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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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

Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

(Initiated 123 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 92 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 89 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 68 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 65 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 65 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 46 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 34 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	18	0	18
TfD	0	0	6	2	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	10	2	12
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 165 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 161 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 66 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 42 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Six Flags#Requested move 21 June 2024

(Initiated 18 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I'd like to ask that my topic-ban on religion be lifted, since I've respected it and had no conflicts of any kind for many moons. Minorview (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide links here to the prior discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall where all this happened, but can't get a clear picture of when or where it was. Links, indeed, will help a lot. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As user Humanpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - AN Archive 246, SPI/Minorview/Archive, a bunch of AN / ANI issues (but all appear at least several months old). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Humanpublic. I now remember all. I will re-review the archives though. Thanks George. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Will you disclose all of your sockpuppets (see [1])?
2. 3 months ago when you last requested your topic ban be lifted, some concerns were raised (see [2]) - will you address them now? Most importantly, then, and now, that you had so few edits since the ban that you had not demonstrated your behavior had changed nor that your editing was collaborative.
3. This edit ([3]), from just two weeks ago, seems to be skirting dangerously close to your religious topic ban (the seemingly never-ending BC vs BCE dispute) - see WP:BCE, BTW, to answer your question there. Will you avoid WP:ERA and related disputes henceforth?

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to ping Minorview. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done here: User_talk:Minorview#December 2013 (Diff: [4]). I had assumed Minorview (Minorview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had this page watchlisted, as he had opened the section. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the past concern is that you want me to address. The link you gave is to my response to someone accusing me of trolling just because I appealed. I didn't understand the comment then; I'm not appealing because I'm a troll. I'm asking for the ban to be lifted because I'd like it lifted. I don't have any sockpuppets. As for BC, BCE, I really don't see how that can be called involvement in a dispute. I just asked for the guidelines and expressed an opinion, once in Talk, and made no article edit, and followed the link when it was provided. I didn't know it is a "never-ending dispute." I didn't know anything about it. I'm sorry if it is considered an edit related to religion, that didn't even cross my mind when I asked about it. Minorview (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You say "I don't have any sockpuppets", but you clearly gloated about socking in the past. Please disclose the names of all of your sockpuppets and alternate accounts from throughout your editing history, not just at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting this topic ban. I suspect the AN thread speaks for itself, but this user has repeatedly demonstrated that they are here with an anti-religion agenda. They've done little else since the topic ban was enacted, so there is no good track record of harmonious editing in other topic areas. The long history of disruption, noticeboard threads, and socking leaves little doubt what they would get up to if the topic ban was lifted. --Laser brain (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Come back after six months of productive work so a plausible case can be presented that there is an understanding of Wikipedia's purpose. The NOTHERE behavior demonstrated last time was extreme, and there would need to be an expectation that some benefit to the encyclopedia would result from removing the ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - this is Humanpublic. That account is indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. Why in holy hell is this account not blocked either? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Because we indefinitely block the socks, and sanction the master, who gets indefinitely blocked only if the socking persists. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given the other abusive behaviours by this user, I still think they should've been indeffed, as sockpuppetry was only one of a multitude of sins, for want of a better term. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting of topic ban. Also, using a sockpuppet takes advantage of Wikipedia policies as well by evading scrutiny. In my view, the sockpuppet should be blocked indefinitely. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of topic ban, given that Minorview has yet to reveal all his sockpuppets. I agree with Sjones23 and others that editor should be indef blocked, at least until he comes clean about the full extent of his past policy violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Editor was *not* indef blocked despite known SP connections when those earlier incidents came about; now is not the time to revisit them in that manner. Edits since August are innocuous to helpful, but only a handful. I do not support lifting the topic ban at this time, but I encourage Minorview to keep editing in a productive manner and let the community see you're being constructive. You are doing fine in the last several months, since the brief April incident. Keep doing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to undelete all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I

I have asked for this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_107#All_subpages_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FRobert_I, but my request was archived without anyone taking action (I shouldn't be too surprised, even if this is about a 2006 arbitration case, it is arbitration, so automatically causes most admins to wince and look for something easier to tackle). So I am bring it to a more general forum. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F, this was deleted in violation of modern Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking, through this deletion happened several months before courtesy blanking became recognized as part of our policies (the "Robert I" page was deleted on August 11, 2006; del pol from that time doesn't discuss any related concept; "courtesy blanking" had a dedicated page created in September that year, recognized as a policy shortly afterward, was mentioned in del pol in October 2006, with the dedicated page merged there in June 2007).

The deletion of Robert I page remains, as far as I can tell, the only example of any page deleted due to "courtesy"; other arbitration pages, both before (ex. June 2005 "Internodeuser" case) and since, have been occasionally courtesy blanked (never deleted) instead. Nothing suggests this was an exceptional case, different from all the other cases where regular blanking was used instead. The deletion does not appear to be warranted by a policy, neither past nor present, nor was there any type of extraordinary circumstances declared by ArbCom (nothing is visible in the description of the undeleted main "Robert I" arbitration page, it's never censored summary here, nor confirmed by the present arbitrators (see discussion linked above). Any concerns about privacy should and can be resolved simply by blanking, any deletion is an unjustified overreaction. As such, I am asking that we bring this exception back into the fold of our regular deletion policy, by undeleting affected pages (and of course, summarily blanking them per the cited DELPOL:BLANK).

In case anyone needs further rationale for undeletion, consider the following points: 1) no-one will be harmed by the undeletion (the main page for this arbitration case, with all the usernames and verdicts, was undeleted years and properly blanked ago anyway, with no problems arising); 2) those pages were improperly deleted, rules (deletion policy) should be followed; 3) the very concept of "courtesy deletion" sets up a bad precedent, from possible deletion creep to discussion of censorship. In fact, my request to have this undeleted is not because I am a policy freak (I like top think of myself as an IAR-supporter), but because the very concept of deletion based on such policy-unsupported, flimsy and subjective rationale as "courtesy" makes me fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy, opening way for censorship. I want to ensure this is recognized as a mistake not to be repeated, before someone else stumbles upon this and concludes censorship-friendly "courtesy deletion" was ever a good idea and tries to resurrect it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the deleting admin? (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) who remains very active). I note that you haven't advised them that you've opened this thread, despite it containing criticisms of the deletion of these pages back in 2007. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the Committee would need to approve of this, given that the pages remain under their jurisdiction. --Rschen7754 07:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've notified SlimVirgin accordingly. And yes, discussion with SlimVirgin should have been undertaken before bringing it here, she's still actively editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. Piotrus has requested undeletion of these pages in several places in the last couple of weeks, including on 21 November at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; [5] on 25 November at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion; [6] and on 26 November on my talk page. [7] The 25 November request for undeletion received no response (Piotrus didn't let me know about it) and was archived earlier today by the bot. [8]

All the case pages in question were deleted in 2007 after a complaint that their existence was causing embarrassment. Complaints about related pages (not directly about the pages Piotrus has highlighted) took place over a fairly long period, and involved several admins and others. There were complaints about BLP and privacy violations, and I believe the complaints reached the Foundation. The request to delete these particular pages came to me because I had earlier dealt with one of those related issues.

I informed the ArbCom about the deletion request at the time, before I deleted the pages, in case there were objections. One page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, was undeleted in 2008 because it was needed for a community-ban discussion, but the other pages (evidence, workshop, etc) remain deleted.

As I said when Piotrus first raised this, I don't really mind either way, and would prefer that others decide whether to undelete. But it would help if Piotrus could explain why he has focused on these pages, and what has changed about the situation that would make undeletion a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys are right, I should have pinged User:SlimVirgin. I did so for the first thread on the Arbitration pages (and I think I raised this on her talk a while ago too, and she declined, through I cannot easily locate her archives to link and verify); I thought it would be sufficient, but you are right, I shouldn't have forgotten about pinging her about this discussion - no slight intended. I hope none of my criticism sounded harsher than intended: back in 2006 or so our policies were still evolving, and SlimVirgin was certainly acting within the bounds of being an admin for that time and place.

Now regarding my interest in the old ArbCom pages: as a Wikipedia researcher, I am looking into the history of ArbCom, and I am in particular interested in voting patters (i.e. public records on Proposed Decision pages). The Robert I page is the only one I've found so far which has been censored out of public availability (so the public is denied the usually public record on which committee members took part in voting on the case, and how they voted, among other things of potential public interest), and this happened without any easily located justification.

Since (correct me if I am wrong) several parties, including SlimVirgin herself above and the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages, provided they are blanked (as it the long standing policy to limit visibility and search engine indexing of pages with potentially embarassing information, while retaining the transparent nature of our discussions, where the type of revealed information does not require escalation to oversight deletion, which has not been proven the case here), can we just undelete it, blank it, and move on? Undeleting and blanking takes a minute, and we have wasted much more time discussing this simple request, clearly in line with existing policies, for no good reason that at least I can see. All I see so far is an unorthodox decision taken years ago, and the word ArbCom scaring everyone, including modern arbitrators, from taking responsibility and bringing that old decision in line with the modern policy... c'mon people, there's no Pandora Box here, closing admin stated so much herself, undeleting this will not cause anyone to get desysoped, banned or flogged. Nor outed or embarassed, since the main page have been safely restored years ago, to nobody caring much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages" - that's certainly not how I read Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Quoting User:SirFozzie: "I have no problem with having the rest of the pages undeleted". User:David Fuchs: I read his comment as abstains, asks if there was any special reason to have the page deleted rather than blanked per regular practice - as others have noted since, no there wasn't. User:Risker: ditto, states that since s/he simply sees no point to it (I think I addressed that sufficiently). Feel free to correct me if I am interpreting those comments wrong (I am echoing the cited editors in case they'd like to do just that), but as far as I am reading them, those ArbCom members who commented on this so far are not objecting to undeletion and are mostly unconcerned about this issue. Therefore, to cite David again, "It seems likely that if the same circumstances happened today the pages would have been courtesy-blanked rather than outright deleted." - let's bring this old incident into consistency with modern policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Conducting some sort of vague "research" into the history of ArbCom seems a pretty poor reason to restore material which was deleted on privacy grounds to me, and such an argument would not be accepted by ethics committees and the like. Blatantly miss-quoting the discussion by the current Arbs hardly strengthens your case, especially as they're actually the decision makers here. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick-D: I find your ad hominem red herring comments about the value of my professional work, and accusations of lying ("Blatantly miss-quoting" without any further detail as to what was misquoted), uncalled for and offensive. My reason for asking for those pages to be undeleted is irrelevant to the merit of this request and my disclosure of my interest was a simple courtesy to the editor who asked; any further discussion of my motivations is distracting to the subject at hand, which is the undeletion request. Similarly, I have already acknowledged in my disclaimer that my interpretation of Arbitrators post may be incorrect, but it was done in good faith, and I provided quotes and rationale for my interpretation; if you disagree with it please provide an explanation of similar level, quoting or referring to a specific part of their post, to prove me wrong; just saying that I am wrong does not make it so. I therefore kindly ask you to refactor your preceding post, in the spirit of WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as I don't believe that discussing my person in the fashion you engaged in here is conductive to the productive discussion (I'd appreciate it if we could focus on discussing the topic of undeletion rather than any specific editor, whether it's me or you). I'd be happy to refactor this very post once you refactor your post as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Agree with Rschen that the arbcom folks who commented, declined to actually per se consent to undeletion. (But, disagree Nick that the Prokonsul's take was blatant anything... the arbs were pretty verbosely-n-carefully saying one thing... and-then-on-the-other-hand saying maybe another... sigh). Unless, that is, given a "good reason" that such action was necessary, and failing that somewhat-vague criterion, either abstained or voted to stick with the status quo. Some reasons immediately spring to mind. Reason #1, transparency transparency transparency. Reason #2, perhaps the Prokonsul will produce something useful from their arbcom-archaeology-research. Reason #3, retroactive policy-consistency is not mandatory but it seems like a reasonable idea. Hope this helps. p.s. Actually it said "embarrassment" grounds, not privacy grounds; I don't know if outing was involved, and in fact, nobody is saying what was involved, which strongly suggests (to my perhaps-bizarre way of thinking at least ;-)   that the deleted stuff cannot be very terrible.

  p.p.s. Since nobody has voiced *objections* besides why-bother-without-a-good-reason, that I have heard... and transparency seems like a primordially-good reason to my mind... I suggest that undeletion followed by page-blanking be implemented, as soon as possible. Because, reason #4, probably all the digital ink spilled on the discussions-whether-to-undelete, will dwarf the digital ink spilled on dissecting the actual-soon-to-be-undeleted-stuff, itself. If there is a reason to keep the stuff deleted, that trumps transparency and the rest, well, then just say that security or legality or verboten content means that the stuff must stay deleted. But enough round-and-round speculation, just undelete it or somebody who knows it is too sensitive step up and *say* it cannot be undeleted because $foo, please-n-thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite correct. Indeed, I did not intend to say Arbitrators have given their consent for that; rather that they have not voiced any clear objection. But it is likely more correct to say, as you do, that they are very non-committal and ambiguous, and one could interpret what (little) they said in any way. Very... politically astute of them. Sigh indeed. I was hoping that a discussion at ANI would either generate more interest, or would quickly result in a consensus, but it does appear that in a few days I'll have to simply file a formal Request for Arbitration Clarification or Amendment. Through I can't help but wonder if that request won't be ignored as well, as everyone will keep avoid taking responsibility and admitting that the deletion was a mistake (unnecessary if good-faithed censorship where regular page blanking was used before and since). Censorship, after all, is a quiet and mostly a victimless crime, letting the sleeping dogs lie is easy. But undeletion, now, is an action, and actions could cause someone to complain... why make the difficult choice where the easy one - to do nothing, quietly endorsing this unjustified violation of deletion policy - worked well for years? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't there something more productive to do? Who cares whether horrible admin abuse occurred seven years ago? I see that at least one editor does care and is on a mission to right great wrongs, but IMHO a plausible reason would need to be produced to justify making people take the time to work out whether there was a good reason for the original action, and whether anything in the deleted material really should remain out of view. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• See this mention of legal threats in the visible part of the Robert 1 case for some hint of what the problem might be. The locus of the dispute was the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost. That article and its talk page have (between them) about 2,000 deleted edits. The deletion may have been done for BLP reasons and to avoid legal trouble for Wikipedia and some individual editors. (Admins can look at the deleted material if they want to convince themselves that the legal issue actually exists). Under these conditions it's hard to be enthusiastic about restoring the information. A Google search for Gregory Lauder-Frost will give you some hint of why he is controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unless it can be showed that there indeed where issues beyond the established courtesy blanking, i.e. office action or oversight-type concerns, which so far nobody has been able to confirm, this remains a good faithed but unnecessary deletion. In fact, I'll note that any speculation that there were such extraordinary circumstances comes from individuals totally unconnected with that case; nobody "in the know" (i.e. the closing admin or the committee members) have stated that any extraordinary circumstances exist (if they did we wouldn't need to speculate about them). Issues that come to arbitration are, by default, controversial; nothing about this case that has been said so far suggests that policy-exceptional deletion, resulting in effect in the only case of secret arbitration proceedings, was required instead of the regular courtesy blanking. Regarding legal threats, no policy supports deletion of arbitration cases in which this issue arises, and having reviewed hundreds of arbitration cases, I could easily point to many other arbitration cases from that timeframe where parties were similarly blocked for legal threats, and nobody deleted (or even blanked) the said pages. Rather than assume there was some sikrit need-to-know reason for deletion, Ockham's Razor suggest it was a simple mistake, which should be rectified by undeletion and blanking, as supported by our policies, which, for the n-th time, do not allow for any "courtesy deletion", not unless such an exception is justified by WMF, the committee or the community, none of which appears to have been the case. Whether it was 2006 or 2013, admins cannot delete arbitration pages because they think "it's a good idea". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• If this deletion happened 6 years ago and (as Piotrus himself emphasizes) it was a unique occurrence, and as nobody has made a peep about it til now, I don't understand what makes Piotrus "fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy" or why it's suddenly so important that we get the pages back. If Piotrus really just wants the pages for research into voting patterns, that could be handled by someone sending him the contents privately, so undeletion is not required for that purpose. Piotrus has been around forever and surely knows some administrators who can email the pages to him. Despite this, Piotrus has forum-shopped this thing to at least 5 venues so far, wikilawyering about policy and beating drums about "censorship" and mentions plans to file an WP:ARCA in a few days if the current fuss isn't enough. That sounds to me like the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and I have to wonder what it's really about.

  Piotrus, do you already have the pages? Is there something particular in them that you want the rest of us to see, and if yes, can you say what it's about (since you're Mr. Transparency)? Saying we should follow policy for the sake of following policy is IMHO not impressive (WP:BURO). If you really want the pages (a lurching, drooling beast of drama ISTM) back onto the wiki, one idea might be to get them privately and then post them in your userspace. If you're comfortable doing that, maybe that solves the problem from your perspective. If you're uncomfortable, you might consider that the admins who have declined to undelete the pages might feel the same discomfort, so it would be nice to cut them a little slack.

  Piotrus's request seemed reasonable at first, but his increasing insistence and relentless campaigning makes me feel and more like something is amiss.

  Regards, 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see any point to dredging through long-deleted things to find ones whose deletions can be questioned. It sounds like the case pages for this case led to complaints about real-life problems and, especially in the past when revdel and oversight weren't as (or at all) usable, content was often deleted to handle issues like that. When that was done, the reasons for those deletions were unlikely to be presented publicly at the time (what was the point of removing the content from public view if you went on to say "here, I am deleting a page that [name] says is causing people to think he is [thing]"?). I could make a career of going through years of deletion logs and finding-and-restoring page histories that were deleted through "poor man's oversight" instead of being revision deleted or oversighted, or of going through revdel logs to find entries that I think don't meet the policy bar, but that's not a worthwhile use of time. Absent any particular reason for any of that long-deleted content to be restored - and absent any knowledge of the circumstances that caused each of those edits to be deleted - there's no benefit, and quite possibly potential harm, in restoring deleted content because "I think this was unnecessary" or "because I'm curious" or "because I think everyone should be able to see". If Piotrus needs the content of these particular case pages, I imagine a properly explicatory request ("I am researching [exact topic], and have reason to think [case page] contains content relevant to the history of that topic, so I would like to see [case page]'s deleted content" rather than "I'm researching Arbcom, and so I want all Arbcom pages to be publicly viewable") made to Arbcom or to an admin familiar with the case would get the deleted page's content sent to him privately with little fuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While I might take mild exception at the translation of governing-body-transparency into the diminutive form of everyone-should-be-able-to-see, the suggestions by Fluffernutter and 50 that the best way forward is for the Prokonsul to request a private copy of the pages, or at least, of the ArbCom votes that were deleted along with the rest of it. From the hints of EdJohnston, who it seems has in fact looked at the pages in question, and found them to be a potentially-legal-defamation-or-similar problem, probably the stuff would be revdel nowadays. Anyways, per WP:IAR it seems clear that Flutternutter is correct, there isn't much point to trying to make our policies unified and consistent, when right on the tin is says we are *against* having any such thing. If any rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it.

  Anyhoo, the ball is in our respected Prokonsul's court -- will you be happy if you get private copies of the pages, so you can complete your research? Because truth be told, I don't care about being able to see the old pages, if it was necessary there are 1400 admins and surely some of them would DTRT if it were really necessary... but that said, I *do* care about your research. I'm planning to rely on it, so therefore would like it to be as correct and complete as possible.

  I agree with your philosophical position, that transparency is inherently the best policy, and that consistency is an essential component of fairness, but one of the main reasons we have ArbCom -- and for that matter a specially restricted checkuser setup -- is to Protect The Names Of The Innocent (And/Or Legally Powerful), because that rule protects wikipedia herself. This is a slippery slope, no doubt. Given that we have to protect the physical server-farm, which in their activity embody wikipedia, though, it seems pragmatic to take EdJohnson's word that the material is reasonably kept from the eyes of the general public, in this case. But feel free to get a second opinion, or a third, from a few admins you know. Maybe even Flutternutter, who I note is an oversighter as well as an admin. Can you peek at (or perhaps you have already peeked at) the pages in question, Flutternutter? Do you agree with EdJohnston that it would not Improve The Encyclopedia, to include morale of contributors, to undelete? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained hike in article viewing statistics

Hello. Please see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco

Is this triple hike over and above the longstanding traditional baseline something Wikipedia would investigate as some sort of potential computer-generated phenomenon? There is no such hike in the San Francisco Bay Area article ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco_Bay_Area ). Please also peruse the long-term viewer stats before the past 90 days, about 8,000 per day on average. The current bump appears downright bizarre and implausible.

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently colder and snowier in SF than it is where I live in South-central Alaska. I suspect that is the source of the interest, although it is also worth noting that they are hosting the Super Bowl pretty soon as well. Looks like I was mistaken about that last bit, but the freakish weather seems like the most likely explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither a mediawiki expert nor a pageview one, but it seems likely that this is due to this bug (discussed on the Wikimedia-l mailing list recently). To quote the linked email: "Around August 2013 a site change caused internal housekeeping messages to be counted as page views by our webstatscollector software. As the patch was rolled out progressively, every month more bogus page views were added, up to several billion per month in November." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that bug didn't increase the pageview stats for any particular article, it's just that "views" for non-articles such as Special:CentralAutoLogin and the Autonym font were included in the total-site statistics. Anomie⚔ 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahnoneemoos

Good morning, I am here to present what seems like a prolonged pattern of disruptive editing by the aforementioned user. I recently returned from an extended hiatus and Ahnoneemoos began editing full time during that time period, meaning that my scope may be somewhat limited. However, I quickly noticed that every time that his name popped on one of my watchlisted articles, he was involved in some sort of controversy. Without even reviewing his contributions, I discovered three instances where he randomly replied to other users quite abrasively, undoing edits over and over in order to establish his revision. Unlike your average user, he is clearly astute when it comes to gaming the system, he immediately avoids pursuing an honest consensus by citing a rather elaborate laundry list of guidelines, policies or even essays, depending on which one works to his advantage. Ahnoneemoos mixes these with comments that continuously treat other users like rookies, patronizing them or otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia". Of course, if he simply stopped edit warring this would not be that disruptive, after all, he is not the first to go around 'speaking' in a passive aggressive manner.

However, this form of "diplomatic edit warring" seems to become less "diplomatic" when Ahnoneemoos edits articles that are related to Puerto Rican politics and economics. In these he becomes really pushy; not only establishing his version, but also seeking to "punish" his adversaries. I first noticed this in Mayors in Puerto Rico, where he was involved in at least two wars during a single year. After SilkTork employed his judgement as an admin to issue a short block, Annonemous completely avoided ironing their differences directly, jumping the gun (and several other mediation venues) and going directly to WP:ARBCOM (SilkTork is an ArbCom member) seeking "justice" (i.e. directly requesting the desysoping of SilkTork) and citing that his block was a "witch hunt", despite the fact that the admin had been uninvolved in the original dispute and had no notable reason to "persecute" him.

Then there's Alejandro García Padilla. This is the one article where he insists in posting and re-posting his revision to the point of pushing the boundaries of political propaganda. There he has been involved in a one-sided and ongoing (albeit slow moving) content dispute for a month. The first one was against Jmundo over Ahnoneemoos' addition of content sourced by primary sources; he did not seem particularly interested in actually trying to reach a consensus with Jmundo (the brief exchange in the talk page supports that) or any one in WP:PUR for that matter, after a couple of comments he was already opening what seems like an premature case at DR/N (something that he also did after a very brief conflict at Ingrid Víla Biaggi). Since both had stopped warring and the issue had migrated to the talk page, it should have been given the chance to actually unfold there before editing resumed... But no. Two days later Ahnoneemoos was once again warring over the same content, this time with a second user, Neljack, who as a native of New Zealand was likely as neutral on Puerto Rican politics/economics as they come. Sysop Mark Arsten protected the page to give the matter some time to cool off, but only a few hours after the protection expired, Ahnoneemoos was back at it adding a reworded (and to his credit, this time with an actual third-party reference) version of his original point, which was still in contention.

By simply browsing his edit history at Mayoralty in Puerto Rico, Alejandro García Padilla and Ingrid Vila Biaggi, I could easily tell one thing: Ahnoneemoos has a problem with the idea that he "owns" these pages and likes to prove his point to the extent of down right gaming the system when any attempt at consensus appears; extending the conflict by creating a web of bureaucracy supported by his own interpretation of the policies/guidelines/etc. that he cites. This is clearly filibustering, since he continues to edit war in the in-between, guaranteeing that while he indefinitely extends the conflict the version that is featured is his. To me, the method that he uses (taking the conflict to some noticeboard without letting it flow naturally in order to form a consensus) besides filibustering also seems like a diffuse form/pattern of harassment, since unlike traditional harassment as defined in the policy, he actually targets all the users that he deems "adversaries" instead of a single person or group, and tries to intimidate them into dropping the issue. He is also no stranger to this policy.

For the purpose of disclosure, I must admit that my first encounter with him wasn't friendly. However, back then I was not aware that he seems to enjoy confrontation, since politics are rarely within the scope of my edits. Being a long-term member of WP:PUR I offered my opinion, without expecting such an aggressive reply. Of course, since he has been unilaterally speaking on behalf of all WP:PUR without actually asking for a consensus, I guess that harsh response was product of felling entitled to dispose which standards are used in all PR-related articles. Briefly going on a tangent, while this "misrepresentation of consensus" was inoffensive in these cases, I'm actually concerned that he may choose to speak on behalf of all of us in a move that may be controversial.

I must clarify that my purpose here is not to ask for his head, bringing the matter before the community should not be interpreted as a request for a block. Not all of his edits are disruptive and losing him entirely might actually hurt WP:PUR. But given the fact that Ahnoneemoos admits that he is a veteran user and that he clearly has decent knowledge of most policies and guidelines, something must be done. Curiously, he even unilaterally reworded WP:CON is a manner that seems to implies that despite constantly attempting to filibuster consensus with policies and guidelines, he knows quite well that "our policies are descriptive rather than authoritative" (i.e. that they can't be exploited to prove your point or to harass other users). Based on this fact and the other concerns presented, I believe that the possibility of imposing a topic ban on subjects that fall under politics and economics would be an adequate measure to ensure that Ahnoneemoos can focus on constructive edits within other areas. This, of course, should also apply to the other accounts that he admittedly controls. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have alerted Ahnoneemoos to this discussion, which you should have done yourself.

The issues you raise look very serious. I see that Ahnoneemoos is very aggressive in talk page discussions, and that the problem of ownership is high. A topic ban for Puerto Rico topics would effectively ban the user completely, as this area is almost totally the area of interest. I would like to hear from the user to see if there is a suggestion for self control. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My bad, I thought that we had a bot that generally issued these alerts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

On that note, I don't think that the ban should be total, only politics and economics, which appear to be the triggers for his hostility. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Binksternet, can you point me to the diffs of the aggressive talkpage behavior you noticed Ahnoneemoos displaying? And can you further describe aggressive? Are you saying that they attack people? Are you saying they insult people? Are you saying they do $something_specific_here? I agree they don't beat around the bush, but I see that as a positive. Anyhoo, it is hard for Ahnoneemoos to respond to your request that they suggest some ways to improve their own self-control on article talkpages, when you don't specifically give examples of behavior that you consider very-aggressively-out-of-control. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are within policy. Some are closed in favor of my arguments, others are not. An example of this would be Victoria Leigh Soto in which I was very active and very vocal, and in which my arguments was used when closing the discussion. This is why I'm so verbal and adamant: I believe in my arguments. Sometimes I can convince people, sometimes I cannot. An example in which I was not able to convince others would be Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico which was ultimately closed without taking into consideration my arguments (the case was elevated to ARBCOM for other reasons). I left the article as is and have not touched ever since. How can I be considered aggressive? Don't confuse passion with aggressiveness. Being vocal and adamant is not against policy. This is how Wikipedia works; this is how ALL human organizations work as we all have differing points of views and opinions. I have never EVER EVER harassed anyone and I challenge you to prove that I have done so. It seems that this post is merely a huge bias of what you believe to be "disruptive editing", "harassing", "filibustering", or whatever else you want to insult me with. Discussions are discussions. You need to be prepared for them as this is a wiki edited by humans. I do not WP:OWN a single article, but I do watch those related to Puerto Rico as many people use them in favor of their agenda rather than remain neutral. All my edits are neutral and are or can be easily referenced. I challenge you to post anything here that I have contributed that cannot be referenced. If there is one, we can simply remove it. We all have our own special topics, Puerto Rico happens to be mine. Regarding my tenure, I will post below on my other account which I don't use and which I can't merge into this one as such function was disable. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is me, User:Ahnoneemoos, posting from my old account which I don't use and which contains edit history from other accounts such as User:JohnCrawford and User:Maio (which were merged into User:Joseph Dwayne). —Joseph | Talk 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of how this user is the one causing trouble: I replied to him normally and he accused me of "patronizing" him. So, it's all about perspective. This guy seems to be very problematic and is not the first time he does something like this. Another example would be this post on User:Marine 69-71's talk page where he accuses me of being a puppeteer and being 'rude'. Notice how I just ignored the post even though it was an insult and a personal attack to my person. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I want you all to notice how this user states that our "first" encounter (was not our first, we have interacted through a different account of mine) was "not friendly" (according to him) and he links to the whole discussion. But his very first reply was the one that was confrontational and where he attempts to claim he "knows policies" because he was "an admin back in my active days": [9] So, who is being confrontational, feeling entitled, and has an attachment to articles? I was actually the one that reminded him that WP:PUR does not have an inherence over articles, yet he is the one going on a tirade on how this and that has happened "after he became inactive". This person seems to believe that he is entitled to some sort of veterancy, respect, or bow before him attitude. If you ask me, this person is too attached to stuff and doesn't understand that Wikipedia evolves and changes over time. For example, he recently reverted back a design on a page because it was "custom-made for the project page years ago", even though we removed it because it displays incorrectly in mobile devices. So, who here is actually incapable of letting it go, believes he owns stuff, and believes that is entitled to reverence? I could care less to be honest, I just have an opinion and express it in discussions. Sometimes people show me I'm wrong (User:Marine 69-71 has corrected me MANY times throughout the years) but many times the counterarguments presented are just weak and absurd. Is that what we are supposed to do now? To back off as soon as someone presents a point of view different than ours? This person seems to be focused on my discussions, but, has he focused on my many many MANY edits where I help people and contribute stuff to Wikipedia? Discussions are discussions man. You will have differing views, just because someone has a different point of view does not mean it is "aggressive", "filibustering", or that he is failing WP:OWN. Whenever the community decides against my argument I just let things go. But during the discussion process? Of course I'm gonna be vocal and of course I'm gonna be passionate, these articles are important to Puerto Rico and its people. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can’t distinguish "passion" from "bitting" sure is a problem. I am not the only one to take notice of the way that you reply (see here, here and here and the entire discussion here (specially the part when these exact concerns are brought before him and he avoids any attempt at consensus by simply saying "Please do not contact me directly ever again...") for a small sample). In my first encounter with this account, I was pointing towards a problem within the entire project (the decline of standards within the articles in scope) and you randomly responded by saying that "WP:PUR is just a bunch of people" (i.e. completely disregarding my argument in favor of reorganizing the project and rethinking the standards) and basically told me to do it by myself. You asked for an opinion in the project's talk page and then reply dismissively to the opinion that is offered, that is rude. As a matter of fact, being dismissive is by definition rude, so I can't see how noting that could be interpreted as an insult. A matter of perspective? Perhaps. But, for a "problematic" user I sure have been involved in few edit wars over the course of seven years, something that you seem to do on a rather frequent basis. For the record, I have never undone any of Ahnoneemoos' edits nor been actively involved in a content dispute with him. Based on that, I'm not exactly sure how I would fell "entitled" towards these articles.

Furthermore, if you had "interacted" with me trough another account then perhaps you should have been more polite, since that would mean that you likely knew how I avoid active politics and was only trying to help. For those that don't know the scope of my edits, most of the ones within mainspace are to articles about historical figures/defunct organizations and other non-contentious matters (military actions, sports, arts, etc.). I do not feel "entitled to some sort of veterancy, respect", I simply expect the same respect that I grant to a complete stranger to be reciprocated. On that note, perhaps calling you a puppeteer was not the best term, however, neither is your presentation of the matter, "editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so", the note was more of a heads up to Tony than anything else. Bringing attention to potentially disruptive users among members of the WikiProjects is a common and old fashioned practice. However, I don't frequently try to create characterizations of other users, something that as seen in most of the arguments both here and in those linked, you do quite often. "Entitled veteran", "rogue admin", et al. are worst that the term puppeteer given that they go personal, I ignore them, but others may (and clearly have) interpreted them as personal attacks. But, alas, the main issue is not as simple as abrasive language. You should have WP:AGF and weighted your responses, not only towards me, but towards all the other users that you seem to consider "adversaries". Despite that sour first impression, I actually AGF before posting this thread, first noticing the warring at AGP a month ago, but in the end allowing it to run long enough to see if you were willing to stop the dispute and remain on the talk page until it was over. That didn't happen and here we are.

I find it curious that you brought up the template at WP:PUR's talk page, because this is now another example of how you always try to guarantee that your revision stands on top. I restored the old template this morning and explained why, but you reverted my edit despite the fact that you apparently had a small edit war over the issue and that the exact confrontational pattern is being discussed here. In the archive that you linked, there was no clear consensus. Your argument was rebuffed by FeedBack, you went back and forth, the final comment was done by him and you did not respond to it, but in the end established the version that you preferred. Curiously, I missed this content dispute, but the argument that you presented was not definitive and thus, there was no reason to attempt to enter into a new edit war against me over the matter, yet you undid my edit before pointing me towards the archive. Had I known that this discussion had taken place, I would have posted this image, rebuffing your argument (i.e. "breaks the page when browsing it from a mobile device such as a smartphone…"), leading to a broader discussion. That is the importance of actually trying to engage is an honest consensus before continuing to war. As a matter of fact, if the concern was only seen in the mobile version, simply reporting that the template was having bug-issues would have likely resolved the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are looking at the page from the normal version; look at it from the mobile version by adding 'en.m.wikipedia.org' to the URL. It also probably got fixed with the new iOS v7. Take another screenshot with 'en.m.' and let me know how it looks. Regarding your wall of text: I challenge you to create a tabular list of anything that you believe was improper from my part. You will notice that IN EVERY SINGLE CASE I acted on policy and based on logical arguments. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's ignore the five pillars for a bit; that means I won't further mention what other users interpreted as a breach of WP:NPOV at AGP, the continuous use of the "me vs. you" angle and other MO that point towards WP:IUC and the fact that you have only noted the existence of WP:IAR when it is convenient to your argument. There's still this: "If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards, it should not be treated the same as a good faith mistake". I am not the only one that noticed how you have played these policies in your favor while filibustering, the user that you "banned" from ever editing your talk page and the sysops involved in the Mayors in Puerto Rico affair likely have something to say about your MO. If you are involved in a content dispute, one of the first things that any civil user does is to stop reverting to his/her's version. You continue warring and duking it out in the edit summaries and rarely wait for a neutral player to enter the dispute. For an experienced user, this should be common sense as you are most likely not a stranger to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:

"Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." [...] "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring."

About the template, there seems to be some parts of the edges that are not entirely seen when the phone is held upwards, however, both of the edges can be see when scrolled ↔ and the template is almost entirely seen when held sideways. That being said, the template is confined and does not "[break] the page when browsing it from a mobile device such as a smartphone". This is a common problem in the mobile version, even the archive template in that page can't be seen completely without scrolling. The page's syntax is functional enough that you could have avoided undoing my edit at least until this thread is closed, but apparently trying to draw me into reviving an old content dispute was more alluring (this is the "me vs. you", "payback time" pattern that was mentioned above).

Which is precisely the issue, you seem to actually be enjoying these conflicts even when you believe that the policies "protect" you. Hence, let's recall WP:DE: "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia". As I noted in the opening comment, these concerns are easily discernible by quickly browsing your edit history in these pages. With the relevant links provided, I don't see the need to write an arbitrary tabular list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything that you mentioned are practices that SOME people do when edit conflicts arise. As you yourself have pointed out, they are not REQUIRED. This is what you need to understand. I only revert when I feel it's necessary to do so. I reverted Ingrid Vila Biaggi because someone REMOVED REFERENCED INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE. But you did not mention that in your exposition. I reverted Alejandro García Padilla because people removed content which is referenced and verifiable. Now, this particular article has a specific issue: the graphs. I obviously reverted them because we do the same for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir Putin. You need to understand the issue at hand here: I argue that doing such is fine since this information is WP:VERIFIABLE; others argue that it needs to be removed because a secondary source has not published this information verbatim. They argue it is WP:OR; I argue it is not since it is referenced by a reliable source and since it is verifiable. We are at a stalemate. Such things happen. That's why we issue RFCs and ultimately end up at formal mediation. This is where we are at right now with Alejandro García Padilla. There may be 6 people active on the discussion and only me with a counterargument, but that does not mean I must change my opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We base our decisions by weighing the arguments. Finally, regarding Mayors of Puerto Rico, the article was NOT elevated to ARBCOM; the behavior of an ARBCOM member was elevated to ARBCOM. You failed to mention this in your exposition. So, as you can see, all my edits are always based on logic. You are the only person here who has personally attacked and harassed someone by calling me a "puppeteer". Yet, who is keeping it cool and not taking things personal? You have also opted to simply accuse and provide links without explaining the whole issue at hand. Such as the fact that you were the person that started to be confrontational by accusing me of "patronizing you" and by claiming that you know policies because you "were an admin back in the day". I'm starting to get highly concern about your behavior, taking this thing out of the Wikipedia context this is extremely creepy, obsessive, and even irrational. You have decided to go through my whole edit history, look into every single thing that I have edited, and create a lengthy text to accuse me of being a "filibuster", "aggressive", of "political propaganda" (even though it is referenced and verifiable), "harrasing", of "enjoying conflict". I mean, seriously, from a very personal level this is not healthy behavior. This is a fixation on my persona; it is quite concerning. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree 100% and without any reservations with the depiction of user Ahnoneemoos given above by user Caribbean H.Q. Let me add that it takes a lot of cojones to post on a noticeboard when the object of the notice is a Wikipedian that works for the betterment of the same Puerto Rico projects. This is the case with Ahnoneemoos, Caribbean H.Q., and also myself: we all work heavily, if not exclusively, in the same Puerto Rico WikiProject. But enough is enough, and every bit of information provided above by Caribbean H.Q. is exactly how I would describe Ahnoneemoos. Now - shifting gears - the one area where I do not agree with Caribbean H.Q. is in that "losing [Ahnoneemoos] entirely might actually hurt WP:PUR." The WP:PUR project -is- hurt by editors that act, operate, and behave like Ahnoneemoos. And, no one is indispensible. If Ahnoneemoos was no longer here, others will take his place. On the contrary, I have seen good editors leave because of the behavior of editors like Ahnoneemoos; and User:Jmundo is a good, long time editor who would be a pity to lose. The editors that Wikipedia needs are the ones that follow the rules and get along with others; not those that behave like Ahnoneemoos. I would suggest a topic ban for Puerto Rico topics on Ahnoneemoos: I disagree that a ban from Puerto Rico political and economy articles alone is enough. At this point, it is clear that Ahnoneemoos just does not understand his failure to follow policy can have any real consequences. There have to be real consequences to alienating all of those of us that Ahnoneemoos has managed to alineate. Behavior like his cannot be tolerated forever; it has to come to an end at some point. And we cannot depend on Ahnoneemoos proposing and promising some self control - if there is no admission of wrongdoing, there cannot be a road to self-recovery.

BTW, when I say I agree 100% with Caribbean H.Q., I mean it: I read and re-read Caribbean H.Q.'s posting and -every- statement reads exactly as I have experienced it with Ahnoneemoos. And even when I thought Caribbean H.Q. had already expressed it all properly enough, he went on to describe yet additional disruptive behavior by Ahnoneemoos. It is clear Ahnoneemoos thinks he can get away with repeated violations of policy without consequences. To say he is using the encyclopedia to his advantange and that he is gaming the system is to put it mildly. Mercy11 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notice how this user did not show any evidence for his allegations. Also notice that this user is very well known for being highly disruptive and suffering from WP:OWN. Examples include: Mayors of Puerto Rico where he reverted substantial contributions because according to him the contributions "diminished the quality of the article" and because "the overall results was negative" (I kid you not, these were his own words--see Talk:Mayors of Puerto Rico). He then affirmed that he reverted it to its previous state because such state was "the result of many years work by many editors" which is a case of pure WP:OWN and against how wikis work. This user is also known for removing content simply because "it was not referenced" even though references are not requisites for Wikipedia; only WP:VERIFIABILITY is. Several people, including myself, have warned him about this behavior. See User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013/August where we had a personal discussion about such. I have explained all this so that you can see his background and how he has interacted with me before. Long story short, this is a personal matter for this person since we have had a few encounters where we had disagreed. Be cautious about his comments. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally do not respond in cases like this because I do not care to engage the individual. As such this is not a reply to Ahnoneemoos but I am now talking to the community, and my message is this: "he likes to prove his point to the extent of down right gaming the system...extending the conflict by creating a web of bureaucracy supported by his own interpretation of the policies/guidelines/etc. that he cites"; and "he actually targets all the users that he deems 'adversaries' ". Ditto. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Kindly notice how this user has failed time and time again to provide instances that support his allegations that I have supposedly "gamed the system", "extended conflict", "created a web of bureaucracy", and that I supposedly "target all users that I deem as adversaries". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello everyone. I rarely edit articles about Puerto Rico, but I would like to say that Ahnoneemoos was friendly and helpful to me when I was a new user last year, and although he sometimes seems to get carried away, I don't believe that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Perhaps its just his passion for Puerto Rican topics that is causing the friction. Flouting policies is bad, but I haven't read any suggestion of COI, so saying that he is after some kind of personal advantage is unfair. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne! Besides Anne you can ask also User:Eduscapes, User:Middle More, User:Yield3, User:Vic329, User:Admiralquirk, User_talk:74.192.84.101, and many others on how helpful I am and how I interact with others; specially with newcomers. Most of the people posting on this thread are unable to separate the fact that you can disagree with someone and that that doesn't mean you that you have something against them. For example, even though User:Mercy11 and myself have clashed before, I still requested him for help for an article: see [10] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....and which I Politely Refused so as to run as far from the disruptive editor as I could. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? That's quite strange since you (1) firstly replied that you "could look into it" (see [11], once again, notice I can easily provide evidence) and (2) you refused because you were "busy working with Puerto Rico fauna and flora" (see [12]). Quite convenient of yours to now say you refused to "run as far from the ddisruptive editor" in order to advance and favor your argument. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Mercy11, the original statement is exactly what *I* am most carefully analyzing. I will post my results of that effort later (as a pointer to avoid cluttering up this space). In the meanwhile, I can state that -- for those of you who enjoy reading actual diffs that actually demonstrate behavior -- a glance through the "curious" instance of when Ahnoneemoos defended the definition of WP:CONSENSUS is a textbook example of how consensus ought to be gained.

  The jury will please note, August was prior to Ahnoneemoos being blocked by SilkTork, but after their encounter with Mercy11, so this sequence should show them at their *worst*. As you will see, their worst seems kinda, umm, constructive and helpful. The relevant period is Aug 13th at 22:52 when a sentence with long-standing consensus was deleted per WP:BOLD by another editor, and then skip to August 26th at 01:32 when Ahnoneemoos entered the second phase of WP:BRD. Along with two other editors plus the originator of the bold change, there were 19 additional edits, ending at 06:19 on August 27th, which *collaboratively*-in-mainspace resulted in a big improvement, with the originator getting the last word in... but with Ahnoneemoos convincing the others that his points were valid.

  Even though, at one point, one particular sentence which Ahnoneemoos "unilaterally" added (guess I'll just let *that* slanted characterization pass... sheesh) that Caribbean-H.Q. pointed out, if you read a bit further in the edit-history you will note that the same editor who reverted it, later added *all* the substantive points back, by *themselves* without Ahnoneemoos reverting the other editor's changes even once.

  Now, I'll admit I didn't look at the talkpage of this collaboration-session, maybe it was all blackmail, maybe Ahnoneemoos was cussing everybody out and threatening to perform WP:9STEPS on them and their families. I sincerely hope not, because then I'll look like a moron.  :-)   But I sincerely doubt it, because the one thing I can say, about my personal experience with them, is that they are very passionate, and that they deeply love wikipedia. Do they always make the right decision? Nope. Do they always assume good faith? Yup. Are they always striving to improve the encyclopedia, *as* an encyclopedia, to the exclusion of all else? Yup.

on the subject of whether Ahnoneemoos welcomes others to their talkpage... for every imaginable purpose

In particular, I have some small insight into what some call an "abrasive" behavior, namely, that Ahnoneemoos disdains tangential user-talkpage chitchat, unless it is about Something Redacted Important. I have had conversations with them there, quite successfully, and have learned much. But when somebody arrives on their talkpage to fight, Ahnoneemoos is Not Interested and tells the person to use a noticeboard if they want a fight. Similarly, if somebody arrives on their talkpage to argue content, Ahnoneemoos is again NOT INTERESTED and tells the person to use the article-talkpage.   Is this behavior prickly? Well, kinda have to admit it is; Ahnoneemoos my friend, have you ever considered the PageNotice wiki-tool, or somesuch?  :-)   Most folks are too busy to read your userpage before posting on your talkpage. But note that Ahnoneemoos *puts* the necessary information right on their userpage, for all to see; *I* saw it before posting, and tread most carefully, thereby surviving to tell the tale, here today. Is their position about No Chit-Chat On My Personal Talkpage perfectly 100% in line with Wikipedia policy? Yes, no doubt. WP:NOTFACEBOOK. WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE. WP:NOTFORUM.

  Ahnoneemoos is here to single-mindedly improve the encyclopedia, and they are passionate about that. Their dedication and their passion sometimes get them into trouble, mostly with people who do not understand them as an individual editor at all, or do not take the time to understand the points they make regarding Wikipedia policy. But despite rubbing some folks wrong, Ahnoneemoos is an asset here. HUGE. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can you explain your "The jury will please note, August was prior to Ahnoneemoos being blocked by SilkTork, but after their encounter with Mercy11, so this sequence 'should' show them at their *worst*. As you will see, their worst seems kinda, umm, constructive and helpful" ? Who is "them"? Who are you alluding to in your "at their worst"? I am not sure Mercy11 plays a role at all in that. Mercy11 was not involved in Ahnoneemoos's block by SilkTork, nor in the rejected, 0/0/0/0-approval, Complaint that Ahnoneemoos mounted against SilkTork. Mercy11 wasn't even involved in The block that Ahnoneemoos was eventually given HERE. Nor in the subsequent appeal to the block. Are you sure you have your subjects right? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He talks in plural third form like Gollum. When he says "them" he means "him" as in me, Ahnoneemoos. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about my confusing phrasing, Mercy11... because I don't know gender, here in the wikiverse, I use the "singular they" just as Ahnoneemoos said. Preeeccciioouuusssss. To recap, in the edit-history seen at WP:CONSENSUS in August this year, the behavior of Ahnoneemoos seemed perfectly reasonable to me, judging by the edit-summaries. This was some time after they (Ahnoneemoos) had their first conflict with you (Mercy11), over the Mayors article, and also some time before they (Ahnoneemoos) had their second conflict, again over the Mayors article, but with different participants (SilkTork being called in at the end).

  Point being: although blocks are not supposed to be punitive in nature, but merely preventative, they (the blocks) do in practice tend to slow down an out-of-control editor, correct? August was long before the block, but not too long. If Ahnoneemoos had a pattern of diffuse harassment, or an uncontrollable battleground mentality, they (Ahnoneemoos) should have been aggressively screwing everything up on August 26th and August 27th, we as editors might reasonably expect. That does not look like what happened, to my eyes, neither from the edit-summaries, nor from the article-talkpage of that period, which I have now reviewed. Policy-page,[13] and talkpage.[14]

  "[Ahnoneemoos's] qualifications went too far, so I reverted that part, but retained much of it."[15] "Ahnoneemoos writes sensible things on this talkpage"[16] Very interestingly to the jury methinks, it turns out that the day *after* Ahnoneemoos was satisfied, and went off elsewhere, additional new editors came in, and began having a significantly-more borderline-aggressive discussion. Nothing I would take them to a noticeboard over, personally (and hence I won't be naming any names here with my purposely vague text), though I might have a private chat with them on their talkpages -- always assuming their talkpage nor userpage cautioned me against such!

  One of the editors, who is named here, and who was active on the 26th and 27th with Ahnoneemoos, and remained active when the discussion got less pleasant, is seen to be fondly recalling the time when Ahnoneemoos had been there. "Over the last few days [26th and 27th presumably] I felt a lot of progress was made on the section using consensus through editing as well as discussion ... This kind of effort benefits from an evolutionary approach, like we were all engaged in [Ahnoneemoos included presumably]. I strongly object to the wholesale revert of all that work progress." The quote is from Born2cycle, the one who reverted Ahnoneemoos, but then put all the substantive points right back in. To my eyes, the behavior of SmokeyJoe, Ahnoneemoos, Born2cycle, and Blueboar was a crystal clear example of consensus-through-editing.

  The collaborative editing was both WP:BOLD and efficient, the end result was an improved article. That is my opinion, sure... but more than that. The evidence *proves* the article was improved, because SmokeyJoe made the first move, August 13th, by boldly changing something disagreed with. Ahnoneemoos reverted them on the 26th, and two other editors joined. SmokeyJoe got the last word... making the final couple edits, and then left, satisfied with the new consensus. It looks better now to *me*, and I don't think I'm imagining things when I say that both Ahnoneemoos and SmokeyJoe and the others involved on the 26th and 27th were unsatisfied with the outcome. Policy-page,[17] and talkpage.[18]

  It was also illuminating on how decisions ought to be made around here: one anon, with policy on their side, trumps the WP:IDHT wishes of 99 pseudonyms, that in any sort of WP:VOTE would otherwise carry the day. Because wikipedia is not about up-voting, down-voting, or facebooky like-counts. Fact is, I like Ahnoneemoos; they are a fascinating human. But if Ahnoneemoos were acting outside policy, running amok, violating pillar four, an enemy of pillar two, and/or subtly undermining pillar one... then I would !vote to topic-ban them in a heartbeat. The five pillars are the lifeblood of wikipedia. Ahnoneemoos knows them well, and follows them faithfully, that I have seen. They were blocked back in 2010, justifiably, for their passion (the trouble was a very highly-charged sticky wicket over whether subtly colonialist category-names should be changed). Passion exploded, Ahnoneemoos lost their cool, and chewed out another editor in frustration; they were righteously blocked by a passing admin.

  From what I can see, the 2010 block served the purpose well: Ahnoneemoos learned. They are doing well, they control their passion here in the wikiverse, subject to the iron law of the five pillars. They are an asset here, and a topic-ban on any portion of Puerto Rico would harm wikipedia herself. Not everybody understands Ahnoneemoos; that is not WP:REQUIRED. Not everybody likes Ahnoneemoos, and subject to WP:NICE of course, that is also not a problem. Rather than fight at the noticeboards to get Ahnoneemoos banned, and accuse them of being WP:DISRUPT, and a "diffuse" type of WP:HA whatever the hell that is, I suggest the folks here that are unhappy with Ahnoneemoos follow the pragmatic strategy. Give out enough WP:ROPE to Ahnoneemoos, and they will either create a noose to hang themselves with it... or instead, weave a beautiful lasso, and capture the content of the world, for all of us to share. I predict the latter. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever been involved in one of Ahnoneemoos's "Consensus" sections? Can you give evidence of that? How many times have you reached consesnus with Ahnoneemoos and when? Are you sure you are talking about the same individual we are discussing here? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same individual.  ;-)   I've never edited PR articles in mainspace, before today[19] that is, that I remember. As for Ahnoneemoos, yes, I achieved consensus with Ahnoneemoos about username policy, first on the essay-talkpage,[20] and then later hermeneutically on Ahnoneemoos's personal talkpage.[21] That is not to say it was unanimous, because it was not... just like in mainspace for most of our 4 million articles most of the time, if I can gently point out. But it was incredibly productive,[22] for me at least. (Ahnoneemoos will probably gripe about my WP:WALLOFTEXT capacity, which is fully and shamefully on display over on the WP:NOUSERS talkpage, as well as my own talkpage.)

  As to when I've personally achieved consensus with Ahnoneemoos, this was very recently, in October -- coincidentally, I read the essay Ahnoneemoos wrote, on the same ~day they were blocked by SilkTork... and since I'm interested in WP:RETENTION, actually dug quite deeply into the edit-history of Ahnoneemoos, as part of my tradition of performing after-action-reviews. Although it is true that Ahnoneemoos did not visit SilkTork's talkpage, because Ahnoneemoos does not believe in any sort of user-talkpage disagreements[23] no matter how mild, I myself went to SilkTork, to see if something could be worked out regarding the circumstances of the block;[24] in that case Ahnoneemoos's judgment was correct, BASC was the only possibility for resolution, but ArbCom declined to look at the case. Also, a few days later, I posted a talkpage comment on AJG, the disputed governor,[25] suggesting that the graphs should cover the term of the predecessor, plus show relative numbers of the wider economy.

  Not sure how any of this is relevant to whether Ahnoneemoos deserves to be banned from Puerto Rico, or at least the virtual Puerto Rico we have here in the wikiverse, but if you are wondering whether I've ever seen Ahnoneemoos in action there, the answer is definitely yes. To avoid extending this further, I will post a note on your talkpage Mercy11, and see if your questions can be handled off-noticeboard, and then summarized here if needed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus regarding Puerto Rico articles can be seen at: Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff and Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico. Other evidence can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 17. Notice once again, how we can easily provide evidence against this user's arguments but he has not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And who, besides yourself, says that the "06:19 on August 27th...resulted in a big improvement" ? Pretty much seems like a personal opinion of....you. We need to deal facts here. Thanks if you can provide the evidence as Caribbean H.Q. provided above and I seconded below him. Evidence needs not be repeated ad nauseam once it has been given; but it needs to be given if it hasn't, and the latter of these two seems to be your case. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See diffs above. I have pinged the editors there that day, in case my characterization is incorrect, plus quoted the talkpage-discussions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree with you. Evidence must be provided. Can you provide evidence of these allegations against my persona? Because so far the ones you have provided have been refuted easily not only by me, but by others as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that "Ahnoneemoos [convinced] the others that his points were valid"? Did -they- tell you so or you are actually just speculating? How do we know they weren't more cases of Ahnoneemoos Bitting the others to the point they just decided to let Ahnoneemoos WP:OWN the article and they left to edit elsewhere - as I can personally attest myself was my case with Women in Puerto Rico when Ahnoneemoos showed up to edit that article (verify it HERE)? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See diffs above. I was making an educated guess, based on edit-summaries. Having now reviewed the article-talkpage-discussion of the time, see above, my opinion has solidified. Ahnoneemoos did everything just right, on those days. Do you disagree? Did you see out-of-control behavior? Calling the RfC immediately was not at all drastic -- it is a core policy, that consensus is not WP:VOTE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you can look it up yourself by reading the discussion that took place at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 17. Once again, notice how we can easily provide evidence but this user cannot. He is now even accusing me of biting users without even knowing anything about it. Who is being biased and has a preconception here? You be the judge. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do they always assume good faith? Yup." Are we missing something here? If people like Caribbean H.Q., Jmundo, and myself were convinced that Ahnoneemoos was assuming good faith but that none of us was, we wouldn't be here, would we?. We are talking about (at least) three long-time editors, editing longterm almost exclusively on the same topics that Ahnoneemoos has been editing. You are talking about 3 editors who are members of the same WP:PUR project as the accussed. I am making an educated guess on this one but, you are also even possibly talking about 3 compatriots of Ahnoneemoos, at least from his same ethnic heritage. That I can recall, two other WP:PUR project editors and compatriots had similar experiences with Ahnoneemoos. They are User:Feedback (HERE) and User:Marine 69-71 (HERE where Ahnoneemoos, assuming bad faith (to verify "bad faith" see comments of the closing admin HERE) asked that the admin be desysopped for a mere human error (see Background HERE, especially in "Ahnoneemoos, I thought that we were friends and now you have recommended that my admin. powers be taken away.") ). Again, it takes a lot of cojones to accuse one of your own fellow Wikipedians. Fear, even discomfort, due to the threat posed by Ahnoneemoos's abrassive behavior, is no way to come to edit here every day. So you would need to have a pretty convincing argument or two to support your opinion in implying that our individual and collective perceptions regarding Ahnoneemoos not assuming good faith is wrong and yours is right. In addition, neither "passion" nor "love" for Wikipedia are requirements to edit here; what is a requirement is WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, etc. - and those have been violated. Passion and love do not justify anything here as their existence in an editor's heart doesn't earn him any points in Wikipedia - let alone that they do not help anyone undo damage he has already done breaking Wikipedia rules.

I do 100% agree that nobody should be fearful, and am sorry you have that fear; but please realize, there is a big difference between angry abrasive abusive, and passionate persistent purposeful. Ahnoneemoos is the latter. I do not believe you came here in bad faith -- quite the opposite, I saw your edit-history at the Mayors article, you were just fine, and the same here, just fine. Your reputation is all good, in my book. And your ability to WP:AGF is unquestioned. Yet you are still incorrect, no matter how convinced you are. Ahnoneemoos often rubs folks the wrong way, because they are not easy to figure out. They do not fit in any "slots" that most editors typically fit into. But WP:IMAGINE applies -- Ahnoneemoos is logical, and they follow policy. WP:RETENTION is my primary goal, nowadays, here in the wikiverse. And quite seriously, I know that Ahnoneemoos is often mistaken for an A.A.A. editor rather than a P.P.P. editor -- that in *itself* is a problem. Many people on wikipedia are worried about retention, not just me. We have an arbcom candidate this year who wants to perma-ban everybody who says "fuck" for any reason whatsoever. Needless to say, I disagree. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not kindergarten.

  Wikipedia is a community of vastly different people, having strange backgrounds, strange ideas, strange passions, and their own way of doing things. Can we all manage somehow to stick to pillar four like a rock? Yes, methinks we can. I don't blame SilkTork for getting the wrong impression, or Mercy11, or anybody. They are doing what they can, to keep wikipedia from being disrupted, and to improve the encyclopedia. Those are noble goals, and I share them. But in this case, some assumptions being made are incorrect -- Ahnoneemoos does not strike me as a secret agent of some political machine, out to drive away all who disagree, and force their will upon trembling wikipedia herself.

  I have not been following Ahnoneemoos around; I'm busy with other things than usernames at the moment. Please, anyone, feel free to prove me incorrect, and I'll change my mind -- post specific diffs which document the gross violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT that occurred after Ahnoneemoos's 2013 block ended, if you think I am wrong in my assessment. (I'll let you off the hook on WP:OWN since that often cannot be shown with a single diff... but I promise to read Ahnoneemoos's entire edit-history for the page couple months if you can show me the pillar four violations... and umm, I've seen the 2010 incident, that was preventatively corrected, I'm talking about the recent incidents that directly motivated this fresh new noticeboard posting.) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that knows my contributions related to other editors' block requests on a third individual knows that I am always like the Lone Ranger - single-handedly speaking for the underdog, always asking for the accussers to show mercy just one more time. My drive is that I believe most editors can be rehabilitated. However, the case with Ahnoneemoos, I am convinced, is not one where rehabilitation is any longer possible. His behavior has been ongoing for way too long, brought up by too many editors, with far too many distractions due to disruptive editing, and with far too many missed opportunities by him for rehabilitation. It needs to end somewhere. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to end; either Ahnoneemoos should be perma-banned, or you should become convinced that they *are* editing/behaving/working/contributing fully in line with policies, even though some of their particular traits seem odd. They don't like chit-chat on talkpages, which most of us enjoy? Fine. They don't have to be social butterflies. As long as they are here to improve the encyclopedia, that should be all that matters. I suggest we go all in, here, to use the poker terminology; sound like a deal? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet Anne Delong and this IP user has shown up to support me without me inviting them, all by their own accord. So, we should ignore Anne and the IP user and listen only to your arguments? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I had never had any interaction with Ahnoneemoos or the Alejandro García Padilla artice before I noticed his revert of Jmundo (I think on Recent Changes). I am afraid I have to agree that his conduct has been disruptive and indicative of a battleground matter. It has been explained many times why the information he wants to include is original research. The graphs he wishes to include in the article are obviously intended to reflect negatively on the subject's performance as Governor, despite the lack of reliable sources discussing the statistics in the context of the Governor. This is not a case where there can be any reasonable disagreement. Every other editor who has commented has agreed that it cannot be included. Ahnoneemoos constantly responds with very lengthy replies that do not address the real issues. He appears unwilling to accept the clear consensus that it is not appropriate to include the information. I fear that a topic ban from Puerto Rican politics may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An RFC is an RFC. I have presented clear evidence that shows this is not original research and that we do the same for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir Putin. This doesn't have any intentions; these are facts. If they are negative, they are; if they are positive, they are. We don't care about it; we only present facts (by the way, his latest statistics, which I updated and included to the graph, are actually very positive so your allegation has no ground). Finally, just because we disagree doesn't mean that I'm "unwiling to accept consensus". The RFC has not been closed yet. I have not re-added the images to the article since the RFC was opened. Let the RFC run its course, but requesting to ban me because we disagree? That's not how Wikipedia works. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issues being discussed here are only related to the politics and economics topics. I did not, nor will, advocate for a complete ban of all Puerto Rico-related articles and nevermind a block. Despite the "battleground mentality" as Neljack describes it, I would not have blocked him over a slow moving edit war. The pace clearly allows for other mechanisms, such as this thread. Being cordial to newcomers is excellent, but not really relevant to the fact that he is both disregarding consensus and gaming the system to ensure that it stays this way. That said, the "me vs. you" angle needs to go, since it seems to carry over to unrelated pages and that will eventually get him blocked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But you see, that's the problem, you are accusing me of having a "battleground mentality", of "disregarding consensus", of "gaming the system", and of having a "me vs. you attitude" yet you fail time and time again to point exactly where I have done such alleged things. And in those cases where you do provide a link, I have very easily refuted your arguments by providing the background of the instance being referred to.

You need to understand that just because I have a different opinion than yours that does not immediately means that I have a "battleground mentality". Just because there are 6 persons on one side and me alone on its counterargument does not mean that I have a "me vs. them attitude". It just means that I have been unable to convince them... but they have also been unable to convince me. But it's not me against them. It's just a discussion, period. This is normal on all human organizations; not only on Wikipedia. Let me give you an example: this happened at Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff. I reverted User:Pr4ever for changing the name of the article and he contacted me on my talk page explaining why I was wrong. He was unable to convince me so we both together and cordially opened an RFC so that the community could help us (see Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff the evidence is right there in front of your eyes). Eventually I was able to find a reference that proved in fact, that I was wrong —very, very, very wrong— so we immediately reverted the article back to Pr4ever's version. But you failed to mention this case in your diatribe. You see, when people present strong valid arguments or when they are able to convince me that my point of view is incorrect I immediately change postures. But you are only linking discussions in which I have remained unconvinced and where the arguments presented against mine are just weak. This is quite convenient for you to do as it advances and favors your desire to get me banned. Yet time and time again I prove, unequivocally, how I'm very unattached, let things go easily, and never take things personal. Who really is being unbiased and leaving all preconceptions behind on this AN? It certainly doesn't seem to be you as you only post stuff that favors your argument but ignore all others. Isn't that what you are accusing me of?

Politics and economics will always be controversial; evenmoreso Puerto Rico's. That's why we need to keep an eye on them, so that everything adheres to NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Yet you have failed to provide a single evidence of me not adhering to our policies.

You also need to understand that this alleged "behavior" which you are trying to "expose" has always happened in Talk pages. Which exist to guess what for? FOR DISCUSSION. It is not a "slow moving edit war", it is a "slow moving discussion" which right now is in a stalemate. Sorry to break your bubble, but not everyone will always agree with you and even worse: you will not always be able to convince everyone. I know this for a fact: I have not been able to convince the participants at the Alejandro García Padilla RFC of my points. But guess what? That's how Wikipedia works. It's human nature. It's a reality of life. But just because I have been unable to convince them does not mean that I must change my opinion nor that I am "disregarding consensus". You are confusing democracy with Wikipedia's definition of consensus. On Wikipedia you can have 100 people in favor of a particular argument and just 1 guy against it. But if that one guy against it is solid with his arguments, his point will ultimately prevail on Wikipedia.

You are accusing me of "disregarding consensus" but have failed to provide evidence of such while I myself and others have provided you with evidence of several cases where I have let things let go and not reverted my edits after the community has reached a particular consensus (case in point is Mayors of Puerto Rico which I have not touched AT ALL after the RFC was closed even though I completely disagree with its outcome). Then, to top it off, it seems you now have some sort of magic ball and can see the future since you ascertain that I will eventually get myself blocked and that I will carry stuff to other unrelated pages, and that I must be banned because of this ability you have of seeing the future. Once again, I challenge you to publish a tabular list where you evidence these allegations. So far you have not. And of those that you have I have refuted every single one of them very easily; so have others.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• In support of Neljack's comments, I add that Ahnoneemoos started editing profusely about 13 months ago today, more precisely it was exactly on November 7, 2012, The day that the new candidate for governor from Puerto Rico's pro-Commonwealth Popular Democratic Party, Alejandro García Padilla, beat the incumbent from the opposing pro-statehood New Progressive Party. That's a fact. Also, Women of Puerto Rico is not a Puerto Rico political article, yet I was driven away by Ahnoneemoos behavior. That's a fact too. Reason why I said ban him from all PR-related articles...perhaps until the next Puerto Rico election or so. If he wants something added to articles from which he is banned, he can always make place a request in the corresponding Talk Page. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you know what happened before November 7, 2012 (the day you mention)? The Puerto Rican general election, 2012. Wanna know why I started editing "profusely"? Because not only did the Governor change, but also the political party in power, the political balance in the Senate, and the political balance in the House. Puerto Rico not only got a new Governor, but a new Senate and a new House as well. Pretty convenient of yours to focus solely on the Governor but ignore the House and Senate in order to advance and favor your argument but failing to mention how the whole political landscape changed in Puerto Rico. Pretty convenient of yours to fail to mention how I congratulated User:Thief12 for creating every single article of ALL the legislators (from all parties) before the upcoming year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2012/December#Thank you Thief12). Pretty convenient of yours to fail to mention that I was the author of Inauguration of Alejandro García Padilla and that I was also the one that added that he is doing an EXCELLENT job on Puerto Rico's foreign affairs (see [26]; once again notice how I provide evidence over and over every single time but this user does not). Pretty convenient of you to fail to mention that I was also the author of Puerto Rico free association movement, Manuel Natal, Ingrid Vila Biaggi, Alberto Bacó Bagué, Melba Acosta, Rafael Román Meléndez, Carlos Rivas Quiñones, Javier Ferrer Fernández, Puerto Rico Municipal Financing Agency, Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company, should I continue? How were you driven away by my "behavior"? So, I can't edit anything now because if it's something you also want to edit I will somehow strangely drive you away? I'm really trying to remain impartial but this personal vendetta of yours and this implicit paranoia is not helping. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected attempt at outing by Socialmedium

Already at AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please look into and/or advise on procedure concerning a suspected attempt at outing a user via a comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question; "Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)" N.B. A previous comment began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', " Both comments can be found here [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment This has been going on for a while. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) This complaint has been posted to both AN and AN/I. Here's the discussion at AN/I. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Hi..

There's been a lot of activity at WP:PUF in the past few days, and there's been concerns expressed that I'm being over zelaous. Would someone uninvolved like to do a review and figure out where I am mis-applying the rules?

I'd really like a second opinion.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG - I'm not sure that you're being overzealous, but I do think that if you put a bit more time and thought into your deletion nominations, you'd be able to better identify problems, and in doing so, would have a higher accuracy rate and place things in better forums. For example, the "Michel Georges Sassine" series (five images you brought to PUF) are, based on the information provided in the image description pages and in the article, from between 1968 and 1970. That makes it impossible for {{PD-Lebanon}} to apply, as that only applies to things older than 50 years old, and these images are 43 to 45 years old. In this case, PUF is the wrong forum, these should have gone straight to FfD, pointing out the timing issue. I think it is important that people like you go through files and check them for licensing issues, but I'd urge you to take your time when you do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Initial query

Would a formalized request to modify procedures to allow clueful non-admins to decline {{unblock}} requests from IPs be a proposal with merit, or a complete non-starer? I would have been prepared to decline this request for example; almost choosing a bold approach—instead asking this question; here. Thank you for considering this query, and I thank in advance those who will move themselves to reply.—John Cline (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not likely going to gain traction. It unfortunately opens a somewhat slippery slope ES&L 11:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If we walk upon Teflon soles, we will slip irrespective of slope; as we too often do, in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a shiny mop here ... (waves in John Cline's general direction). It's very pretty.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with George. The definition of "clueful" is the problem, since we currently have too many procedures, and adding another one (with attendant controversy) is not going to help, especially since the problem could be resolved by reducing the admin shortage. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, I do not think it is a good idea to grant the ability to say no to a user who is not able to respond with a yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. The broader issue (you should have the technical ability to reverse yourself) is the same reason for our decision to enable bureaucrats like Beeblebrox to remove people's admin rights when necessary, as well as granting those rights. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(actually my RFB failed, but I do have other superpowers)By the way though, in this specific type of case, any user is free to add {{ewblock}}, which explains to blocked users why edit warring is not tolerated and what to do instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I was sure you were a bureaucrat. Note that if you find a request with which you agree, you can add something like "Note to reviewing admin: I think this person should be unblocked", or you can ask the blocking admin for an unblock. For a good example of how to support an unblock request, see here: some months after I blocked Captain Assassin!, his conversations with Sportsguy17 convinced Sportsguy that an unblock was appropriate, so he notified me when Assassin had posted a request that looked appropriate. Unfortunately, I can't give you a parallel suggestion for when an unblock seems inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in principle, this is a good idea, but I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves that it does leave a slippery slope and also opens up the question of the definiteion of "clueful". Of course, you also have the issue of non-admins can't revoke talk page access in the event of frivolous unblock requests/talk page abuse. I personally think that non-admins can leave a note saying whether or not they support, but we need to make sure that it doesn't degenerate into an election/vote. It really should only occur in cases like that described above by Nyttend. So sadly, I really don't see it happening. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be listed on WP:PERENNIAL, I think this has been asked before, and turned down. --Rschen7754 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight in these thoughtful replies. The collective weight is powerful—I concede to its reason. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILLION

I believe that I have 21 articles that should be listed at WP:MILLION that are not (Anthony Davis (basketball), Barry Bonds, Campbell's Soup Cans, Carly Foulkes, Cloud Gate, Denard Robinson, Evan Turner, First inauguration of Barack Obama, IJustine, Jabari Parker, Jack Kemp, Jake Long, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jon Corzine, Juwan Howard, Kinky Boots (musical), Royce White, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Tory Burch, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. I have been told that I am not suppose to nominate myself at that page due to an interaction ban with User:Khazar2. I have already calculated yearly totals at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews#250.2C000.2B_yearly_views so you don't have to troll through the data for all of these. Whether or not there is an i-ban, my articles should be listed if eligible. Can an admin help me to nominate these articles or process their recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have been told that. I think you have been told, by me and by others, that you are free to post there so long as you stay out of threads that involve the user that you have been banned from interacting with. Shouldn't be too hard to do, and certainly does not require an administrator to do it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Block of 74.73.143.175

According to this IP's contributions log, 74.73.143.175 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by TigerShark. Now, as far as I know, IPs are almost never indeffed, and this user seems to have moved on to the address 68.174.175.172 (talk · contribs) in any event. (I still can't decide whether the user is a vandal or just very, very incompetent.) Someone may want to reduce the block duration for the 74. ... IP—though it may not be a good idea to unblock immediately, as the user still may have access to it. I'd have brought this up with TigerShark, but he's been inactive for over a week; I'll notify him of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

During his brief, but very intensive, reappearance on en-WP TigerShark blocked at least a couple of dozen IPs indefinitely, and refused to change the blocks in spite of several editors/admins telling him that it was against praxis to block IPs indefinitely (the discussions took place on several different talk pages, but one discussion can be found on TigerShark's own talk page). And AFAIK all of those indefinite blocks still remain in place. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef on a dynamic IP that only appeared a month ago is really weird. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef's on suddenly-appearing IP's that are not otherwise disallowed is poor form. That said, nobody is going to WP:IAR if I login to my admin account and modify the block length on those accordingly :-) ES&L 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us wait for a day, if there is no response here from TigerShark or other objections I will shorten the block to a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Will you shorten the other indef blocks of IPs that TigerShark made too? There are quite a few of them... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann's right eye

See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 40#File:McCann right eye.jpg

This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about File:McCann right eye.jpg. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the disappearance of Madeleine McCann attracted in the UK and Portugal.

The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in this section of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a non-free image of Madeleine as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.

Werieth removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the non-free content guideline. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.

Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see section 4.1.3, point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the non-free content policy (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (permalink), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. ТимофейЛееСуда has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider here, but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting here that I posted the above on WP:AN/RFC on 7 December, asking for the review of a closure. Armbrust moved my post here today without letting me know. It's not something I would have brought to WP:AN, particularly as the issue with this particular image was resolved last night with this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closer's Comment: As I have said many times, any uninvolved administrator is open to review my closure. An uninvolved editor is obviously not enough. One of the other members of the discussion went to SlimVirgin, stating that he did not agree with my closure. SlimVirgin came to my talk page asking for my reconsideration. I thoroughly explained my position and my closure, which obviously was not enough. I stated that any uninvolved administrator could come to me and I would reopen it, if they felt that my closure was done improperly. Diannaa, an uninvolved administrator, has already reviewed my closure on my talk page, something SlimVirgin seems to ignore. SlimVirgin does not agree with the outcome, and she will not listen to solutions that other editors have proposed and many that both sides agree upon. SlimVirgin, being too lazy to read what she requested of me, asked for a summary, but then 32 minutes later brought the discussion here. SlimVirgin requests an editor or administrator who is not familiar with WP:NFCR to review my closure, because she thinks will get what she wants from someone who is not active in dealing with non-free files. It smells like all of this nonsense with my closure on her part is because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it sad that an administrator I once looked up to has turned to this. My assumption is that unless an administrator states I have closed this improperly, then SlimVirgin will take the discussion elsewhere until she gets what she wants. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is a non-admin comment, and I became aware of this issue from seeing it posted previously at the noticeboard for closure requests, before it was correctly moved here. Although I'm a non-admin, I've spent a lot of time thinking about WP:NFCC (having written WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions), and, unlike some of the editors who are NFCC regulars, I tend to be sympathetic to content-centered concerns that images help our readers understand text. I've looked at all of the previous discussions.

It seems to me that Timothy and Diannaa are correct that NFCC 3a is, inescapably, the critical factor here. It does not change because most of the discussion was about other things, and there is no getting around it. No matter how you slice it, there is no policy basis for reversing Timothy's close.

But there are plenty of ways to fix the problem, depending on what editors at the page end up preferring. The only requirement is that the image (whether cropped or not) can be used only once on the page. One option is to leave the lead as it is, and use the "generic" image of coloboma, while also placing the external image link, with an explanation of the difference, in the image caption. Another option is to enlarge the image in question, in the lead, and move the time-advanced image of the subject elsewhere on the page. I've read the page and I'm satisfied that all the criteria except 3a are met, and I also think that our readers will understand quite well even after the 3a issue is fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removed the image and replaced it with an external link to the image (there were already 7 other external links). I think over time those involved editors can find a workable solution where all policies are met and the article is kept in the best light. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this a DRV issue? Regardless, NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a force any closing administrator's hands. None of the keep arguments surmount them.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason it's not a DRV is that the image file is not deleted, just removed from the page. In other words, the discussion that was closed was at WP:NFCR, not WP:FFD. On the other hand, the file is tagged for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

However, I am worried (given behavior of some involved) that as soon as the image is deleted for being an orphan, a DRV will be opened, regardless of the points made by ТимофейЛееСуда and Diannaa and the comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a very reasonable next step if it gets deleted. That's what DRV is for. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The closure has now been reviewed by at least 2 different admins as proper. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DRV still remains the appropriate venue for deletion appeals. I suspect this wouldn't have a chance, but it's a reasonable step. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I have assumed good faith and looked at this superficially and I'm ambivalent to either way. Looking strictly at our policies there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prohibits us from claiming fair use in this case and use the image legally. However, you gotta ask yourself: is it extremely important that this image is shown? Then you see that an image of Madeleine is already shown at the very top where you can see her eye's mark. You should also notice that the matter here is NOT the image, but the fact that the image has been widely published. I strongly believe that what we should convey visually on the article is not the image per se, but the fact that the image has been widely distributed. So, instead of showing the image, take a picture of the image being hung around somewhere, upload it freely to Wikipedia, and place that photo on the article. Or, take a photo of a newspaper showing the picture and the article where such image is shown in order to demonstrate to our readers that the image has been widely distributed. I don't like the "external image" option and I tend to agree with using WP:FAIRUSE in this particular use as it's perfectly legal to do so, but I believe the solution I propose is much better. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a very workable solution, to show a photo of a hung flier (as to keep de minimus); I argued the same thing could be done for the second non-free image of Trayvon Martin which was claimed to be used for a lot of protest signs, and I was able to locate several free images of that photo on signs at protests, allowing a free image showing that photo to be used. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I also like that solution. Actually, my reading of the page is that what is most noteworthy is the way in which posters showing the girl's whole face (not just her eye) were so widely distributed, so an image illustrating the display of such a poster makes excellent sense on content grounds. By the way, the English Wikipedia does not accept "fair use", as legally defined, as a reason to use material here; we require a stricter standard than the law requires. (See: WP:ITSFAIRUSE.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I don't want this to be derailed into policy making, but WP:ITSFAIRUSE is an essay, not a policy. Furthermore, WP:FIVEPILLARS states very clearly that "Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first." This user has "strived to find free alternatives" but has not been able to find one. Therefore, in this particular case, WP:FAIRUSE is more than fine. You need to understand that per WP:IAR our policies are just that, policies. The only thing applicable in this case are our Terms of Use which state that "You do not violate copyright or other laws." In this particular case, per WP:IAR and our Terms of Use (1) this user is not violating any laws, (2) she has faithfully attempted to find a free version, (3) she has failed to find a free version, and (4) our policies are "preventing her from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Therefore, WP:FAIRUSE is justified both legally and through our own policies. However, as I have stated above I believe there is a better solution that would satisfy both sides. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. I do understand that you said all of this in good faith, and I think we agree about the content end product. I was just saying that because I thought you might not be familiar with those things about fair use. And I'm pretty sure that WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:FAIRUSE are saying the same thing here. (WP:FAIRUSE is a redirect to WP:NFCC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear to me this is a case IAR should apply to. But given the claims of those on the "non-free is to be avoided at all costs" side, I don't see how that could be workable. Did anyone ask for the picture of the eye to be released under a free license? Do we know who owns the copyright (I'm assuming the parents). Hobit (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • About "sides", I became interested in non-free content policy because I disagree with "non-free is to be avoided at all costs", but I've come to be convinced that NFCC is very important if we are sincere about being a "free encyclopedia". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you explain why that's important? We aren't an entirely free encyclopedia. Nor is there any significant advantage to much of anyone if we were as far as I can tell--and certainly not our readers. Could you explain why it's important to be "free as in freedom" rather than just "free as in beer"? I've only seen downsides to this--causing us to not cover material in the most complete way possible. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Because that's the m:mission of the Foundation? To create free-as-in-speech material that can be used and reused by anyone in the world? "Free as in beer" only gets one so far. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
        • (I'd just been trying to remove my comment as off topic and move to TF's page). Sure, I agree it's the mission. But A) we aren't actually doing that and B) we are hurting our readers while only getting part way there (which serves no purpose). We are neither fish nor fowl. If we disallowed all non-free content I'd see your point. But picking a really narrow set of things we allow serves no real purpose. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
          • We aren't fish? Speak for yourself! What you ask is a perennial question, but the answer, to date, has always been that the consensus is for what NFCC says. And it isn't going to change here at AN (or at my talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I fear this will turn into a policy/interpretative debate but nowhere in the WMF's mission does it state we cannot use copyrighted material. It only states that the Foundation will "make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Using WP:FAIRUSE material does not hinder that mission since the content will be made available free of charge (since it's fairly used) and since it will be kept. Furthermore, the Foundation is very laisez-faire and its mission simply states that it shall "[provide] the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of [Wikipedia] which [serves its] mission." Once again, WP:FAIRUSE doesn't hinder that mission since the Foundation merely provides the infrastructure and human organization but maintains a very laisez faire approach with its projects. Let me give you an example from real life: this case has been brought in court many times due to universites: universities, "make and keep useful information (books)" free of charge at their own libraries. Students pick these books freely and photocopy them to use these photocopies for their studies. This is a typical WP:FAIRUSE case in court. I don't remember the exact case or law, but basically, as long as the inherit purpose of the university is not making these books freely available for the sole purpose of students photocopying them, the university is protected under fair use. In this case, the Foundation would not be making this picture "freely available for the purpose of people copying it", it will instead make the picture freely available (although it is copyrighted) so that it can "advance knowledge" and since such use is "socially useful". Fair use is very complicated and WP:IANAL but it's not prohibited on Wikipedia. However, like I said above, I think there is a better solution and we should avoid to derail this post into a WP:FAIRUSE discussion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Without too far getting off track of the ANI issue, m:Resolution:Licensing policy is the Foundation's statement on non-free material, which at its core says: "Such EDPs must be minimal." (EDP = exception doctorine policy ==NFC for en.wiki). Using two images when one would do is the type of thing written into that policy. (And keep in mind: the end reuse may have issues with their country's restrictions on fair use, like in Germany, so if they wanted to reuse content they would have to scrub anything that wasn't from Commons, for example). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Broader issue

I wouldn't have brought this here, but now that someone else has, there is the broader issue of Werieth – supported by Masem and Stefan2 – removing fair-use issues wherever possible. (A previous Madeleine McCann removal was discussed here, and he tried a few times to remove Scotland Yard e-fits from the same article.)

Werieth relies on a strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free content, a guideline that is not clearly written, making strict interpretations (or, indeed, any interpretation) highly subjective. He often removes images, reverts repeatedly to keep them out, then labels them as unused fair use so that they're deleted. It has caused a lot of frustration. I'm pinging some of the people who've expressed concern about it, or have been involved in warning or blocking: Stfg, Modernist, Andy Dingley, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Tom Reedy, Bus stop.

Several people (not necessarily anyone I've pinged) believe Werieth is Betacommand, a banned user; latest example of that claim here. Werieth says he isn't. I'm not familiar with Betacommand, so I don't know how to look for similarities. There is some information here. If no one has requested a checkuser, it might be a good idea to do that.

Regardless of the Betacommand issue, I think we need to have a discussion about (what I would call) extreme interpretations of the non-free content guideline. The issue is not whether free content is better; I think we all agree that it is, so that's a red herring. The issue is how to handle fair-use issues while minimizing disruption for content creators. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just 'bot-delete all NFC today and have done with it. Policy change, sort it out, done. If consensus is to do this (it's a free choice, we could do this), then I'm happy with it.

If NFCR consensus for particular images is that they should be deleted, per interpretation of our NFC policy, then I'm OK with that too.

What I'm not happy with is Werieth's behaviour of edit-warring to bully other editors that it's his way or nothing. We are supposed to be against edit-warring, as it's disruptive to the basic processes of WP. We can't even have a consensus about NFC unless we have a workable editing environment, free from this sort of abuse. In the short term it is even more important to us to stop Werieth edit-warring than it is to resolve some of the NFC interpretations. We've had these files around for a long time already, it's not an instant-decision issue (as Werieth insists) to instantly delete anything with the slightest doubt, as we might do (but usually don't) for some BLP issues. If NFC really is an "End of WP unless we remove these heinous breaches", then we should simply blank all NFC content (which we can do quickly and automatically).

As to Werieth being Betacommand's sock, then I'm far from certain of this (and I'm broadly unfamiliar with both), but the more closely I look, the more I hear quacking. The date of Werieth's appearance fits, the bursts of non-deletion editing or anodyne uploads from NASA look more like camouflage than regular contribution. The English language skills are very similar. Both of them finding an obscure article of Iranian cinema like Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami is really starting to stretch credibility. Most of all though, I just don't care. Werieth's editing is equally destructive and equally dismissive of other editors. Should either of them be editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wereith will say he found that article the same way Beta did - by running the toolserver report that list the articles with the highest number of non-free images. On the face of it, an acceptable answer, which would no doubt fool most people. But not when you consider all the other similarities between the two accounts, and the fact that there must be less than 10 editors here that even know how to run that report, let alone really want to (and I would not be the least bit surprised if the tool was actually written by Beta in the first place). The question is not should they be editing regardless, the question is, does the time and effort that it took to eventually ban Beta really need to be repeated, if he is him? Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether Werieth is Beta, I very much doubt that, given that we've seen examples of both users at their "outburst" moments. They have the same goal, to reduce non-free, but they definitely appear to be different people.

That said, and I brought this up at the latest time Werieth was warned and subsequently blocked at the edit war noticeboard, is that there are only a few objective NFCC removals that can be called as exemptions to 3RR, and what Werieth often does are not those types of exemptions. He gets one "free" bold removal of non-free that fails #3a or #8 or any of the other subjective ones, under BRD, but if that's reverted the only next steps are talk page discussion, opening up a case at NFCR, or FFD nominations. Which he frequently does not, and that's a problem. And while I fully support his efforts, I've warned him several times that editing warning like that is not acceptable NRC behavior. And I expect this to hold true for anyone enforcing NFC. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could agree that he should only remove an image once from an article – any kind of image, whether the 3RR-exempt ones or anything else – and thereafter must open a discussion if he's reverted, that would at least reduce some of time spent dealing with this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion about who is who, but I would think the place to examine that would be WP:SPI. And as for the uncomfortable détante between editors who care about content and those who feel strongly about NFCC, I've been there, and I'll put in a shameless plug for WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. That's really about how to make that détante more peaceful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Can Masem please explain what differences there are between Wereith outbursts and Betacommand ones? A few hours ago, Wereith called Andy Dingley, a user who registered in 2007, an incompetent dick. He has also called people idiots, ignorant, stupid, etc, all for committing the crime of not interpreting policy the way he does (or in the case of admins, not helping him by blocking them when they don't). That is all very reminiscent of Betacommand in his outburst mode. Wereith registered in June 2012, and has only been seriously editing for a year. Yet he claimed to have "far far" better understanding of NFCC than Andy. How? When did he acquire this knowledge? Such claims were also very like Betacommand. All of you, ask yourselves how much you knew about anything on Wikipedia after just a year - and whether or not you would have been running around professing to know more about anything than any user that's been here 6 years. Wereith knows about NFCC because he is Betacommand - nobody but nobody registers on Wikipedia for the first time, and starts making NFCC enforcement edits like this as their 8th edit. Their 8th edit! Ignoring repeated warnings from people like Masem that his behaviour was unacceptable were also very like Betacommand. I'm surprised he doesn't remember that - it seems to me that Wereith has taken the same amount of notice of him that Betacommand ever did - namely, absolutely none. When Wereith was given a short block recently for edit warring - his reaction was not only similar to Betacommand - it was exactly the same. Just like Betacommand, once blocked, he didn't appeal, he didn't complain, he didn't do anything - he just disappeared until the block expired, then when it did, he just resumed editing as if nothing had happened, or rather, resumed edit warring. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't point you to any easy evidence. Yes, both are NFC enforcers to an extreme beyond norm. But Beta tended to gnome more, using scripts and the like to handle things (even when sanctioned against using them), while Werieth appears more hands on. Werieth's "fits" also are more coherent than then Beta went off the handle. I remind people that AGF is still important here, but I also can defend Werieth for his misconduct in NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wereith does gnoming work, like using a scripts to fill out references. Just like Beta used to. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably a more pressing SPI would be one for User:Arnhem 96, a brand new account which is clearly very familiar with a lot of quite old NFCC history. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be "more pressing"? Which articles is Arnhem 96 damaging? Where is he edit-warring? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think we should look askance at a brand new account with a large amount of knowledge of the Betacommand/NFCC issues, Andy? Especially as I can think of at least two of Betacommand's most fervent critics who are permabanned? Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy was simply asking you that issue is more pressing. I'm surprised you missed the question, I mean, it's right there..... Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@BlackKite - I will thank you to not put words into my mouth.

It is certainly possible that Arnhem 96 is a sock. If that concerns you, then you know where SPI is. I see no damage coming from the account, so I have no reason to file such an SPI. So far I've held off SPI for Werieth because I don't see the evidence as sufficiently convincing and also because I see the objective evidence of their behaviour (whoever they are) to be anyway heading for the same block as Betacommand, even if they're a different identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Andy. Arnhem 96 definitely is a sock - or, at the very least, using an alternate account to evade scrutiny. I was merely pointing out that such an account muddying the waters here with their own petty vendettas is probably not helping sensible discussion of this issue along at all. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Slim, I highly advise that you move this to WP:RFCC. Posting this under your fair use request will derail the subject and be more harmful than useful. Furthermore, since you merely want a discussion for this user's behavior, you should go to WP:RFCC instead. WP:AN is more for when you are requesting a ban or something similar. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is long overdue. Werieth's behaviour does reflect Beta's more and more. His self appointed interpretation of policy and guidelines is in violation of the letter and spirit of this encyclopedia. His penchant for removing fair use images from articles and then orphaning and deleting them verges on outrage. Recently he tried to delete every fair use image of Arthur Dove's work that was available; this faulty interpretation has got to stop. I agree with Slim - discussions on talk pages must take place before any more removals...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

His interpretation is not 100% wrong, but it's also not 100% right. (in the case of Arthur Dove, where there are just as many free examples of his work as non-free, and none of the non-free are subject of discussion, but there's a means to resolve that). The issue, at its core, is him exceeding 1RR (much less 3RR) on NFC which are invalid subject to interpretation. He also does removals, and gets into revert wars that are clearly within policy where no interpretation is needed and thus considered exemptions to 3RR issues, but this is not all of his edits. That needs to stop, regardless of how "right" he believes he is on the subjective NFCC matters. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Masen I have for the most part made a point of taking cases to NFCR when there can be questions about the removal raised and I have been reverted, (I have made that change since the last ANEW incident). The most recent case that Andy is threatening to get me blocked for is about as clear a violation as one can get List of people from Bradford. Where an IP has made not communications beyond default revert summaries. Werieth (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about this case which you were blocked for. That reverting is unacceptable. (And even if an IP reverted without comment, and it was a subjective determination, I wouldn't be re-reverting that change). --MASEM (t) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That was the point from which I stated I had altered my approach to file more NFCR's. Werieth (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, I think if you would agree to remove an image from an article only once, and thereafter to start a discussion, preferably on the talk page, or at the non-free page, that would reduce a lot of the frustration that people are feeling. It's the reverting and the attempts to have images deleted as unused that cause some of the problems. That's not the only problem (the length of discussions that people get drawn into is another issue, and the frequency of them), but if the reverting would stop that would be something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have already stated that I have recently changed my approach. I have been filing NFCR's when the case isnt blatantly a failure of NFCC, or the files are debatable. In those cases I will limit my reverts. The case of orphaned images isnt as simple as you make it out to be. I am not targeting just the files that I remove, I actually am making sweeps through all orphaned non-free media and tagging them. There used to be a bot that does it, but its inactive. I often see the backlog over 1000, and my contributions might be 50 or so. I really dont think this is to correct venue to discuss the finer details and workings of CSD F5 taggings. 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, thanks for the response. What I'd suggest going forward is that, if you see a fair-use image (of the non-urgent kind) where the issue is that there isn't enough discussion of it in the article, add a note to the talk page suggesting that something be added to make it guideline-compliant. Then wait a few weeks so that the editors on the page don't feel they have to jump to attention. (Imagine the chaos and hard feeling we'd cause if we were to go through the encyclopaedia systematically removing everything that wasn't sourced or neutral.) Then, if there has been no progress in a few weeks, remove the image once, and if it's restored, take it to the non-free review page. That would be my advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin If the case was just one image (which I really dont focus on, instead I look at articles with 5+ non-free files, or particular files that are used across a large number of articles), I wouldnt have an issue with that. However in most of the cases where I remove files its a case of excess. In those cases letting it sit for a few weeks, is not a good idea. In the cases where its not clear I tend to file a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, though: why is it not a good idea? Given that violating NFCC is not the same as violating the law, what's the hurry? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Masem; for what its worth - I've added specific text and references regarding all the fair use Dove images used in the article. Werieth has no business removing those images. He should have politely asked for added text on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Modernist Im sorry if my removals offended you, but I cant see justification for those files, so a simple request for more text on the talk page would have been meaningless. We dont need to display all of their works, we already had 5 free images, and I could have seen justification for 1-2 additional but not all 5, especially in the gallery format that they where in when I removed them. Werieth (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth Appreciated. It's better to voice our disagreements and try to settle them; then to engage in an edit war. I think we all agree to that...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Modernist I would have discussed the issue if you had provided any kind of rationale in the edit summary for your revert (Reverted edits by Werieth (talk) to last version by Modernist) Gives me zero ground to start a discussion, nor does it provide any reasoning for the removals at all except (from my perspective) WP:ILIKEIT which in respect to NFCC holds exactly as much wait as a box full of air. However due to the lack of communication I think things got sideways for no real reason. Werieth (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth At the time I was engaged in re-editing and re-formatting the article - although I should have been more clear in my edit summary and I will keep that in mind...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wish people would stop talking about the Betacommand aspect here; I have no idea whether it's true or not, but let's let SPI sort that out. The edit-warring/misinterpretation of policy/whatever you want to call it is the problem that should be discussed here (and I agree that it is a problem, and have discussed it with Werieth in the past). A one-removal restriction on non-free images sounds like a good way to fix that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I want to voice my support for this discussion, echoing Modernist and SlimVirgin. I only encountered Wereith for the first time quite recently and have no opinion or knowledge of any possible sock activity. I do know however, that Wereith is a difficult-to-work-with editor, has no capacity to be civil, routinely threatens other editors when there is a disagreement, has an attitude toward guidelines and policy that indicates a single-mindedness and lack of flexibility, with an insistence on a superiority of knowledge of guidelines while clearly not understanding those very guidelines. A larger discussion needs to take place around fair use, particularly in art-related articles, but I'm sure it's a problem elsewhere as well. However, as this editor has been blocked previously, there must be some way to enforce civility and his continued edit-warring so the rest of us can get down to actually editing. freshacconci talk to me 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Your third sentence is pretty much the executive summary you would get if you aggregated the closing statements of every ANI thread, every warning from an admin, every block rationale, and most of the arbcom case conclusions, concerning Betacommand. Just don't ask Black Kite if that's the case, he won't er... remember. Even though he was there throughout, defending Beta to the bitter end. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'd just say that what SlimVirgin did here, pinging all the editors she can find who have had disagreements with Werieth, is effectively canvassing a discussion. That tool isn't designed to be used to instigate witch-hunts, you know. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's quite the fair point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet you got here awfully fast BK. Chatting with a certain someone on IRC? Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• IRC? No, it appears to be more direct and at User_talk:Black_Kite.
  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't use IRC. And that talkpage comment post-dates my posting above. WP:AN, of course, is on my watchlist. More interestingly, who are you, Arnhem 96? Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I like to think of myself as an anonymous whistle blower. I like to think of myself as someone who tries to do the right thing for Wikipedia, such as highlighting when a banned user returns to resume the very same activities that got them banned. I seek to save Wikipedia spending the same amount of time, effort and drama to get to that same conclusion again, given that it was pretty much shown at the time that said user was a complete recidivist, incapable of changing no matter what was tried. I try to explain in great detail to the administrators here what my concerns are based on, in the hope they might show me mercy for my own infraction of not revealing my true identity. I like to think of myself as the sort of person who can see the big picture, someone who doesn't simply enforce a rule for its own sake. How about you Black Kite? Does that strike a chord with how you see yourself? If not, well, if you're more interested in who I am than what I have to say or why, even though the only harm I'm doing if I'm not correct is tarring one anonymous Wikipedia account with the wiki-crimes of another anonymous account, both of which you seem to always be very quick and very loud in defending, I leave it to your peers to ponder on why that is. Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's all very noble, but it has one major flaw; that your comments would hold a lot more weight if they came from your normal account, thus avoiding the impression that you have something to hide (the two that would spring to mind are a blocked account or one that has had a dispute with Werieth). More to the point, if Werieth is indeed Betacommand, then you certainly won't find any objections from me if they are blocked as a sock; but as I said above, you are merely muddying the waters and drawing the discussion to yourself rather than the point you are trying to make. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you wouldn't object if they were blocked as a sock - if that happens, then it means the accusation is true. Not even you would dare to overturn that. But you will try your hardest to ensure that the accusations don't get heard - or is there another reason why Wereith chose you, out of all the admins on this site, to complain to about me? You were Betacommand's go to admin back in the day, so how about you reassure us that this relationship you seem to have with Werieth is entirely innocent, that there is nothing about it that would remind anyone of how Betacommand used to interact with you. The fact is, the only person muddying the waters here is you - that is the only purpose behind these insinuations that I have something to hide, or something to gain, from getting Wereith blocked. The only weight that a truly impartial admin would assign to my allegation is whether or not they stacked up to scrutiny - you've got Wereith's contribution history, you've got Betacommand's too (not that you need it, you probably know his history as well as anyone). The quickest way to discredit me, is not to try and fool people into thinking that the strength of an allegation like this can ever be measured by simply looking at the reputation of the accuser, it is to blow a hole in my arguments. You, of all people here, are the best equipped to do that. Yet, here we are, waiting, waiting for you to say anything here that actually relates to the actual issue, the one which, as Andy correctly identified, is the most pressing here. Don't you want to clear this up, one way or the other? You know how pointless, how ineffective, how utterly draining and time consuming it was when people tried all sorts of restrictions and special measures as a way to deal with Beta's unique problems. In that context, don't you feel the least bit guilty about not doing your utmost to reassure SlimVirgin with your unique knowledge of Beta that she is not dealing with Betacommand returned? You could torpedo my arguments right now. Why don't you? Would you feel guilty at all if it turns out he is Beta, and all you did here was attack the messenger, while SlimVirgin et al embarked on the same long long journey, one which we both know doesn't end until a long long way down the road. Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of the "canvassed" users and the admin who most recently blocked Werieth, what I see, having reviewed the wall of text above, is a consensus for a 1RR rule applied to Wereith on image removal. I would suggest that a formal topic ban. I'm not sure how long the ban should be, perhaps indefinite with an appeal permitted in the usual six months. If someone thinks something will change in this area sooner, a different duration might be appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen several nasty non-free content criteria disputes and they are a big problem, and a central discussion is warranted. Collaboration is required to ensure a good outcome, namely that NFCC is followed and that content builders are not driven away. Some users lack the interest or the ability to collaborate, and such users should not be acting as police to steamroll good editors. The behavior of Werieth at Titus Andronicus was extremely inappropriate, regardless of whether their opinion on the need to remove certain images was correct. After removing certain images six times in 24 hours, Werieth posted an explanation on Talk:Titus Andronicus. The explanation was: Do not re-add or I will take this to ANI and request that the user is blocked. If you want the removals reviewed file a request at WP:NFCR until that is closed the files say[stay] out. (diff). The editors maintaining that article are among Wikipedia's best, and it is unacceptable for anyone to approach the issue in such a bullying fashion. The community needs to stop NFCC enforcers until they can find a better approach. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we get to the crux of the problem: editors that don't wish to follow WP:NFCC decrying its contents and attempting to get the people that enforce it blocked. Contrary to SlimVirgin's assertions, it's one of our clearest policies and well-suited to strict interpretation. The problem is that an extremely high percentage of our non-free content doesn't meet the criteria. The solution to that is not to relax the criteria, it's to simplify the deletion process so that these disputes do not become so protracted.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Is badly backlogged, with some requests from early last month still unanswered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just did a bunch, but it is still pretty bad and I have work to do in real life. The main issue is that admins are issuing username soft-blocks and reviewing admins are not respecting that choice and adding additional conditions through the use of {{coiq}} when in fact the majority of these users have responded in good faith to the block notice as originally made. Comment on this practice is currently being sought at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Image Status Review..

We need a non PUF/FFD process for image reviewing I think..

So that things like this one :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Greyhound_%281900%29_underway_at_Portland.jpg

can be looked at.

This is a PD-US-1923 abroad image.

It also likely (given the subject and sourcing) to have potentialy been taken officially (i.e PD BritishGov).

PUF or FFD seems like the wrong process, and {{Wrong-license}} is typically used for non-free content misifentified as free.

It would be appreciated if you the admins could draft a proposal for a 'License Status Review' process which could replace {{wrong-license}} but still allow for images like the above mentioned image (which no-one is saying is non-free for Wikipedia purposes) to be determined by collective expertise, instead of having to rely on someone pulling the file out of the dipsuted cateogry by chance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)