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

(Initiated 90 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 87 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 70 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 66 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 63 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 63 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 61 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 58 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 44 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 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)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 39 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 32 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)

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

(Initiated 34 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	39	0	39
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	23	0	23
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 163 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 159 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 135 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 135 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 135 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 135 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 64 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 40 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 35 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 32 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 26 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)

Review of Revision Deletion

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

---

At the request of Prodego, I'd like to seek some additional viewpoints from other administrators about a recent revision deletion. (The action can be found here.) I don't believe that the revision meets the criteria of purely disruptive material. (Allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, malicious websites, etc.) Personally, I don't think one ping is enough to be considered harassment that requires revision deletion and a simple revert and block would have been appropriate. I propose to reverse the action and would appreciate some input before doing so. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hihacking the top here to give my reply. As I mentioned on my reply on my user talk page (linked by Mike above), in this case I felt a revision deletion was appropriate. This appears to be purely disruptive content (WP:RD3) - specifically an attempt by a user banned for harassing other editors to harass another editor. Harassment is specifically called out as an example where RD3 applies. I came to the conclusion that these edits were harassment and a threat to continue to harass based on the content of the edits, and the use of {{ping}}. I did not rev delete the other edits by this account, which didn't appear to be harassing. I understand the concern though, as I'm usually pretty stingy with revision deletions myself. I'm happy to have some third party review. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I would have gone out of my way to delete these edits, I think it's fair to say they fall under the description of edits which are "of little or no relevance or merit to the project" and I can see the merit in deleting the edits of a banned user trying to get attention. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the edits have little relevance or merit to the project but that condition is dependent whether or not they're considered to be purely disruptive material. While I don't encourage banned users to get any additional attention, I don't believe that revision deleting the edits is supported by policy. I find it hard to equate highly disruptive edits (linking to malware, threatening others with harm, shock pages, etc.) with the edits linked above. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at it, I wouldn't say RevDel was violating policy, but the correct way to deal with this would have been to entirely delete the page per G5. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The criterion for RevDel are sufficiently vague that almost any disruptive edit can be shoehorned into them, so as a matter of policy I can't say these don't qualify for it, espescially when coming from a banned user. That being said, I doubt I would have bothered doing it in this case. Blanking the content and revoking talk page access is sufficient. At the end of the day (or the end of the year) it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've probably done more of these deletions than anyone, and yes, any contribution by a banned editor falls under revision deletion if it can be performed without deleting any contributions by another editor. Since they could be speedily deleted under G5, the contribution can be excised under RD5. It would serve the project well if someone edited the policy to make it clear that RD3 (being "purely disruptive") isn't some kind of gating factor or overriding criterion. It's not: it's just one condition among six.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think I would have gone out of my way to revdel those edits, but they were disruptive and I certainly don't support restoring them. Hut 8.5 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is probably symptomatic of a larger issue. There is a massive disparity between what many admins think is "disruptive" enough to require a revdel. And as Beeblebrox notes, the policy is so vague that almost any vaguely vandalistic edit can be interpreted to meet the threshold. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, these edits are "purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project", and therefore meet the revision deletion criteria. No opinion as to whether revision deletion was the best way to address this, though.  Sandstein  20:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close enough to a WP:DENY type deletion. I probably would have just deleted the entire page; and as these are the only edits really no effective difference. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the standards of what should be rev-deleted varies quite a bit. I've looked at deletions that were called insulting and grossly offensive and just found harshly worded disagreements, definitely not obscene personal attacks. I wouldn't have rev-deleted those comments but they could have been seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

UAA Backlog

Not sure if this has been a regular occurrence recently, but UAA has been filling up. Requests have been open since the beginning of the year, if anyone wants to tackle a few. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleared a few out. Now I don't want to sound like a broken record but I can see at least one case where the editor had created one article that was speedy deleted a week ago, there was no warning about the username policy, and there were no edits since. I warned and closed the report as "wait for more edits", then a few hours later, and another admin comes along, slaps a big orange template on their talk and indef blocks them. Sorry, I can't see the point of a block, and it appears to contradict the policy ie: "Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm." - what's the actual consensus for these sorts of things? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, accounts in violations of username policy, especially for corpnames, cannot be allowed to edit with that username because of our attribution rules. If there is a not a quick reply-and-rename following the initial warning, then they must be blocked in case they come back to the account weeks, months or years later. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

Hello, I filed a request for mediation yesterday for this topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy but did not get any notification. As this is my first such request, I am hoping an Admin can help guide me through the process to get a resolution. Much regards, Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence in your edit history that you filed such a request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. Miniapolis 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the link I provided in the original request above was not showing under my edit page. I did it a 3rd time and now it is showing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_ItalyTrinacrialucente (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As the request for mediation was rejected by Transporterman, I would like to ask what the next step here is? After on editor challenged me to provide citations and evidence for a topic on the Talk page, I did so. Then another editor (who has been blocked 3 times for edit warring and who did not take part in any discussion on the Talk page) simply reverted the page. This is seriously anti-scholarly behavior and Wikipedia is being held hostage by a few POV-pushing individuals here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests backlog

Some help is needed from autoconfirmed editors to help with the backlog at Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. There are currently 140 requested COI edits and 74 requested semi-protected edits. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at these now. Nakon 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans for Gamergate?

Yes, the Gamergate controversy mess again. It is well known that there are SPAs and more-or-less SPAs operating there, of which ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) is a prominent one. All sorts of elaborate rules have been created, some apparently by ArbCom, but the net effect seems to be to stifle valid debate about the entire concept of the article, let alone its appearance. The fall-out has, of course, been massive and extends well beyond en-Wikipedia itself. At least anecdotally, there have been site bans here for off-wiki harassment relating to it.

We've got to break this cycle before it subsumes a massive number of experienced contributors who could probably sort things out but, like me, tend to be discouraged by the sheer ferocity and tenacity of those who are far too closely attached to it. I propose that we start with ForbiddenRocky, who recently hatted a comment by me in the belief that it should be on some sort of subpage. Splitting things apart like this falls into the hands of those who want to control through wikilawyering. How many newbies would look at the subpage, or even realise it exists (I certainly didn't until recently). My comment discussed no editor in particular, specifically mentioned "both sides" and was a terse analysis of the problem that is at the heart of why the article is as it is. I subsequently added this.

Yes, topic banning ForbiddenRocky purely on the basis of this one thing is ludicrous but I am becoming very frustrated with the pattern on that article and I am sure that other people could find other examples (I've seen loads but am not in a great state to look for them right now). It needs to be opened up and I think the easiest way to do that is to offload those who spend far too much time there for, apparently, very little gain - bearing in mind that the article seems to be as unstable now as it has ever been and that the same arguments keep arising week in, week out involving mostly the same people.

I'm happy to voluntarily ban myself (I've said very little there anyway and don't think I've edited the article at all) if only we can find a way to break the deadlock. Even topic bans of, say, one month in duration would probably help if we could find some metric for application.

Not sure where to post this - I do realise that it is not an isolated incident, hence here rather than at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I had thought of something based on if an editor's contributions indicated > X% of total edits to this or related articles (which I think are mostly BLPs). However, the 30/500 rule in force might make that impractical - my brain is a bit fried at the moment and I can't work it out. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You did two reverts of ForbiddenRocky, which is not permitted. You should have asked for help before the second revert. However I agree that you talk should not have been hatted. 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Isn't it on the talk page? That plays straight into the hands of the wikilawyers. Regardless, my main point here is not that specific incident but rather how to find a way out of the morass. Perhaps it needs some sort of revision to past ArbCom remedies - I really don't know because it isn't the sort of thing I'm usually involved with. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor of video game articles, this is one of those topics Id rather not get involved with under any circumstance. However, I am neutral on the matter and could provide a fresh perspective on the whole situation. → Call me Razr Nation 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Dont do it. Also no doubt someone will claim you have a COI because you love gaming mice or other such nonsense ;) Gamergate is a conflict between a tiny subset of forum/reddit/chan gamers (and I mean *tiny* given the % of the population of the world who play electronic games), journalists and rent-an-activists. For the majority of the happily gaming population and the entirety of the games industry proper, it is a non-event. Best keep it that way. Let them argue amongst themselves and keep doing your thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards this sentiment but then I think, hey, if we keep brushing this under the carpet then the attrition will continue. It only takes a few experienced contributors to turn a mess round, provided they get a level playing field. Quite a few of the higher-profile caste articles were pretty much sorted out in this way and, yes, those too tended to be frequented by SPAs. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

786 edits to that talk page, which is over half their total number of edits. But they rank only #6 for most contributions on that talk page... Drmies (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in Death hits the nail on the head. According to recent surveys around 178 million Americans are regular gamers (multiple hours per week). Average age of men being 35, women being 43. 99.9% of these people couldn't care less about GG and the only reason they'd even heard of it, if they have at all, is because of the abuse and harassment GG has heaped on women because that's all they're notable for. The article right now is a battleground of a tiny subset of vocal gamers fighting over something that's barely notable in the community that it concerns. If the article stuck to the actual notable events surrounding GG, that are mostly years old now, it would be a fifth of its size. Capeo (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim that you discussed no editor would sound way more plausible if you hadn't responded to a comment of "I've put in an incredibly bold edit," by an editor you have repeatedly attacked as an SPA with, "The idea of SPAs making incredibly bold edits here doesn't surprise in the slightest, although of course they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the article anyway." 107.72.99.29 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"They" is plural, ie: SPAs shouldn't be allowed within ..., etc. And this is the last time I respond to an anon in this thread. Anons in this topic area are in my opinion almost entirely people trying to avoid scrutiny. I see, by the way, that ForbiddenRocky has now activated the Wikibreak Enforcer. I suppose that is a start. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sitush - there's a bit of a pattern on that page of people turning up, claiming to be super-neutral and only concerned about article quality, then making the suggestion that we ignore usual source policies/block a bunch of users/include a bunch of stuff that goes against UNDUE/delete the article entirely. This pattern does not generally increase article quality and frequently leads to a suspicion that such users are not really all that neutral after all, I would avoid repeating it. Artw (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a pattern of people getting shouted down by entrenched contributors, quite a few of whom seem to contribute to little but that and related articles. That so many people have queried the quality and even the "sense" of it (ie: they read it and haven't got much clue what it is dealing with) suggests that new blood would be A Good Thing. Not mine, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When editors show up to ask and question the neutrality and then get labeled as Gamergate supporters by entrenched editors simply because they are questioning the article's narrative, that is a problem. I note I have not looked at the page since September per my voluntary ban, but what Sitush is saying is what has been happening even before the ArbCom case and was the basis for it. Note that there needs to be a larger discussion on dealing with ongoing controversies and the methods of the media today and how they intersect with WP policies that GG is only one recent example of, as what I've seen happening across WP lately is the use of UNDUE and FRINGE as shotgun approaches to shut down any deviation from mainstream sources, encouraging the type of behavior Sitush describes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't beiieve this is the right approach to this discussion. This was an extremely contentious arbcom case, bringing it here when the community was already unable to handle the situation seems unlikely to produce the desired result. A filing it WP:AE or WP:ARCA seems like a better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I did say that I wasn't sure where would be best. I don't think there is anything from the case that could be enforced, so I guess ARCA would be the better of those two options. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nononononono, AE, not ARCA. All the arbs are off this weekend to prep for the Alabama game. Please? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but I feel that the issue with the Gamergate article is that the current SPAs owning the space have an admitted ideological bent, and they see their positions as one of defending against an inevitable wave of trolls and harassers. Therefore every new face at the article is viewed with suspicion, and eventually treated as an enemy combatant which is just a continuance of the battleground behavior that landed the article at ArbCom in the first place. My suggestion from several months ago (supported somewhat by Gamaliel) was to just topic ban every editor who has ever contributed to the talk page or article space. Maintain the 30/500 ratio to keep out the trolls, and let the neutral, experienced editors take over. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Giant mug of NOPE We don't reward Trolls/Harassers/Sockpuppets efforts by topic banning those who are upholding the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Don't like how the consensus stacks up, File an ArbEnforcement action and see if there is valid arguments for topic banning (though I doubt you'll find any support). Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between upholding and gaming. No-one will ever convince me that, for example, MarkBernstein should be allowed to continue editing there, bearing in mind the Twitter feeds, blogs etc to which he contributes his acerbic commentary in relation to the subject. Similarly for the SPAs (of all persuasions, not just specifically ForbiddenRocky). I am looking at filing something somewhere but still can't get my head round which is the most appropriate venue. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That the comment above has been condoned by administrators familiar with WP:NPA for hours is discreditable to the project At long last, have you all no shame? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure their shame is in the same place yours is. Why dont you go blog about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The aversion of some Wikipedians for those of us who write elsewhere is very strange, but also neither here nor there. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly where you see the personal attack in that? Do you object to your commentary being described as acerbic? Or is any discussion of whether your contributions to the article are a net positive, no matter how they are voiced, necessarily a personal attack? Or am I looking at the wrong comment? GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am almost certainly one of the accounts that would be topic banned under any of Sitush's proposals, so make of that what you will. I think it is generally agreed that this is simply the wrong venue for the relief sought. As such, I think it wise to simply close this discussion and move on. Then again, what I think of as wisdom is not always correct. Dumuzid (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.

The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Further note from Bazaan's talk page:

  I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

  This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Review of EEng's indefinite block

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

---

I think a review of EEng's indefinite block by Nakon is needed. I know EEng and although I acknowledge that his sense of humour is not everyone's cup of tea, I also know that it cannot possibly be the reason for an indefinite block. The block was placed without prior warning with a rationale of NOTHERE with talkpage/email access removed initially, then restored after a complaint by another editor. Also EEng's user and talk pages were blanked. These actions are rather strong and unwarranted in this case, as they concern an editor in good standing. Various editors have talked to Nakon, including myself, but s/he currently appears to have stopped editing. Consequently, I am requesting a review of the block. In an attempt to minimise drama I am requesting the review here rather than ANI. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake. But let's give Nakon at least a few minutes to reverse himself, and give Drmies a few minutes to chime in here... "Cowboy unblocks" of other Admins' blocks is one of the more vexing issues we've had to deal with lately, and let's not add this one to the pile... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that caution is needed for any action, I don't think reversing this faulty block asap qualifies as a cowboy unblock. Also Nakon appears to be offline currently. Dr. K. 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally we give a reasonable amount of time for the blocking administrator to explain their position. EEng seems to be offline right now too. HighInBC 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I had not realized that the blocking admin has already explained their position on their talk page. HighInBC 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies seems offline right now as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree. But this block is extraordinarily bad. In any case, I don't wish to rush anyone. This is just my opinion. Dr. K. 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No – the blocking Admin should be the one to undo their mistakes. This is exactly the problem we have right now – Admins stepping all over each other, which is just leading to bad feelings. If EEng is owed an apology, I fully expect one will be forthcoming shortly. Let the process play out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideally, I agree that the blocking admin should undo their mistake. But this should be done in a reasonable amount of time. If that time is exceeded, someone else has to step in and reverse the block. Dr. K. 06:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A "reasonable amount of time" is measured in hours (on Wikipedia), not minutes or seconds. Currently, it looks like the 3 main parties to this are offline. The place isn't on fire, so there's no need to rush. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I say I wanted this resolved in minutes or seconds? Or that I wanted to rush this? In fact, just above I explicitly mentioned that I don't wish to rush anyone. Dr. K. 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there must be more involved. A bit of snarky behaviour deserves a trouting at best. HighInBC 06:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the background to this block? Is it purely from this discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Meh We can wait. It's pretty clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error (as well as the initial revocation of talk page and e-mail access, and blanking EEng's user and user talk pages, and probably the rollback of EEng's edits] on Wikipedia:Deletion process), but doing it right now makes no difference to EEng: He's probably asleep or otherwise occupied. While I initially saw this block as being so obviously bad that it was probably in error (I initially suspected Nakon had accidentally blocked EEng instead of PokestarFan ‎while handling the thread above), Nakon has argued that the block was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • EEng is online now, and has announced his wishes with respect to this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In case it's unclear, I support unblock, though I do favor having Nakon do it. This has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake, and I hope Nakon owns up to it as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Okay when I made my earlier comment I had not seem that Nakon had defended this block on their talk page. Given the blocking admin has already been approached about this and and defended the block I think that the only option that remains is to come to a consensus to reverse the block here. I support unblocking or reducing to finite block based on the block being very excessive. HighInBC 06:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Extraordinarily bad block. Dr. K. 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely support an unblock. This was clearly a misunderstanding. But Nakon needs to be the one to unblock (provided he shows up in the next 12–24 hours). That's all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Have you seen this thread: User_talk:Nakon#Indef_of_EEng.3F? It seems it was intentional and Nakon is standing by it. HighInBC 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still assuming a misunderstanding here. At the least, Nakon should have the opportunity to explain/defend his actions. I've dealt with Nakon enough to believe that this has just got to be an mistake... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• An error in judgement for sure, but I think their responses "I feel that the indefinite block is necessary" and "I blocked the account for abusive comments, especially this one: [1]" pretty much rule out misunderstanding to me. Seems more like a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block. HighInBC 07:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking an editor of EEng's stature on WP:NOTHERE grounds strikes me as showing confusion as to the circumstances. The other context here is that I asked Nakon to revdel a BLP violation just minutes before the EEng thing, and the BLP violator clearly was a NOTHERE case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The very first thing I thought was that they meant to block another user, I don't see how that can be the case now after the conversation on their talk page. HighInBC 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I pretty much agree with this. While it's a done deal that Nakon intentionally blocked somebody, the circumstances are so strange that I'd be willing to believe Nakon made a mistake in the investigation phase leading up to issuing the block. That said, from where I'm sitting it looks like negligence or recklessness. (I'm editing way too damn many tort law case articles today) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I concede the possibility. HighInBC 07:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with EEng, but Nakon's block would be the 6th block for this editor in 16 months. An indefinite block does seem excessive, but I don't think a wholesale unblock is necessarily appropriate either considering this editors habitual personal attacks. WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is one of the bigger injustices on Wikipedia. Had EEng not have been an "established editor" this conversation would not be happening. I'm in agreement WP:NOTHERE was perhaps not the correct grounds for the block though. Mkdw^talk 07:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• A finite block would be reasonable. HighInBC 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps we wouldn't be here if EEng weren't an established editor, but we're here, and there's clearly some kind of problem. Perhaps it's just negligence or a simple mistake as I have hoped elsewhere in this thread, in which case a reminder to Nakon to be more careful would be in order, which Nakon would hopefully take on board, and there'd be a reduced risk of Nakon enacting a disproportionate block against another editor (perhaps a less well-known editor) in the future. In short, even if EEng should've been blocked, this incident will improve Nakon's use of the admin tools in situations that other editors are not so likely to see. And honestly, an indef with revocation of e-mail and talk page access for a non-established editor—even one with six blocks in the last two years—for the same comment would also have been excessive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• And that doesn't include the blanking of his user and talk pages and the placement of a block notice on his userpage. These actions are excessive even in the case of a new editor. Dr. K. 08:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that he also blocked my use of email-this-user, effectively forcing any unblock request by me to go through the very UTRS system for which he is a gatekeepers. EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, per Dr.K, words fail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Piss poor block. Ironically, the point EEng was trying to make (talk one on one before going to ANI) was completely lost here. The snark against Drmies was unhelpful but that's not a hanging offence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would also be helpful to here from Drmies on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Given Drmies' comment "obviously EEng has a lot of time on their hands" immediately before the block, it seems that EEng was simply responding in kind. When is Nakon going to indef block Drmies for personal attacks? (note to the humour impaired, this is sarcasm) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lest the casual reader misunderstand, Ritchie333, when you say "EEng was responding in kind", you didn't mean that Drmies was actually making a personal attack, provoking me to attack in return; nor did you even mean that Drmies had been uncivil or unpleasant in some way, provoking me to be unpleasant in return. What you meant was that Drmies gave me what was obviously a bit of goodnatured ribbing, and I gave a bit of goodnatured ribbing in return (see [2]). Right? EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it was just a bit of banter as far as I'm concerned, totally unwarranting a block. Right, back to article work methinks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unblock, immediately if not sooner. This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers. Frankly I was shocked, especially at seeing this referred to as "abusive" and called out by Nakon as one of the primary reasons for the block. I'll note, also, this comment and then this one's of Nakon's - the second heralding the block without giving EEng the chance to so much as reply. Yes, he's snarky. Yes, I've shook my head at some of his peanut-gallery comments at ANI. But he is, IMHO, by no means abusive, and the worst part about this for everyone else is that Nikon has caused a chilling effect on everyone else at ANI who suddenly has to ask themselves if trying to inject a little levity in the grim darkness of the Adiministrators' Noticeboard/Incidents board will wind up with them being summarily blocked with their pages wiped and talk page and email access revoked without so much as a by-your-leave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll add that I only just now saw that the original block was just a standard block and then five minutes later with no input from EEng it was escalated by Nikon to a "everything revoked" block, something that raises extremely serious questions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• As this has been up for a few hours, consensus is trending towards an immediate unblock, and my own review confirmed that the block was not justified, I have removed it. I encourage some further discussion as a matter of feedback for all parties, Nakon, EEng and myself. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• As a generic comment, I don't think that it's good form for admins who block established editors to use the generic "You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges" template as was used here. This is OK when blocking clearly disruptive accounts, but not when the editor isn't just here to cause problems and/or when other admins might need to review the block. At the risk of piling on, the block rationale and duration were clearly errors. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unblock, and question why Nakon is still an admin This is wholly unacceptable behavior from an administrator. This is malicious, and throwing down an indef like this and then running away is not the way administrators should behave. Unless Nakon completely owns up to their mistake and promises never to do anything like this again, they should have such powers removed from their person. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The account is now unblocked Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the question not needs to turn to if Nakon should remain an administrator. This is the biggest boomerang I have ever seen. --Tarage (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go with it being a little premature to ask Nakon to hand in the keys on the back of one incident. Unless there's a clear indication it's not isolated, or there's an emergency, I think it's best to let Nakon explain this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of all the places where we are sorely in need of a mop, this was the last place. righteous unblock for sure. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv is right - let's let the peanut gallery die down on this one and hopefully when this has blown over in a day or two, we'll get a sensible and rational response out of Nakon. I will say that if EEng is tempted to put a picture of a orang utan anywhere and compare it to admin, it might be best to let temptation pass for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.

Ritchie, I would never take such a swipe at admins in general, as you'll realize when you remind yourself of this text (and its accompanying image, seen here as well) on my user page:

And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—​whoa, boy, watch out!

EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins are also humans, they can do mistake, same way editors are also humans, they too can do mistakes. I think this matter should not be dragged further. That will be better. Sometime such things happens. Let it go. EEng is unblocked now. --Human3015^TALK  11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I mentioned above, after the initial block and with no action on the part of the blocked party the talk page access and email access were revoked. That is the single most serious concern I have here now - the (for want of a better phrasing) unprovoked escalation following the intial block - it escalates it above "a mistake in the heat in the moment" to the "what on Earth..." level. I agree that we do need to near Nakon's explanation here instead of breaking out the pitchforks and boiling oil, but we can't just say "oh, it was a mistake" in this case - a mistake doesn't come back five minutes later to do something like that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is blatant administrative recklessness followed by a blithe, vague-wave brushoff of WP:ADMINACCT [3] inconsistent with his own entry in the block log. I don't think it aggrandizes my momentary martyrdom to say that the outcome of this thread will tell us plebians once and for all whether admins are subject to even the most minimal standards of accountability, or can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences, ever. Imagine if I'd been a new user‍—‌score another one for editor retention! EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon misinterpreted a friendly exchange as a personal attack. As a result of his misinterpretation, Nakon decided to act on it as an admin, which was a mistake. Because Nakon has difficulty interpreting contextual humor and differentiating it from an actual attack, he should ask his fellow admins for a second opinion in the future. Further, he should think twice about using his admin tools in a similar situation again. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was logged out throughout this entire incident, and I realize that it is now completely over with, but I want nonetheless to register my strong opinion that this block was a serious error, and I am sorry that EEng had to be subjected to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response

I'd like to start by apologizing to EEng and the greater community for my actions last night. I made a huge mistake in blocking the account without doing deeper research into the situation and I will strive to not make the same mistake in the future. I had been fighting a cold and was awake for way too long before coming to the project, which contributed to the severe lack of judgment and quick action. I understand that doesn't excuse my actions and I'm not sure why I kept editing on the site, but it was the wrong thing to do and I take full responsibility for the improper block. I'm deeply sorry for the disruption that I caused and will take the above comments to heart before making any further administrative actions. Thanks, Nakon 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nakon. My concerns are certainly laid to rest, assuming there's no repeat of the actions. Worm^TT(talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with WTT. Dr. K. 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

These things happen. I hope you feel better, Nakon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's what was needed. Thanks for the explanation, and remember don't cold medicate and admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a lot of truth to what you've said. I avoid all cold medications (it helps that I only get a cold about once every ten years) because they can seriously impair your thinking. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"You've still a lot to do before the weekend... ", [4], [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ... sadly I too also sometimes feel "I was awake for way too long before coming to the project".

Next time I do something stupid, I'm going to remember this. Sounds better than blaming it on drink. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And you can use the Neelix method of saying it's all getting a bit too much for you to escape any sanctions. Oh wait, that only works if you're an admin... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Nakon, for your gracious apology. I've ordered the unmanned killer drones back to base. (Note: NOT AN ACTUAL DEATH THREAT. DO NOT BLOCK.) However, I must ask that you also add a retracting postscript to your comments at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hello. I get enough grief for things I actually do, without the record implying things I didn't do. EEng (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• May we, additionally, have a name for this cold remedy which causes an otherwise sane person to block, come back 5 minutes later to increase the block to remove all conceivable access, insist in discussion they were correct, delete user pages and post in tangential discussions, then "wake up" and say "oops - sorry, my bad...". My pharmacist had no clue when I asked about that, and it would be so much cheaper than whisky, I'm thinking. Begoon ^talk 12:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is surprising, given that cold remedies are meant to remove blockage, not promote it. Nonetheless I'm happy to accept Nakon's explanation‍—‌if it's all an act and he's really a jerk, I'm sure that will become apparent sooner or later. I'm more concerned about this guy, who dropped in on my user page to tell me that I really should have been blocked after all. EEng (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You were subjected to an excessive block. Please don't confuse that with you doing nothing wrong. HighInBC 02:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that might seem to be a concern. Yet apparently in this part of this case no medicinal/mood-altering substances were involved, unless we're guessing. Ah, well, though - you're unblocked, so none of that really matters any more, does it? Chin up. Begoon ^talk 13:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Letting Nakon walk off scot free without any ramifications for himself (there are potential ones ahead for EEng which I'll get to in a moment is both troubling and predictable. Predictable because if an administrator fails to back off, like KWW did in the recent episode with The Rambling Man, will the admin get themselves into trouble. As has been shown, an apology will get everyone to move on. We have no way of telling if the apology is sincere or not, but Nakon's initial reaction is troubling because when his first justification came under fire, he reached for a second justification. As we all know, that was less satisfactory. He fired from the hip, repeated it, issued an apology hours later after it was all but apparent nobody thought his actions justified.

The potential ramifications ahead for EEng are pretty simple. One day another administrator comes along and doesn't like something EEng did (whether justified or unjustified) and uses this block as basis for his judging Eeng in that instance. It happens and as in this case[6], the administrator's outcome was poorly justified and on top of that he basically told me to bug off when I pointed it out to him. He counted unblocks towards an editor's block total, plus counted a wrong block in that total of 8 or 9....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you have administrator HighinBC who is perfectly fine with Eeng being blocked when no one else supports it. You can't say there isn't another administrator out there with similar beliefs. What was done to EEng by Nakon was wrong but can be held against him in the future. That's why you can't let this all slip by the wayside. Not as long as all blocks, including one The Bushranger termed the worst he ever seen, can't be expunged from an editor's history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you about future blacklisting effects. A genuine keying/mouse click error would be treated exactly the same? That particular rooftop looks a particularly scary place. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing will actually come of what I'm about to say, but I want to say it anyway. The underlying software needs to be revised so that block logs can be annotated or revised after the fact. (Entering a new, brief, block just so there can be a new summary is such a crude workaround that it really does not suffice.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a proposal in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey to allow a "Technical user right to edit summaries" (after the fact), but it didn't make the Top 10, so I don't know if it will be pursued or not. But what you're proposing is almost the exact same thing, except for Admins and the Block Log – I think it might be worth keeping this idea in mind, and propose it in the (hopefully) coming 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If the community wants it, then it'll never happen, because the WMF is too busy deciding what we really want because they know better than we do what we want. (Yes, I am that jaded by this point...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a software problem; the capability exists to revdel block notices but arbcom never buys into using it. NE Ent 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(This is getting far afield, but...) It's not the same thing: revdel'ing it would actually hide the log entry (if I understand it correctly); what I'm suggesting is something like the "right to edit Edit Summaries" – it wouldn't allow an Admin to "remove" a bad block from the log, but it might allow them to, say, strikethrough a bad block (or an incorrect block rationale) which wouldn't remove it from the block log, but would alter it in such a way that it would be clear to everyone that it was a "bad block" or a block by mistake, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• One way to deter admins from making bad blocks is to block every admin that makes them for one second. This will help maintain a semblance of institutional memory and to allow regular editors and the community at large to judge the accuracy of their blocks. It's time to start guarding the guards. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Postmortem

This pretty well illustrates why:

1. "Not here" is a crappy reason for a block, and should be eliminated -- Nakon's thinking would have been much clearer had they said "personal attack" or some other actual offense (as opposed to the vague psycho analysis of "not here").
2. The so-called "humor" by EEng (or anyone else) doesn't really belong on ANI, et. al. Although editors dramas / foibles may seem not so serious to us veteran Wikipedia cesspit dwellers, they are typically serious to the editors involved. At best, the not funny "humor" is just wiki-noise, at worst, it's offensive. In the past we've ended up topic banning folks off ANI for repeatedly jamming up discussions with stupid remarks -- while EEng isn't quite that bad yet, it would be better if they (and everyone else) confine humor to user talk pages. NE Ent 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote administrator Sphilbrick who gave his opinion on whether telling an administrator "Take it to ANI or resign as an administrator" was a personal attack or not- Not even close. The same goes for what EEng said and Nakon's administrator status should be under review for this horrible block. @Nakon: is totally at fault for what happened. As for his having a cold, I had surgery for a a malignant melanoma on Dececmber 22 and because of its location, the wide excision by the surgeon couldn't be stitched up. The surgical site is open and would be in plain view if it wasn't covered by gauze bandages my wife has to change daily. I've been in discomfert/serious pain for 3 weeks and taken pain medications but I'm going about my life pretty much the same as before except for my inability to do my daily walks. People get colds all the time. It's routine. Blaming your horrible decisions on a cold[7] is a serious case of bullshit IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone using "not here" when it does not apply does not make it a bad reason, it just makes it a bad reason when it does not apply. As for injecting humour at ANI I am guilty of that myself, however I do try to stop when I notice people are getting annoyed at me. HighInBC 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to say here what I said at ANI – why don't you all look for Admins who have been long-term problem Admins, and then haul them before ArbCom. From what I've seen, Nakon is not in that category (not even close...), and until you can show a pattern of problems, this isn't going anywhere (nor should it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you get well soon William. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Tar-and-feathering Nakon for making a mistake and keel-hauling him for blaming it on cold medication. Drawing-and-quartering is suspended because he apologized, but the next time it happens, Nakon will be boiled in oil and made to watch re-runs of My Mother the Car. Also support nuking this site from space (it's the only way to be sure) for not allowing a human being to occasionally be human. (Oh, and NE Ent: "not here" is an excellent reason for blocking someone. The majority of us are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and shouldn't have to put up with freeloaders, trolls, lol-ly-gaggers, SPAs, wiki-lawyers, and other disruptive elements. "Not here", works quite nicely to that end, thank you very much, I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your personal philosophy of how Wikipedia should operate.)
  Now, what are the chances that someone can close this thread and shoo everyone to other, more productive tasks? BMK (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Writing articles is hard – I'm procrastinating!!... [[File:|20px|link=]] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was with you up until you suggested My Mother the Car. We need to respect people's right to basic human dignity, no matter how horrible their crimes... even to the point of issuing a block while ill. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon made a bad mistake but it's not reasonable to expect an admin to carefully inspect every piece of nonsense posted at ANI to see whether it is yet more trolling or brilliant humor. EEng has softened in recent months and is very productive in many areas, but he really needs to stop putting images on ANI. He won an edit war at ANI in August 2014 to insist on keeping three such images: 03:33 + 09:24 + 10:15. No more please. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing

I see someone has unclosed this. While Nakon did screw up badly, I want to emphasize again that I'm perfectly satisfied with his apology (subject, of course, to good behavior in the future) and I would be distressed too see any tar-and-feathering carried out on my account.

I would much rather see discussion directed at eliminating the "scarlet letter" effect of bad/questionable blocks, and tracking patterns of bad/questionable blocks by a given admin. For anyone who doubts that there really is such a scarlet-letter effect, see the bullshit I-can't-be-bothered-to-actually-find-out comment by an admin in this very thread [8]:

I'm not familiar with EEng, but Nakon's block would be the 6th block for this editor in 16 months. An indefinite block does seem excessive, but I don't think a wholesale unblock is necessarily appropriate either considering this editors habitual personal attacks.

"Habitual personal attacks"? WTF? Oh, right, you saw it in my block log, so it must be true -- just like now I've had a NOTHERE block, so I must be NOTHERE. EEng (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would much rather see discussion directed at eliminating the "scarlet letter" effect of bad/questionable blocks. Very noble, EEng, I'm not sure I'd be so gracious in your position. It does you credit. Take a look at this disgrace, for example, where an editor doing good work in a difficult area is left with a stained record, through no fault of their own, when the remedy was simple, and obvious. We should be thanking and encouraging work like this - not potentially hindering or discouraging it. Begoon ^talk 13:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I look better in the silver halo, or the gold? EEng (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd need to see a picture, but this is probably the wrong time and place for that, all things considered. Got to go, I'm feeling a bit sniffly. Begoon ^talk 14:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, your accepting an apology is fine and good but as I raised above the apology doesn't sound sincere one bit and smells of bs. The bs having one purpose- To get the administrator out of a big mess. @Nakon: should have thought of something seriously stronger than a cold to blame his block on because if colds impair editors that seriously that they make what one administrator called the worst block he had ever seen, some sort of health criteria for editors needs to be in place. Imagine what somebody with a life threatening illness can wreak on this website.

The scarlet letter issue, or blacklisting, is a serious issue that needs discussion. As I have pointed out, bad blocks and unblocks, have been counted by an administrator in at least one case as the basis for how long an editor can be blocked for. More disturbing, that same administrator brushed off his being criticized for it.

Nakon's block of you was disgraceful on many levels. His excuse for it, horrendously weak at best. If an administrator can become that impaired, a serious discussion of whether or not he should be left with the tools is required. Furthermore, any fallout for the editor who was given the worst block, has to be prevented. The community needs to discuss that too. We already know two administrators are perfectly happy with what was done to you. That is deeply disturbing. I think you agree with me on that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE:

• I have no way of knowing for sure whether Nakon's apology is bullshit or not. Only his future behavior will tell, and thus the need to think of ways to track the quality of individual admins' blocks.
• As seen in Mkdw's ridiculous armchair condemnation linked above I will, without doubt, be judged by my block record in the future, unless something is done to make it possible for such records to be annotated or redacted.

Pillorying Nakon won't help with either of these goals, which is part of why I'd rather we not waste time on it. In the meantime I've decided to add a little table to my userpage outlining the circumstances of my blocks, for the convenience of any admin who wants to prejudge me for my next block.

EEng (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with trying to make an administrator use your correct past history as a guide in the future. I can point out where an administrator threatened to get a User blocked for harassment based on some past incident, when the very same administrator who was a part of the past incident said unequivocally that no harassment had taken place during that past incident by the User who he was threatening to get blocked.

Back to Nakon's defense. It is the Wikipedia equivalent of this whether the apology is sincere or not. If Nakon's defense is valid in his case, why shouldn't it be in the case of other users. The standard being used to let Nakon walk away from this should be valid for any experienced editor or none at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Time to move on. Why things are not perfect can be addressed another day, and not on the back of a settled dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Two edit filter RfCs

Please vote and join discussions at two RfCs regarding the edit filter, including the possibility of enabling its blocking ability. Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close review of RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?

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

---

I closed "RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?". It was closed as consensus to remove Flow. Afterwards one of the participants (Ottawahitech) disagreed and has stated the desire to request a review but had no idea how or time to do so.[9] Ottawahitech had asked questions about the close here Obviously not aware of the correct forum to ask for a review.
In order to settle this in a timely fashion I am asking for a review. As I understand the concerns, the RFC is questioned on the basis of outside responses and that the members of a Wikiproject should have more say in the outcome. Here are some facts:

1. The RFC had a small turn out.
2. As can be seen from the Wikiprojects member list as of the time of the closing only 2 members participated. The rest are not members according to the member page.
3. The 2 members responded with a neutral remove comment(Doug Weller) and a remove Flow comment(Cullen328).

Thank you for your input in advance. AlbinoFerret 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC's are specifically to get more input, usually from uninvolved editors. So the nonmember argument is out the window. It probably was not the best option if the project wanted local consensus to take precedent. Too late to complain now tho. Close is fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't that argument go out the window when the RFC was not started by project members but an outside uninvolved editor? Basically I see this complaint as an editor outside of WikiProject Breakfast, at least from what I see, came in and started an RFC to remove Flow. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that pile of steaming dead tauntaun is Flow?! Oi vey, Jimbo save us from the WMF's "improvements"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, although as Alsee states below, the project was much inactive until the rfc started. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point is that while an outsider may have started the RFC, if a majority of the members wanted to keep it, it would be something that a closer would have to take into consideration. But in this case, we only have two members responding, both saying remove flow. AlbinoFerret 18:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I initiated the RFC). According to WP:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects To qualify as "inactive", a project page should have had no directly project-related activity for at least three months. There had been no project-related activity for fourteen months. Until I started the RFC there was no one there to object to the removal of Flow, and there was no one there to bring the defunct "trial" to an end. The only posts were a few random Flow-testing-posts (which didn't belong there according to the page header message) and WMF-Staff posting about a Flow bug. I don't think there can be any reasonable objection to an RFC requesting input on whether the Flow trial should continue, especially when it is possible that Flow itself may have contributed to the death of activity on the project.

Reasonable arguments were made for ending the Flow trial. I see no basis for striking those responses. The close accurately reflected the clear majority outcome. As such, I Endorse the close. Alsee (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse the RFC and the closure. Bringing a disputed close here for review, in the circumstances, seems like the right thing to do, too. Begoon ^talk 10:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• I was one of the non-project members that commented in the RfC. As Alsee points out, WikiProject Breakfast is stone dead. The possibility that Flow may be part of the reason for that can't be proven but should certainly not be discounted. Either way, AlbinoFerret did a good job in summing up the responses, and I endorse the closure.  — Scott • talk 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Cram101

Not sure were best to bring this up. Basically this group appears to has created 10s of thousands of textbooks based on Wikipedia content.[10][11]

They do not state the books are from WP.[12][13]

They appear to be created by artificial intelligence.[14]

Even the sample on their website is from us.[15]

We had a couple of dozen references to them which I have removed.[16] Have pinged legal to see if they are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Heads Up

If this is even serious, the "warner" is collaborating in the trolling, and indulging feeds the trolling "friend". Socks come, socks go, they're dealt with and the trolls move on. In the mean time, WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Last week I warned you all of my friend's plan to launch an attack using an army of socks. I wasn't taken very seriously, so I don't expect you to listen now. I have received new Intel that the attack will take place this Friday at 1800 UTC. If you're interested I'll try and find out what pages will be targeted, and I'll report any socks I learn about. I'm hoping someone will actually listen to me this time. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) CONFESSION!!! ;) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Yes please post what pages will be hit. This is as good a place to post as any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullying on Wikipedia

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

---

I am not forum shopping. I have come here because I have been advised to by another user. I want all administrators to be aware that Wikipedia's anti-bullying policy is not working. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards its users and Wikipedia is negligent if it does not uphold that duty. It is not enough to have an anti-bullying policy, that policy must also be enforced.

Wikipedia:WikiBullying states: "If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with".

Note the word "feel". I do not have to prove I have been bullied. I do feel that I have been bullied and that my concern was not taken seriously by administrators. I am not trying to re-open this particular case] [17] but I have since become aware of other cases of bullying on Wikipedia and this leads me to believe that bullying is widespread on Wikipedia and is being ignored by administrators.

I have therefore started a campaign against bullying on Wikipedia and I expect all administrators to support it. There is a discussion here [18] which may be relevant but the message I am posting here today is not a complaint about any particular editor, so I am not notifying every editor I have ever had a disagreement with. It is a general point about Wikipedia's failure to enforce its own bullying policy. I have also found that, when I notify an editor about a discussion, I am often accused of "canvassing". Biscuittin (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you're linking to an essay, not a policy or guideline. While certain essays like WP:BRD have fair degree of cachet, they're ultimately intended as an explaination of some other policy or guideline, as the page you linked to says. Secondly, nothing in the part you quoted says that if you feel you're being bullied we have to deal with it in a manner that satisfies you. It simply says you should report it and it will be dealt with. If you feel you are being bullied and report it, but no one else can see any evidence of bullying, it's entirely resonable that dealing with it would be to tell you that. Nil Einne (talk)

BTW, none of this means bullying is acceptable nor am I commenting on whether we have a problem with bullying. My main point is that if you think we have a policy against bullying which says "if you feel you are bullied and tell us, we have to take you seriously and resolve it to your satisfaction even if no one can see any evidence of bullying and you're unable to provide any", you're mistaken. Also bear in mind that although we allow minors to edit with certain limitations, the nature of wikipedia and its editing culture means we normally handle stuff at an adult level. Therefore we will handle bullying much more like a workplace or university will, than a secondary (let alone primary) school. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have therefore started a campaign against bullying on Wikipedia and I expect all administrators to support it. Is there a campaign page, where administrators may read details of this campaign, and indicate their support, or otherwise? Or is that a rhetorical "expect"? Serious question. Begoon ^talk 13:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you give some specific difs on where you feel bullying has specifically been an issue? Most of the links/discussions I've read through are more about you discussing bullying in general than the actual examples of it. Its hard to respond without knowing what type of thing you're referring to. I mean, for example, I've had editors that report things like bullying or conspiracies to me, when in reality, the problem wasn't so much that, as much as it was just that no one was agreeing with them in a discussion, or that they were using an unreliable source or something. People often confuse the actual issue. I'm not necessarily saying its you, just that I can't rule it out without more info. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure if you saw the ANI complaint linked above [19]. There were no diffs, but it complained about issues relating to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change and the article. I see Biscuittin left comments in the threads #This page should be removed, #Edit war on dissent and #Neutrality tag. Their complaint was at 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC), so it would have to be any comments or actions before then that they felt was bullying. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was was skimming through that talk page, but its pretty lengthy, and most of it looked like on-topic, normal discussion at a glance. That's why I was hoping may Biscuittin would maybe link to some specific comments that were out of line? Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me translate: User:Biscuittin believes that Scientific opinion on climate change should be radically revised or deleted altogether. He didn't get what he wanted, which is of course the very definition of "bullying." See the edit history and talk page for details. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you're a bit of a bully, too, using facts to go and prove things like that. Won't anyone think of the downtrodden? Begoon ^talk 14:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tort awaiting further analysis

• Duty of care? Are you kidding? EEng (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I was about to jump in with some tort analysis, but you put it much more succinctly. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Succinct" is my middle name -- E. Succinct Eng. Actually, this is pretty serious: a few hours ago the OP posted to his/her userpage [20]:

I believe that Wikipedia owes a duty of care to its users and it is currently failing in that duty. If Wikipedia does not start taking bullying more seriously I will be reporting it to the Police. [21] To quote from the Police website: "There is not a specific law which makes cyberbullying illegal but it can be considered a criminal offence under several different acts including Protection from Harassment Act (1997), Malicious Communications Act (1988), Communications Act (2003) Obscene Publications Act (1959) and Computer Misuse Act (1990)".

EEng (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We're doomed. This day had to come, and now here it is. At least I have all that corned beef and powdered egg in the basement. They laughed at me for that, you know. Begoon ^talk 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've found that, in general, when accusations of "bullying" are bandied about, the accuser has little to no grasp on reality. I see nothing in this accusation that would make it an outlier.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual, whenever I criticise Wikipedia, the immediate response is for somebody to attack me. It seems that Wikipedia has an institutional culture of bullying which is condoned by administrators. My complaints are always interpreted as "he didn't get his own way so he is throwing a hissy fit" but this is not the case. I do not always expect to get my own way but I do expect to be treated fairly and Wikipedia's administrators are not doing this. My complaint is about bullying and nothing else. There is a widespread belief that the laws which apply to the real world do not apply on-line but I can assure you that they do. Administrators, as representatives of Wikipedia, would be wise to take note of this. I am not thinking of committing suicide but it is quite possible that somebody else might commit suicide after being bullied on Wikipedia and then finding that administrators did not take his/her complaint seriously. If this happened, there would be consequences. These could include a civil lawsuit for damages against Wikipedia and civil or criminal liability for people who should have prevented the bullying but did not. The fact that Wikipedia administrators are unpaid would not absolve them from liability if they were held to be the people who should have prevented the bullying. I have no doubt I shall be accused of making legal threats but I am not. I am merely outlining a possible scenario and asking you to think about it. Stop being so defensive, stop sneering at me and start taking bullying on Wikipedia seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Administrators are not policemen nor are we therapists. You are approaching what could be a legitimate complaint in a manner which ism not serving your purpose. You should take the advice you are receiving and reconsider your course. Tiderolls 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't this report an actual legal threat? It's hard to see otherwise. The campaign on the user's page is inherently chilling; "Agree with me, or I will report you to the police." Referencing specific statutes under which an editor may be culpable under law. Scr★pIron^IV 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The threat appears to be retracted. Tiderolls 15:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Don't presume to tell me who to sneer at, Biscuittin.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh, its a load of wind from someone who isnt getting their POV into articles like they feel it should be. Ignore. Move on. No one is going to take any pseudo-threat from Biscuittin seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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