), not simply putting it back and making it look like nobody's touched it yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Despite the fact the second editor who reverted your edit is currently blocked for sockpuppetry, I agree with what you've said generally. However, I think the objection with your edit was not that it won't be done by an admin; instead, the objection was that it was deleting the request which should be archived. I'm sure we had some brief discussion (though I can't remember what came of it) in relation to whether requests should be archived or simply deleted. I'm not spectacularly fussed what happens with those types of requests but think if archiving is taking place, then bot-automated archiving should be done more promptly. It would mean the backlog wouldn't appear so lengthy and we'd be able to more easily ascertain what proportion of requests listed by any given editor were actually unnecessary without having to look through the page's history. While I know there will always be some dispute regarding whether archiving is necessary, perhaps it would be helpful if we could all agree to increase the frequency of archiving by the bot in the interim? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
          • If your objection is simply that I didn't allow the bot to archive the requests, why would you just revert me? Wouldn't you instead spend a while adding a bunch of little "no" templates to all of the ones I removed? (Hmm, takes a while, especially since nobody will ever check the archive...Wonder why I remove resolved items?) Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Well in the meantime, I've just manually archived about 10 discussions which were closed 2 days ago; 24 hours of display is more than enough yet the bot didn't archive them. I still think an increased frequency for the bot to archive would help because now there are just about 26 requests (22 rfcs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually look at the ANRFC section when I visit this page, because I'm not that interested in closing other people's threads. But as a non-admin am I even allowed? If the answer is no, could this be made a bit more clear than it already is? There was a certain recent occurrence where one non-admin posting a large number of ANRFCs requesting "experienced editors" "close" them, without actually going through the discussions themselves and seeing if they needed to be closed, and another non-admin came along and "closed" the already finished and un-templated RFC as a result, providing a dubious interpretation of the "consensus" and leading to a minor fustercluck. The problem on that particular discussion is already resolved, but User:JzG above says "we [admins] have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit". I have my doubts as to whether someone who actually held the mop in question would close an weeks-ago un-templated RFC with a dubious consensus claim, but is it safe to interpret JzG's comment and the fact that ANRFC is on the administrators' noticeboard to mean that admins are generally supposed to be the ones who perform these closes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-admins who busy themselves with NAC on this board. Usually when an admin's accountability is under question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can close RfCs as long as they are uninvolved. Contentious ones may be best left to admins because drama. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes they should remain here. While some may not need formal closure, it is very frustrating when no one seems to find those that do. AN is a good place for them to go as there is a high degree of visibility. Finally (and off-topic), I'd suggest pointing anyone looking for the mop to consider closing a number of these. It's a non-admin task that tells you a lot about how good of an admin they'll be. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  I heartily second everything Hobit just said directly above : ) - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to use {{fakeheader}}s

I propose that we continue using ANRFC as we currently do, but that all requests be placed under {{fakeheader}}s, which would significantly reduce clutter in the TOC while maintaining the same level of usability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a noticeboard. Notices on a noticeboard aren't "clutter", they're notices. Just because you may not care for them, doesn't make them any less valid than any other notice here requesting admin attention. - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I happen to care for them. I'm not proposing that we remove anything! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's an idea but would it not be easier to just use {{toclimit|3}} or similar? Most of the space is taken up by items in need of closing. tutterMouse (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be wary of doing this because sometimes active AN threads make use of "deeper" threading levels... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• True but I think it's a compromise that works as well as your proposal, breaks in long conversations do matter after all. I have a question, does {{fake heading}} have an ability to be used as section anchors as a regular header would? It's also a bit disappointing as they're coded specifically to fit in with Vector which is great if you're using Vector, looks out of place otherwise. tutterMouse (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as an excellent compromise. Being able to use the links in the TOC without having to scroll way down to get to the first thread on this board would be a big help. Efficacy and ergonomics were my main concern and Salvidrim!'s proposal addresses that quite well.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Idiocracy

Someone please explain to me how is this considered vandalism. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by a user and an anti-vandal bot. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If a valid edit is reverted by an anti-vandal bot, the message from the anti-vandal bot includes instructions on how to report false positives. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't address the issue with the registered editor reverting the IP edit except to note, as another poster did, that the IP edit didn't include an edit summary. In my opinion, this thread wasn't worth opening here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For your sake, I hope you are not suggesting that any edit without an edit summary is vandalism. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Pinging involved editor @Andyjsmith:. You changed a long-standing three-column reflist to a 30em-per-column reflist. According to WP:BRD (Bold-revert-discuss), you boldly changed the columning, presumably the editor did not feel it proper to break that long-standing status quo and reverted it, and it is time for you to discuss (at the article talk Talk:SpaceX or directly to the editor at User talk:Andyjsmith) if you still feel strongly that this change is legitimate. Please note that you have technically went over the WP:3RR limit (3 reverts on one page within 24 hours), and you can be blocked for that. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't broken 3RR, and I have yet to see an explanation how my edit constitutes vandalism. I also don't agree that this minor change, which improves reflist on smaller displays, requires a discussion. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A helpful tip is to include edit summaries to your edits explaining your rationales, so that others can know what you are doing and don't jump to conclusions of vandalism. PS. Please don't edit-war with MarnetteD at Imprint Entertainment over a single empty line break. While the columning parameter change was legitimate as per below, this one literally has no visible effect and such repeated reverting can be seen as unconstructive. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry - if I happen to need your advice, I will ask for it on your personal talkpage, not on this noticeboard. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Replying with hostility to a helpful comment is not helpful. Edits that are made without edit summaries and without talk page discussion are often reverted.

• The edit was clearly rolled back as if it were vandalism. It is clearly not vandalism! It's a barely noticeable minor edit to the ref list that presumably served a legitimate purpose. Andyjsmith is clearly the one in the wrong here. Don't revert good faith edits without any explanation!! BRD is a helpful dispute resolution method but it's not a damn license to edit war without explanation! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for information: specifying a fixed number of columns has been deprecated for some time: see Template:Reflist#Columns for detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well there you go then, case closed. That's good information, thanks. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Still not "vandalism" by our definition though. BMK (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, not only was it not vandalism but it's the preferred format. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Right! I had it backwards. BMK (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• IP users as always have to fix everything after registerd users and what do we get? called vandals....134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are still some users and a few administrators with common sense, otherwise Wikipedia would quickly become obsolete. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

IP insisting on changing description of location.

Resolved

At Michael Jordan statue an IP starting with 2602:304:CEBF:8590 (from 23:07, 26 March 2015, from 22:28, 27 March 2015, from 01:08, 19 April 2015, and ending with variations (and a WP:SPA) has been chopping down the location description. Once I explained that Chicago WP:FA sculptures (such as Cloud Gate and Crown Fountain) have the same location description format, he decided to change them as well. Can someone take a look at this and figure out what can be done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the pages. Let me know if there's any others. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

I happened upon this discussion on Talk:Nazi gun control theory, and saw this diff. I investigated further, and found that Lightbreather has a history of disruptively editing articles, as seen by [94], [95] and a multitude of other 3RR warnings. User:Ched has given Lightbreather a final warning [96] about her incivility, and I think it is time that action be taken. [97] Her uncivil "retirement" message where she talks about the uncivil discussions on gun control. I'd also like to reference her incivility towards Sue Rangell, which resulted in a messy conclusion, to say the least. She has also received a 6 month topic ban in the past.

User:Lightbreather needs to be topic banned permanently, as she has flagrantly disregarded civility, as well as 3rr, and has not learned from the last ArbCom case on gun control. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: These aren't diffs; you'll need to provide these instead of the page version. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@JethroBT: How? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: For instance, with diff 104 instead of using a revision it's requested that you provide a diff. On the revision page, underneath the pink section you'll see: (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff). Clicking on the first diff link will provide you what you're looking for. Mike V • Talk 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chess, some of the links you provide appear to have nothing to do with the subject of your proposed topic ban - could you clarify why you consider them relevant, and/or why you are proposing Lightbreather be banned from that specific subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: They reflect that she has received numerous warnings that this behavior is not acceptable, and that she knows it is wrong. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you requesting a topic ban from a specific subject based on evidence that doesn't all relate to that subject? If there is a general behavioural issue that needs dealing with (I'll refrain from expressing an opinion on this for now), a narrow topic ban isn't going to solve it - and if there is a specific problem with 'gun control' topics, we need to look at evidence that relates to it directly. Topic bans are a means to deal with a specific issue, not a means of punishment for broader infractions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I can dig the desired diffs out of those links: [98] [99] [100] [101] (the last one seems to be referring to the box of big text at the beginning). That should do it for diffs of warnings, but I agree that it doesn't show her disruptively editing articles; if it shows anything, it's a pattern of general behaviour that may or may not need to be addressed (I haven't enough information to know). Disclaimer: I found out about this from IRC; Chess gave no names so as not to canvass, but the research required to find this discussion was minimal. ekips39❦talk 05:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

She got topic banned from gun control topics before, for 6 months. After her ban was over, the problems that led to the ban resurface on the same pages. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we still need diffs of those problems resurfacing. Also, what constitutes incivility is a lot like the size of a heap of sand, as evidenced by many discussions that centred on that issue and went nowhere fast. This means that warnings aren't enough to show that she's intractably uncivil and needs a formal restriction -- we need diffs of her being uncivil, which is also necessary to show that she's persisted after the warnings. The retirement message link is the closest you've given, and I don't consider that to be uncivil, which highlights the heap of sand issue. ekips39❦talk 05:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the 3RR warning that Chess linked was posted by a contributor who appears from the edit history of the article concerned to also have been involved. Making it somewhat questionable as evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: it was still a clear violation of 3RR on her part, reverting content that I'm not sure she actually read. "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others." Her preferred answers to the four issues at stake are all still the live version of the page because of the 3RR violation. I'm not saying my preferred version should be the live one right now either, but there's not even a compromise version up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks awfully like a case of trying to recruit admins to a cause. I don't see anything actionable in those diffs. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not Lightbreather's greatest fan, and I too don't see anything there. This looks to me like trying to remove your "opponents" from a subject. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like someone trying to do exactly the same sort of thing that LB tries to do. This type of comment is not usually helpful but it is not going to be addressed through a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think we of LB's "Fan Club" are pretty much of one mind on this — there's nothing here beyond the inevitable belly-bumping of activists on two sides of a controversy. Nothing actionable that I can see. @Chess should stop trying to crush opponents but rather should figure out how to find common ground and a path forward. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So which comments have I made that insinuated that I am trying to "crush opponents"? Maybe you should actually learn about the dispute in question before throwing wild accusations at me. If you've read the dispute... Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: Please link to my comments in the gun control dispute where I "crush opponents". I haven't made any comments. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - As the other User that was involved in LB's 6 month Topic Ban, its not so much a disruptive influence as it is WP:CIVILPOV pushing and the inflexibility when it comes to exact wording of content and titles as well as source selection and usage in various articles. I will admit my own culpability and involvement upfront. As was noted in the ArbCom, many things that LB added, I challenged and/or reverted, hence our Tban for Edit warring. That said, here are some examples...

• Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article[102], they wanted this article to be titled Assault Weapons Ban and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[103] then before that closed a Move Request was initiated[104] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[105]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on.
• National Rifle Association - This is a frequent recipient of LB's efforts. The article has existed since August of 2002[106], LB joined WP in March, 2007. So far there are 1,372 distinct Editors to the article, but yet Lightbreather is responsible for over 10 percent of the total edits. I'm not saying that LB has not made worthwhile contributions, but the arguing over how exactly to say it and which sources LB considers acceptable are relentless to put it nicely. The article Talk page pretty clearly demonstrates this currently IMO, but it goes back quite a while.
• Topic & Interaction Ban and short term Block of the Firearms Project Coordinator[107] - I'm not defending the statements that Mike Searson made, but I feel that the situation happened because he was pushed to his limits and just finally went off on LB[108]. So now we have a Project Coordinator that is banned from addressing part of what his project is about. Another Editor and I have come up with a proposed solution for this, but that's off this topic for now.
• Recent ANI - This is one of a number of instances where LB makes a request and when its ignored, rebuffed, or not immediately and completely accepted, LB is upset over it. In this situation there was the mitigating circumstance of an injured arm, but its not the first time that LB has told other Editors to not edit an article because either 1) LB is actively in the middle of editing and does not want to be interrupted, or 2) cannot be around to monitor the editing of others. There are difs that further demonstrate this, but I don't wish to devote a significant chunk of my day to track them down.
• Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 - This example is IMO actually one where LB demonstrated restraint in what the article contained and how it was sourced. But what sets this article apart is that LB has nominated it for Good article status[109]. But even the selection of the Main image was not without its fair share of debate[110]. Some of these discussions, then bled over into Gun Control Act of 1968 where admittedly I picked up a WP:STICK I had waived around about 10 months ago[111] regarding one very specific detail in the History section of the article.[112] This time, after discussion on the Talk page I asked for a Third opinion which went against me. Accepting that outcome, I rewrote the section in question using all of the original references and attributing them sentence by sentence. It started out as this[113] and after discussion and the Third opinion, I edited it to this[114]. This included discussion and explanation on the Talk page of how I arrived at the most recent version.

All in all, its been a little easier to work with LB since our TBan, their subsequent Sock block, and such, but not a lot when they seemingly decide how an article and/or section should be and then works to force the issue. I'm leaving to do some work, so I will not be back for several hours. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see anything actionable in the diffs provided. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, she has since (today) bandied around more insinuations of sockpuppetry and shows no sign of stopping, even though asked to either take it to SPI or desist. If nothing else, it has a chilling effect and seems somewhat hypocritical given the frequency that she has linked to WP:ASPERSIONS in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Hajme 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And now has just done this, which removes a website apparently at least in part because it breaches WP:ELREG, which it doesn't seem to do as I've just been able to access the news stories on its front page without registering. I've no opinion regarding linkfarms and adverts as pretty much everything in that section would probably qualify on those grounds but, well, this is not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT, Mike V: FYI, I have read all of the above. I have in the past tried to respond to every editor who comments about me in these piling-on kinds of discussions, but it wears me out. As two admin whom I respect, I will answer your questions, if you have any. Also, I hope you will read Scalhotrod's comments keeping in mind our past and that we were BOTH topic-banned from gun-control for six months. I don't want to respond in detail to his comments, but there is another side to every story, and, again, if you have questions, I will answer them.

FWIW: I am making a good faith effort to improve the article under dispute, or at least to keep it from going backward. If there is an added urgency to my edits the last couple of days, it is because A) I have a broken arm and have less patience than usual, and B) This is a Nazi-gun-control dispute, which, as you know, caused a helluva lot of problems just one year ago. As for the SPI/SPIs, I have sought advice from Mike, and I'm making up my mind about what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT its absolutely amazing that after all her shenanigans lightbreather is still allowed to edit, I find it totally unbelievable. 'less patience than usual' that's an understatement of the year or meybe an overstatement of your usual level of patience - lightbreather you're as completely out of control as always and i cantr believe to still see you editing wow! 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are currently blocked and this was your first edit. Hajme 11:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A link problem

Not sure where to bring this up. I've periodically run into problems with Oregon legislature coming up red, while Oregon Legislature is blue. This shouldn't happen, as far as I'm aware. Not sure if any admins have powers to fix something like that, but it needs to be done because it messes up both links and search results. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created it as a redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mis-spelled name

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

---

Dear administrators: The page entitled "Tzuriel Rafael" should be changed to "Tsuriel Raphael," which is how the person himself spells his name. I tried changing it myself and then found out I cannot do so because I'm not an administrator. TIA. Zozoulia 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting restoration of 3 pages

Hello,

the pages for Clonazolam, Flubromazolam and Deschloroetizolam have recently been deleted for the lack of credible sources. Today a new study, "Characterization of the four designer benzodiazepines clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, and meclonazepam, and identification of their in vitro metabolites" was published, I hope that counts and the wiki pages for these novel substances can be restored. Feel free to add that reference yourself if you want to :)

Thank you! Aethyta (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Aethyta, it's best if you put in your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IBAN notice

• User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Contravention_of_IBAN

Would someone take a look at this and address it one way or other? Thanks. - jc37 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's really no point in IBANs if no-one cares about enforcing them. The best outcome here would be for Medeis to apologise and explain that it was a momentary lapse. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• It would probably help if someone actually notified Medeis of this discussion. I've just let them know about it on their talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a technical objection to an RfC which was wrongly worded. ITN/R is based on the assumption that any item listed on it has significantly strong support overall as to its importance that repeatedly listing it is a waste of time. Therefore, the question at hand should be, "does consensus actually exist to retain this item?" not "is there consensus to remove this item?" In fact, given any lack of strong consensus the item should be removed. I believe I made that clear in my original statement.

That being said, there's no TBAN on either of us, I made no personal comment, but purely on the topic (we are both allowed to edit any topic at ITN or related to it, even if the other has edited or created the same thread, as per the original 2012 IBAN discussions, so long as we do not revert each other or refer directly to each other's comments). The RfC itself is not a comment. I did not respond to any comment of TRM's. We have agreed and disagreed on dozens of items either or both of us has worked on or nominated with this being the first suggestion one cannot object to the wording of an RfC. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This was a direct contravention of the IBAN. The comment was made as a direct response to my proposal. It's clear. Not to mention that your own statement was not only erroneous, but that you were told as much by at least two other editors. As it is both incorrect and a contravention of the IBAN ("These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted."), it'd be best for you to strike it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Medeis: you're wrong. Now forget it and move on. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologising when you're wrong is more appropriate than forgetting it... --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass delete

all these nonsense pages:

Long list of Flow pages

Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg Topic:Rojlee068l62rbes Topic:Rojmuz478euzkbd0 Topic:Rojpbg609yyqfv5w Topic:Rok9qy0hb4lz83gk Topic:Rokd7o2d2be9c0pc Topic:Rokh0uf34leugads Topic:Rokhdqlxmmeki3yo Topic:Rokhuo12yfszq3k4 Topic:Rol83nlzghf5okuo Topic:Rolak7dk1gfqaglg Topic:Rolo7ffkgptdyrgk Topic:Ron4h1kufe8a9dhs Topic:Ron5kdut6dnhr6a8 Topic:Ronqadmetsq9duv8 Topic:Ronsz8yhsrhq3890 Topic:Ronz285xqcpwt1ms Topic:Roo05eghv3ya58y8 Topic:Rop0ajryddhpd380 Topic:Ropbao6190moulxg Topic:Ropjm0fgltrwfkhw Topic:Ropnaopuy0b5yp2w Topic:Roqrf3692ilvpn5k Topic:Roqrofu6sf67kosw Topic:Rourbymankwkw0wg Topic:Rovvnaai47pp9u9w Topic:Row9rwq0lwuoimwo Topic:Rowtmyodz2a96cgg Topic:Royxd2frzdy34tcg Topic:Roz1zju2f5zcm9ao Topic:Rp173w44kner95dw Topic:Rp2dtrk2lptacpam Topic:Rp2pfb6ete6pq6fg Topic:Rp338uhkrre3jsht Topic:Rp4dla175w4lcztp Topic:Rp4pxylhbmoozq7e Topic:Rpbc3zcjhrrwtaza Topic:Rpcbhk1f6mn3feux Topic:Rpejgfwuwrxfc44h Topic:Rpgca5e9yyrhoqq5 Topic:Rphby1h9zx1b1e92 Topic:Rphxh6bjtrubqia3 Topic:Rpi8y4hbixkou0hr Topic:Rpmwuq30tmuzwi1w Topic:Rpvboeuey3a7vap0 Topic:Rpylhwd9sb2080iu Topic:Rpyw35b26qqw7m6k Topic:Rq0mvly4ns8eu51h Topic:Rq0n6hqf0yy3q8e1 Topic:Rqaaql5vrwzlvm6d Topic:Rqaaqx0q8mgegdxd Topic:Rqftrrgmeuj9t5y1 Topic:Rqjunzu26n44zemu Topic:Rrbgayby8t1e86qp Topic:Rrbguyj2id4xnvl3 Topic:Rrkh9dial4kvq2oj Topic:Rrqpstd5inl8d753 Topic:Rrtki2fpqy5qpiep Topic:Rrwiqwvglp15dhvn Topic:Rsjfvpurl90bee8v Topic:Rtpxvwm6db1mjka9 Topic:Rtu87jfo46sd2s55 Topic:Rueo96u36r6re27b Topic:Ruk9n3213mgoxkk8 Topic:Ruwvd55ysiww7guk Topic:Rv2t8psjovgz1j69 Topic:Rv6622xq0czv15cx Topic:Rvkxeg33vrib5sym Topic:Rvu8m6hu9v1y6pus Topic:Rw60o5ujcgk6sn8f Topic:Rw9cw3ry8v9kkrnw Topic:Rwad2z0bwqkkk40u Topic:Rwau9p89romw1ffl Topic:Rwefiaxjertddqgg Topic:Rwjv1p1jh4t2x9rb Topic:Rwxk7376w19x3vjl Topic:Rx8wxxhtt5lo3c69 Topic:Rx8yzkqkkdgq1csg Topic:Rxp0i0n2ixvgxwvb Topic:Rxucmu4nufxb70bl Topic:Rxx5219md50ah3tw Topic:Rxz81vitqtqjb6rf Topic:Ry2cvj5ihl64las4 Topic:Ry4gx8uw5sf95i8v Topic:Ry58yg9we6ybmtev Topic:Ry5abji7qaclwrch Topic:Ry5ah1y18hzdgc41 Topic:Ry927uc8m9xjr5nl Topic:Ry929mayo9smflj1 Topic:Ry92afpbxb6ckdko Topic:Ryn0bvtu96wssero Topic:Rypf2ks1i0cidumw Topic:Rz281tsrgcffg0bj Topic:Rz5by3nm618x1n4y Topic:Rz5cnqjkus7rqd7l Topic:Rz5cx55r30oyyvsh Topic:Rzo00ryg5ul02abn Topic:S00qtb5yibfw0q7x Topic:S05xxbcvxn1tofk4 Topic:S13nyy3jzxy5ahmr Topic:S181jfg27kor2tso Topic:S1c9ebcxnu4pppnj Topic:S1cjn6eiu9h5dlgk Topic:S1copfbky7gck0bj Topic:S1dqvr0dtp47h71a Topic:S1dr5fh98okcorc1 Topic:S1em4t7nn0p3nn8h Topic:S1h3933zeog0cpxe Topic:S1i6zqcol3471dkx Topic:S1q61dg0mhz4t9wx Topic:S1q61h8nfvq5ledq Topic:S1q7oxlwwt9r7rh0 Topic:S1qbdrfjaqng8ian Topic:S1qbe3suy3q2kqjq Topic:S1rb6cyeflv6xr0u Topic:S1rokyfexfgrds25 Topic:S1rsimizubqr25wm Topic:S1s9kwimy3w2q17j Topic:S1tjxiprhu4pq210 Topic:S1u4yp09cwg7ku3l Topic:S1v8pwwjdakbykgv Topic:S1v8qj55aa2c6rxg Topic:S1wdara6nyes2aj8 Topic:S1wvhwpoe9wskazr Topic:S1yrttgeogsxkzaf Topic:S1ys2ix7fqykm4ip Topic:S1ysor64e7ftn36e Topic:S214uoczkp47cfsx Topic:S22eceruv8s9u8sg Topic:S22f5pwu98gqltl1 Topic:S22olnmzgd49twr0 Topic:S22zgkpn8ixojs1p Topic:S2399mivp8txsu3m Topic:S23kgr0jal6zroqo Topic:S23kkclhy8znphxq Topic:S23uj2m46ddqu1ho Topic:S23uradqq4mcu6t7 Topic:S241yfb05mdit5lw Topic:S2420aqeh58prjku Topic:S242pi3lqt3zv3ep Topic:S24382ardxqkme01 Topic:S24ac64e6mbvijzb Topic:S250cdau3plwcumm Topic:S25ozqoyyyti90qz Topic:S265wunk0r2d402s Topic:S284f48h4hc8q2k1 Topic:S2idzg0eoe9fuu7e Topic:S2jtnhujc0f480sf Topic:S2mti8w8pww07s5t Topic:S2mtqnqvnkubl0g1 Topic:S2n4acq720znw1xf Topic:S2n8v8tnlfrk509z Topic:S2ql633g5m56vlhd Topic:S2rbb4w1p9qdfp0n Topic:S2t1dxc6dlmyjirr Topic:S2v4qeax80w8yeg7 Topic:S32c3vyqzrrpkecf Topic:S34v0h47jrigscnz Topic:S3529auswuu84azj Topic:S352i4v9e2g8lvdm Topic:S352n0v45qkgo5jf Topic:S3fk630d1w86krt3 Topic:S3gqo83y6prj9uz0 Topic:S3grrxbq6z10f8hx Topic:S3i5bi461ihp3g4o Topic:S3i5durwbrwlq6lf Topic:S3ilu64hv0ycp5kw Topic:S3l0bi92tf3dx207 Topic:S3l0za726rend89a Topic:S3sq5imdhyrmn7hg Topic:S3t1c9ave8zb7v0n Topic:S3wy4k7w3zoxc0x3 Topic:S3y884fqbhu664zp Topic:S437gf01r85go7bv Topic:S52i493buoig5v4s Topic:S5mi9ix8l1qn486g Topic:S5mjsn123wnqf82u Topic:S5qvrfumqu66qb00 Topic:S5vpjymr68meixvl Topic:S6cs27cpna857ain Topic:S6r2nyjqw6af3st6 Topic:S6wasloi43b4txyx Topic:S7f9yyfbu0cqivmn Topic:S7fii863nue66tsd Topic:S7fijf7mt6qjh7a2 Topic:S7j7ks4mk1c7npxq Topic:S7j7s3mmp0wrk72r Topic:S7pkgvv2nowwcijn Topic:S7s05wstqxtvymoh Topic:S81252venaxzoacn Topic:S886rl0zmi63q8bo Topic:S8tlwqzsjokxw2ay Topic:S8w89gu6pjik08q8 Topic:S98ey9t0l32jcvlr Topic:S9dmg8qdq4b30yg6 Topic:S9etkj8n5nbv7pog Topic:S9votlzzkv0yz49e Topic:S9vousecxfm7f5kk Topic:Sadzz6ecrahbu1rh Topic:Saumrf14fgkug35n Topic:Sb0u3fyy1eox4y5g Topic:Sb1ovdic23s3w8ms Topic:Sbzpql0r1xfvzjk0 Topic:Scmix26xcsl8zlgt Topic:Sczumpu0926ovh8u Topic:Sdf3qvfyxvn5r4lo Topic:Sdpnsn4qfydc0y48 Topic:Sdxauohvvrq5i7fy Topic:Se3tpvby1zseihkh Topic:Se3zqvmtbemna05e Topic:Sej3daex9w9p6zu0 Topic:Selbmxmvhx79462g Topic:Senxuld08yrnaule Topic:Seqg4ts1ay08x3o6 Topic:Seqg94edqaui3b32 Topic:Seqgdo6zmsl0o7gn Topic:Seqggexsxnvye8eq Topic:Seqgogbw48ji9390 Topic:Seqgu61ja0eh7tam Topic:Seqh1ikl71hsz3uq Topic:Seqhhrkyxc56ig2b Topic:Seqhil7wy61c5k2m Topic:Seqhlxh1winmcwrn Topic:Sf3nr52mh35a3w8u Topic:Sf3oyufm6m7jwr6v Topic:Sf53jzebwy4uc4nz Topic:Sf85yion468u58jl Topic:Sf85zvk94qlq36ym Topic:Sf8606zkb1v2n18s Topic:Sf860wthjg0yf80p Topic:Sfk375xm0dt1hcgo Topic:Sfptvodwoeocxkx1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• These are WP:Flow test pages. See here, the software would previously recreate the pages if deleted, now it appears we literally cannot perform the delete function on these pages at all. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  Admins can delete content using the dropdown menu ("...") on each topic and on each post, e.g. admins can try creating/deleting topics and posts at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. There's no delete link in the header-tab currently (for topics and boards), but that is coming soon with phab:T90970. A number of other deletion features and bugs are also being worked on at the moment or in the near future (e.g. phab:T62552 and phab:T94944).
  re: the inscrutable names of these topics, they plan to re-examine this at some point soon. That issue is tracked at phab:T59154. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This needs escalating back to the devs and WMF. It's not as if we don't have a gazillion backlogs already, without this extra crap. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request unblock of talk page

Talk page for a new account is restricted due to some segment being in a blacklist. I tried the full username in all the blacklists and it isn't in any of them. Didn't try all the possible segments of the requested username to see what was in a blacklist. I overrode and created the new account but found the talk page at [115] is blocked when I tried to leave a welcome template. Please create the new user's talk page (and leave a welcome message). Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Sarey" is globally blacklisted to block articles about Sarey Savy. I've created their userpage and talk page but any user space subpages they wish to create would still be blocked. Will forward this request to meta. Feel free to comment there. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive use of multiple accounts

All these users appear to be socks of each other. All have majority of their edits in userspace, similar looking user pages, and have made silly comments on each others' talk pages inviting them to view their sandboxes.

• Eunbee199513 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AnthonyAguila24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unknown624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renee1483 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anillaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ms.popsie21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ellieclang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Minho12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ParaSaCompArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuatemalaRichmonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link Patsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SupermanKael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hannakimithree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wakashita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JaLoves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kelly120913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I smell a college class (in the nicest possible sense of the word). Amortias (T)(C) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of these users have also caused some page-move trouble. Kelly120913/sandbox and Wikipedia:Ricky Gutierrez should be moved back to where they came from. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved them into the mainspace (which is what it appeared they were trying to do) and tagged the redirects for speedy as implausible typos. Amortias (T)(C) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Ricky Gutierrez (artist) should be moved to the sandbox or to draft namespace. It does not have any refs at all and may get CSD'd. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I did put up a few blp prods last night and then they went back into the sandbox oddly. Some of them seem to have redirects I couldn't put the real name as they did that already. (Also I did create one redirect and sent one a message) it was odd last night though when I saw it. — Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW might want to add these: User talk:Kielloggs, User talk:Yellybelly, User talk:Ellasexygandara and User talk:Nikkilodeon (which this one I sent a note to about putting a redirect for). — Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a known college project: Wikipedia:School and university projects/Philippines artists lists 28 accounts. Alsee (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I too thought this was sock puppetry when I first saw it because of the spooky uniformity of edit patterns.

@Anillaj: @Ascension221: @JaLoves: @Kelly120913: @Yellybelly: @Unknown624: please announce yourselves properly on the project page and get your lecturer to explain why they are not teaching you how to use <ref> tags and are allowing very poorly linked and referenced articles to be moved into mainspace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Wgolf: I am shocked to see you using external link format for wikilinks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Level scaling

The Solapur city has enough references now, can its quality level be changed from start class to mid class or some higher value??? Ankush 89 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question for the Administrators' Noticeboard. In future try WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse for questions like this. Anyway have you read the assessement criteria for whatever wikiprojects quality rating you're referring to e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Assessment or Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment#Quality scale, including the detailed criteria if it has one? If you have and are still confused does the wikiproject have a way to request assessement? If they do (both cities and India do, look at the earlier linked help pages) I suggest you ask for one. If they don't have one or for whatever reason you want to do the assessement yourself, I suggest you ask on the appropriate wikiprojects talk page. BTW, I'm not aware any wikiproject has such a thing as a mid class quality value. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the article talk page, there's a template at the top mentioning Wikiprojects that track the article, with links to the quality scales used by those wikiprojects. You could either ask at the talk pages of the named wikiprojects, or just examine the quality scales and change the article ratings yourself if you think the criteria are met. In practice nobody pays much attention to those ratings though, except for the GA and FA ratings. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:UBX Renamed and Broken Userboxes

As many of you may have noticed already, User:UBX has been renamed resulting in all userboxes hosted under it to become red links on your userpages. The main thread about this is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:UBX -> User:UBX~enwiki Broke Everything. I am posting this here to stop others from opening side threads and ask people to instead direct comments to the above linked thread. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's now fixed. And I'm alright. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Close please...

I started an RfC at Talk:G. Edward Griffin on the characterisation of laetrile within the article, a response to repeated demands by one user to substantially change the lede in this regard.

The RfC has been running for a while, I think consensus is pretty clear, but we are still seeing new requests for edits based on the same arguments. I have no wish to pursue sanctions against this editor, who I think is sincere and in general a very good sort, but I think that if we cannot draw a line under this and move on, then the endless argufying will lead to sanctions, and that would be a bad outcome for everyone.

So, if someone could pop by and review the open RfCs on that page, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

BBC Technology journalist wants to talk to admin(s) about checkuser

BBC Technology journalist, Rory Cellan-Jones, would like to talk CU with someone. This is follow up from the Grant Shapps sockpuppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive. Anyone interested can contact Rory on Twitter @ruskin147 Nthep (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I passed him on to Jimbo. As usual with Wikipedia dramas of this sort, the details can't be discussed publicly but people still want to talk about it so they fill in the gaps with speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Huggle reporting 1k+ edits per minute

Over the last few minutes the Edits per minute counter in huggle has steadily climbed from the average 100 epm to around 1000. I've never seen it that high and wikipulse seems to confirm this. Is there a problem with wikipedia? This is pretty weird, and I don't know where to post it so I'm just going to leave it here. Hopefully we can get some answers. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• MediaWiki message delivery is currently delivering massive numbers of messages related to SUL finalization. I suspect that may be what is being detected. Monty₈₄₅ 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That would explain it, thanks! Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There is currently a backlog at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure that goes all the way to January. jps (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Admins are too busy giving each other high-fives for all their hard work. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, your comment is insulting and unhelpful. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

There appears to be a backlog of 8 hours and 18 requests at WP:RPP. If any admins are free, could they start looking at these requests please? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)