Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po

(Initiated 1450 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done – as said above, this has been archived, and there is obvious consensus for one of the four options, so there is no need for a formal closure. Editor Amigao, feel free to close this if you want to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be closed either, but not because I think there is an obvious consensus. Four-year-old RfCs shouldn't be closed, particularly for an RSN discussion, where relevant facts regarding a source might have changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 125 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Soni (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 94 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)

 Done. There's a new RFC on the page, so closed this as no consensus. Soni (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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 74 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 69 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

 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 65 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 62 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 35 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)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	12	5	17
TfD	0	0	5	5	10
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	4	0	4
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 166 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 162 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 138 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 138 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 138 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 138 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 68 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 44 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 36 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 30 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)#Requested move 21 June 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's one article that I found intriguing.

I was browsing the net rather lazily when I found this piece of article here in a personal blog that I think people should check once. It deals with Wikipedia's mismanagement of the RFP/C page. People, I ask you to give suggestions and opinions on what could be done. Thanking you, Wiki4Blog 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. I wouldn't suggest "any admin", though, I'd suggest guiding them to a category (like we do for RevDel) of administrators with an interest in that particualr kind of request, presumably admins that would somewhat self-select for availability and newcomer-friendliness. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly interesting except that I am pretty sure this user just blew their attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART because they are mad that their new account didn't get confirmed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that my RFP/C was accepted in under 20 minutes. (I'd been working heavily in RCP, and AIV had been protected due to some IP-hopping troll.) So, clearly it's not an entirely useless process. That said, from an editor retention point of view, I think that there are definitely some processes here frequented by newcomers that are rather confusingly run. (WP:CHU would be another example.) Perhaps a bot or some scripts could help with them? I'm thinking here of the issue raised in the post of questions that go unanswered -- new users might not fully get how their watchlist works, so they can't be fully expected to see that they've been asked a question. But, as for any thoughts of shutting down the process, I'd say that that would be highly overkill. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, I couldn't read the blog from here due to filtering, but found another way to read it. What a load of bollocks. Not just bollocks, but huge festering bollocks. I patrol RFP/C regularly (as in: multiple times a day), as do a few other admins. How "credible" is the blogger when they don't say that? I'm also the one who designed the {{RFPC}} template so that we had some standard, friendly replies to the most common questions/requests. Reality is that RFP/C is probably the most misunderstood board, but we've tried again and again to make it more understandable, all the way to the box at the top that says "if your sole reason for being confirmed is to upload images, go HERE instead". There's a good reason that a new editor is not autoconfirmed when they create their account. Manual confirmations therefore should be extremely rare, and indeed the following are almost instant: the Bot of an established editor; the alternate account of an established editor; someone who desires to save a Book. The nd95 switch on the RFPC template basically says "look, we protect pages for a reason, and here's how to proceed - with a couple of great policy documents to read...and hey, only some of our pages are actually protected, so you do not need to be confirmed to edit most of this project". Anyway, the blog is someone whinging, poorly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that RFP/C is very well-run. While we're on the topic, though, I'd like to note that perhaps it would be useful to create a matching series of templates to drop on users' talk pages when their requests are denied or when they're asked a question? Seeing as it's a page frequented by users who don't quite understand how certain things work around here, some redundancy could be helpful. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM

Hello.

There is a huge backlog at WP:RM. Would an admin – or a rather dozen – please give it some attention.

Alternatively, is it ok if the proposing editor himself/herself closes the RM by removing the request and performing the move(s) himself/herself? Provided, of course, that there is some kind of consensus to move.

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, you can close anything that has unanimous agreement and has been open for at least seven days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New users prefixed "NJIT HUM"

I've noticed several edits by different users prefixed "NJIT HUM", such as this one by User:‎NJIT HUMKMA, this one by User:‎NJIT HUMRodjFlores and another one by User:NJIT HUMhyd2 that have been made over the past day to a number of New Jersey-related articles. At first I thought that this might be a series of sockpuppets, but it seems that the most likely explanation is that these are people (perhaps students) affiliated with the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) in Newark, New Jersey who are taking a humanities course and have an assignment to edit Wikipedia, starting with articles about schools and places that they might be familiar with. There seems to be no problem whatsoever with any of the edits I have seen -- one of the edits was reverted, but the change had been correct -- and this may well be a useful way to introduce editors to the encyclopedia. Is there any way to track down who is behind these new editors, though I could just see if email access id set up for these folks? Any thoughts on using this as a model, where college students are asked to edit articles for their high school or hometown as a way to broaden participation by a group of people likely to be responsible and thorough in their editing? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Should probably let these guys know about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and left a notice linking to this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There's also WP:Education noticeboard for these things. I'd suggest leaving it be for now, and just a note on every talkpage that says something like "Please have your professor come to our IRC channel (wikipedia-en-help) for some help with his course before you continue editing". If any of them look like they're being disruptive, block until their professor gets it sorted out. Just my POV. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am personally opposed to ever doing anything that suggests anyone is required to use IRC instead of on-wiki communication or email. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. gwickwire is right that WP:ENB is the best place to report this kind of thing now. We also have {{welcome student}} and {{welcome teacher}} that you can use to welcome students and/or teachers for classes that don't seem to be organized on-wiki.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If there's no problem with the editing, there's no problem with the accounts. The professor should be directed to any one of the various Education outreach programs like Wikipedia:School and university projects but there isn't any reason we'd want to discourage such usage. These students may need extra help and guidance, and having the professor coordinate with Wikimedia's own outreach teams is very useful, but ultimately these accounts aren't breaking any rules, and we needn't get all in a tizzy over the account naming issue. --Jayron32 21:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I only meant IRC due to the fact that this professor is most likely on a deadline for his syllabus, and therefore will more than likely not want to wait for a response from the EN people. There's a few of us in wikipedia-en-help that can help him understand why going through the ENB would be better, and would help him tremendously. We could also help him set up his pages. I feel it's highly unlikely that unless he's talking with a live person (IRC most likely) he will ask his students to stop while he gets a course page set up. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of the feedback and suggestions. If I thought that something untoward was going on, I'd have posted this to ANI. I came here because I agree that this appears to be a positive for Wikipedia and just wondered how best to approach this and make the most of what can be a very good situation. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, all the edits by this group of users can be tracked with the gadget "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges ..." (which also allows wildcard searches of usernames based on their prefix) and this link. Graham87 14:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's all great, but no one had of yet actually pasted those welcome messages on those pages (are we just talk here?). Graham, I can't do that fancy footwork of yours, and since the accounts have made no other edits I can't figure out who the teacher might be. As a side note, we might never find out; these accounts may never edit again (one of the edits was reverted summarily without explanation or even a template on the user's talk page) if the assignment was "make one edit to improve an article". Drmies (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alansohn left me a nice note, which prompted me to add something to the student welcome template--"*Please ask your instructor to drop by at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_users_prefixed_.22NJIT_HUM.22, so we can help them if they need any assistance. Again, thanks for your contributions!" Again, I doubt that much will come of it, but I suppose we gotta start somewhere. Sage, or anyone else, if you can think of a better place to send them (and I'm sure there's better places than AN, but I'm not sure which Education page would be best) feel free to stick that in there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Fram

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

---

I reverted an uncivil and uncalled for message from Fram on Kumioko's talk page ("Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?"). talk page history. Kumioko is "retired" and is editing from an IP. Fram reverted. I reverted again and left a message at Fram's talk page. Fram reverted with a the comment "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here" and left a message at my talk page.

Fram's comment to Kumioko is obvious trolling and is a derogatory comment, which can be removed per WP:RUC. Fram's comments to me to Fuck off is also uncalled for. Fram being an admin makes this even worse. Bgwhite (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Demiurge1000 has since reverted Fram's edit on Kumioko's talk page and also left a note at Fram's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Fram's comments were inappropriate. For the record, Kumioko and I have not gotten along, but Fram should not have left those derogatory comments regardless. --Rschen7754 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, as I noted on Fram's talk page, it's Fram's comment "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" that I personally consider to qualify as "derogatory" as listed in WP:NPA. (It's also tasteless grave-dancing, given its placement on the talk page of another editor that Fram has apparently succeeded in driving from the project.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, quite a neutral comment there. "another editor that Fram has apparently succeeded in driving from the project." No, it was Kumioko's block (under his previous account) and his failed RfA that drove him off the project, basically; neither of which I had anything to do with. But please, feel free to list the other editors I "succeeded in driving from the project". Fram (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, how can it be "grave-dancing" if it is a reply to a comment the editor made about me today? Please stick to the facts. Fram (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Below you say "Kumioko was blocked for making a personal attack about me", but here you think you don't have anything to do with him "retiring"? Facts, we've certainly heard of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Hey Bgwhite, you know, you are an admin as well! You could have followed WP:RUC and come to my talk page to discuss things, instead of just removing my comment from someone else's talk page. Or you could have checked the background a bit, and have seen that my comments were rather accurate. Kumioko has changed from a productive editor into an time-wasting but otherwise ineffective (and often inadvertently quite hilarious) troll.

Over the last few weeks, Kumioko has accused me of harassing an editor, tried to get an interaction ban between me and Rich farmbrough (swiftly closed), and started 4 AfDs on articles I created (all speedily kept). All quite funny, but even the best jokes can get tiresome if they continue for too long. What directly lead to the current situation is the discussion about what to do with Richard Arthur Norton, with the pending ArbCom case I started. Since I wille be offline for the next week (starting tomorrow), I created User:Fram/RAN evidence. You can see the note I put at the top of that page and judge whether creating such a page is acceptable or not. Kumioko felt the need to jump into the middle of the Richard Arthur Norton discussion and post (as an IP, without disclosing who he actually was as an editor): [1]. This is basic trolling and harassment, but I didn't feel the need to waste the time of AN (or another venue) with such rather pathetic attempts, instead giving Kumioko a mild version of what he deserved on his talk page instead. Some editors clearly fail to see the whole picture, so here we are.

But since we are now here, and we can't have an AN section without some admin action being called for (what admin action did you want, Bgwhite?), I would propose that Kumioko (and his IPs obviously) is indef blocked for trolling, and/or topic banned from commenting on me. IF more diffs are neede for this, just ask and I'll provide! Fram (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge doesn't like Fram. Fram doesn't like Demiurge. Okay. Unless you two want to kiss and make up, I don't see this portion of the discussion going anywhere. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bgwhite is an administrator? You should count yourself lucky then, Fram. If Bgwhite went by the same approach you do in handing out blocks to people you've disagreed with, they wouldn't have needed to revert your personal attack and post to your talk page - they could've just gone right ahead and blocked you instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Demiurge, you are getting way out of line here. Can you please post any evidence of my approach of "handling out blocks to people you've disagreed with"? Accusing me of violating WP:INVOLVED certainly warrants some evidence. Fram (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sure thing, Fram. Here is a diff to my second comment in opposition to your ultimately unsuccessful attempt to get User:LauraHale banned from DYK; on 6 November 2012. Here is a diff of your deciding to block me on an unrelated matter two weeks later (a block which at least two uninvolved admins said was unnecessary). And then here is a diff where, about two weeks later again, you bring up that block as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to review, oh, surprise surprise, a DYK nomination by, surprise surprise, User:LauraHale. (A nomination which you at least twice tried to get marked as failed.) If your block was nothing to do with the disagreement over LauraHale's DYK nominations, why would you bring up the block in that context only a couple of weeks later? Now, should you be blocked for your personal attacks, or should we start looking at other ways to curb your abuse of your administrator privileges that were so wisely conferred upon you in 2007 with a few dozen "per nom" and "looks good to me" comments? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) At the time of the block, no, I did not remember that you had opposed a proposal I made. That block was upheld by multiple admins (one of the admins that disagreed with it, Fluffernutter, later changed his mind, see the "ETA" post he made afterwards; I see no other admin disagreeing with the block there. Full discussion at [2]. But I block so few editors that at the time of the second discussion, I clearly remembered having blocked you. But thanks for pointing out that your reversal of my comments on Kumioko's talk page, and your comments here, are not really observations by an unbiased outsider... Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So this is a cute reversal of the Mbz1 strategy, is it? If you block enough people that disagree with you, then you can discount their opinions as "not really observations by an unbiased outsider" whenever your abuse is exposed? You haven't explained why you felt it appropriate to raise the subject of the block in a discussion about a completely unrelated content issue two weeks later, if the block was (so you'd have us believe) nothing to do with a dispute about that same issue that occurred two weeks prior to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Again: when I blocked you, I didn't recognise your name as someone I had been in a dispute with (I recognised your name, but your involvement in the LauraHale topic ban discussion didn't specifically register). At the later DYK discussion, I recognised your name as that of someone I had recently blocked though (I still didn't seem to remember it as someone who had also opposed the LauraHale topic ban, judging from that discussion). The reason you came to that DYK review seemed to be solely to oppose my view and to start attacking me ("Sorry, but DYK is not Fram's personal playground. And my apologies to Crisco (and anyone else involved) for my accidentally implying any complicity with, or support for, the mudslinging.") Note that after you approved the hook over my objections, other (unbiased) editors came along, and agreed with me: Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton. So perhaps I wasn't so misguided in doubting your motives there. Fram (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC) No, actually the nomination was ultimately promoted despite your failing it twice. Why is it that you have the right to malign other editors' motives, but if someone questions your motives, we're treated to this ridiculous whining? It's really stretching credulity to imagine that we'd disagreed over DYK several times within a period of a few weeks but you "still didn't seem to remember" any of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I can only give my take on this, I can't make you believe it. I am not in the habit of storing the names of all people who oppose me at one time or another for future revenge. I would need to block many more people than just you in that case. No, you didn't register as someone who I had a conflict with. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, this is serious. I know there are conflicts between Fram and Kumioko. There is an escalation which some may say it's uncalled and some may not. For me the most important is that Bgwhite correctly removed the comment and even if he was wrong the use of expressions like "Fuck off" is really unacceptable. Fram, please WP:CALM. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of unacceptable, User:Rschen7754 has felt the need to suppress the edit summary "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here" Isn't that misuse of the admin tools and a severe over-reaction? It's not because people believe that I shouldn't have used that edit summary that it suddenly falls in the "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" instead of the things where it shouldn't be used. From WP:CRD: "not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". I'm basically accused of trying to correct perceived misbehaviour by misbehahing myself, but I have to say that things like this fall in the same category (things like Demiurge's statements above are a lot worse though, they are simply incorrect, unfounded and serious accusations). Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you rather that I have blocked you instead? I recall another very prominent and recent case where an edit summary using the same phrase was revdeled by an arbitrator. --Rschen7754 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall it, and if it was truly comparable to this one, then it was also wrong. And blocking someone for saying "fuck off" is rather an overreaction, don't you think (since that's the only thing you revdeled, I suppose that's the worst thing I did)? Of course, some people here are much quicker to react to clear but limited uncivility than to civil but incorrect personal attacks like Demiurge's statements, but that regretful state of affairs is nothing new. Fram (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that I largely do not approve of Kumioko's actions, but that does not justify incivility on your part. --Rschen7754 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But incivility is not a reason to revdel edit summaries. Fram (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to the note left on my talk page about this discussion. I just wanted to clarify that I have made a couple of edits since my "Wikibreak/Retirement" and wanted to clarify. I still intend to "retire" but that doesn't mean that I will never edit anymore. Only that I intend it to be infrequent at best and likely not as my username or as an active participant in the community. I have made about 8 edits as I recall. A couple on my userpage with my retirement (that's 2), 2 on the RAN discussion, 2 more as an IP to fix a couple of minor typos on articles I found when reading, and I think 2 more on my talk page regarding being accused of edits that I did not do. Other than that nothing. Aside from that I suspect my opinions on Fram's contributions in Wikipedia are likely the same as his are of mine. I will respond if someone has a direct question of me but other than that I will let this AN play out however it results. Two more small note. Fram was not the main reason I left but was a contributing factor and in response to Fram's comments above regarding my edits as an IP. At this point, I have absolutely zero chance of not being "identified" as an IP or otherwise. Although there is the occassional false positive I have no delusions on that my edits are easily identified as me. Anyone who clicks the contribs of this IP will clearly see that so there is no intention of "hiding" my edits as an IP and zero chance that would be possible anyway. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko

• On 19 January, Kumioko was blocked for making a personal attack about me[3]
• On 21 January, he posted to my talk page[4] a section "Stop harassing other editors you don't agree with", regarding one unproblematic post I made to the talk page of a user I hadn't interacted with before (or since).
• The same day, he started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Recommend discussing an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough, wit has only diff the same "harassing" post mentioned above. It was snow closed the same day.
• On 28 January, he again comes to my talk page to start a new section[5] on "Unsourced biographies". After I pointed out that they weren't unsourced and thus didn't need that fix, Kumioko proceeded to file 4 AfDs, contrary to our deletion policies (even if they needed fixing: if they can be fixed, they shouldn't be deleted). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan George Freezen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Freese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Frederich and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Freudweiler were all speedily kept. He then asks for his account to be blocked, and starts a self-enforced wikibreak.
• On 30 January, he IP edits to make a comment on my talk page: [6]
• His next edits are about CBM (another target of his frustration), and then today he joins the discussion on Richard Arthur Norton; [7], calling a perfectly appropriate page I have created a "smear blog". See WP:UP#POLEMIC, read the header of User:Fram/RAN evidence and consider whether it is a normal, appropriate page or a "smear blog".

Can something be done to stop this please? Nothing useful has come out of any of this, and it is getting rather boring. Fram (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you (politely) asked him not to post on your talk page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If Kumioko's activities were confined to Fram's talk page that might be an option. Even Kumioko recognises his activity here is being disruptive, hence his 'retirement'. The problem is he isnt actually retiring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification I didn't retire because I felt my editing was a problem or disruptive. I retired more because the things I am interested in doing are unavailable to me. Also because after three years of trying to make WikiProject US work, I found that too many editors want to protect their own swim lanes than to collaborate to build an encyclopedia. As well as a relatively small cadre of editors who seem to be more interested in tearing things apart or preventing things from being done than actually building anything (disclaimer: Statement not targeted specifically at Fram). So there is no reason to stay and continue to edit. My edits may "seem" disruptive because I have in the last few months focused on problem areas and editors whom I felt were a problem, some of which are admins. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly not the only editor who "retires" then keeps on editing.

As for activities outside Fram's talk page, what do we have that's such a serious problem? A suggested interaction ban that's roundly rejected, three AfD nominations that were not quite within policy, and a misguided comment about his opinions of a page created by Fram? Pass the popcorn. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the combination of activities on and off my talk page, obviously. And "were not quite within policy" is quite an understatement. Basically, the only thing he does at the moment is wasting the time of other editors. Fram (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And why is it that edit-warring on his talk page is a good way of dealing with someone "wasting time"? Doesn't edit-warring tend to waste more time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I have now proposed a better way to deal with it. Fram (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Telling anyone to fuck off (admin to user, user to admin, admin to admin....so on.... ) is unacceptable. Civility is policy, no one is exempt nor can they exempt themselves from it. Further, you're still acting incivil throughout this discussion.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We really need to get that changed, as the reality is actually that 'Civility is policy badly enforced depending on who is doing the blocking and who is being blocked.'Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, I know that I shouldn't have told him/her to fuck off. Discussing things first, instead of twice reverting me before even starting to discuss things with me, can have that effect on people who are already tired of the antics of another user though. Neither Bgwhite nor me handled this in the best possible way (and my way was probably worse). Getting someone like Demiurge, who seems to see this as his chance to get revenge for being blocked a few months ago, joining the circus doesn't help to calm things of course. But where have I been incivil throughout this discussion? I think I have been rather restrained here, discussing things frankly but without incivility. Please indicate which replies (or parts) here you consider incivil, so that I can reflect on them. Fram (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what would actually "ultimately follow"? Apart from that: blocking people depends on what they do, and on the circumstances. Perhaps I haven't been blocked because people tend to look at the circumstances as well, and not because they are afraid of me. I doubt that many admins here really are that frightened of what I might "ultimately" do. Fram (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The "circumstances" are very clear. A non-administrator would've been blocked for that, no two ways about it. You should be held to the same standards you take such glee in seeing imposed on others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For someone complaining about incivility, you certainly aren't giving the best example. "Glee"? Where do you get that idea? As for whether non-admins would be blocked, I'll give you an example I was involved with recently: at Gargamel, and editor stated[8] ",this statment sounds rather ANTISEMITIST!!!" in his edit summary, about an edit I made. Block? No, patient explanation on the article talk page, and a warning on his talk page[9]. Most admins aren't the trigger-happy fellows you seem to believe they are. Looking at recent changes, I note e.g. [10]. I doubt he will be blocked for this. Fram (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You can look at e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Beyond My Ken and Yworo, which deals with unacceptable edit summaries. Non-admins, but no blocks were given. Does that mean that their behaviour was accepted? No, but blocking isn't usually done easily. We generally understand that people can overreact, and try to find a resolution that doesn't involve blocking. If blocks need to be given anyway, there normally isn't any "glee" involved. I feel happy when I can create decent content; I feel happy when there are no disputes; I at most feel relief when some problematic editor is being dealt with as necessary. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is not constructive. Fram made a strong comment on Kumioko's talk page. It's not clear to me that it was even uncivil, but I suppose, given the all-over-the-place interpretations of civility at Wikipedia, some might think it was. Bgwhite reverted. In my view, he shouldn't have, but it's not the worst revert I've ever seen. Fram restored his comment. At that point, any further battling on the talk page should have ceased. Bgwhite should not have reverted yet again. He should have taken it to Fram's talk page, which he did, but after his second reversion, and if he still felt Fram was wrong, he could have then come here. Then Fram reverted again with the later-deleted edit summary (that everyone knows about anyway from this discussion). He, too, should not have insisted and left it alone, sought input from others, whatever, but the edit-warring was inappropriate. Finally, as long as I'm expressing my opinion on two admins, I might as well add another. Rschen should not have rev/del'ed the edit summary. Most important: This discussion should be closed, and, as an uninvolved admin, I'm tempted to do so now as I think it will only get worse, but I need to go to work, so I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with all your points, but would prefer to hear some further uninvolved comments about the underlying issue (Kumioko and me, that is). But don't worry, I'll not edit war if the next person decides to close this instead :-) Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here are rapidly descending down the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT route. As I stated in this thread some hours ago, the particular part of your personal attack on the other editor that I found especially problematic, was "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room". Making comments like that while talking about him getting blocked (something which you also do elsewhere as discussed earlier), yes, makes it sound that you're taking some rather unprofessional pleasure in this sort of thing. The question is how that should be addressed.

(Digging out an incident where an editor made a comment about a statement - not about a person - and didn't get blocked, and comparing it with your atrocious behaviour in this incident, is completely irrelevant.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• My advice to Fram is to walk away from this conflict before he gets himself in any more trouble. Sometimes it's best to say "mistakes were made" and find something less controversial to occupy oneself with. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Fram asked for comment before the archive and I was drafting this before the archive: Fram has escalated a personal dispute and has dragged others into it. The aim should be to avoid the personal, even in the face of bad acts from the the other side (as that leads to deescalation and hangs the bad acts where they belong -- don't get in the way of that).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe by Wilhelm Meinhold

I have transcribed from the Frakturschrift and re-published on the web the original 1847-8 German text of Wilhelm Meinhold's novel Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe. Incredibly, it appears to be on some kind of blacklist. It is a great novel and deserves to be more widely read in the original. Can you explain why wikipedia will not display the link to the novel?Shirley49 (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For future reference — this kind of question is better asked at the Help Desk. In this case, your problem is a simple coding error: when you added the link to Sidonia von Borcke, you coded it as [http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe], which displays as [11]. That's what you wanted, isn't it? But over at Wilhelm Meinhold, you coded it as {{http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe}}, which becomes the useless Template:Http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe. If you want to make an external links, type a left bracket, add the URL, put in a space, type a descriptive title for the link, and finish it off with a right brancket. For example, [http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe Sidonia von Borkdieklosterhexe] produces Sidonia von Borkdieklosterhexe. However, putting something between two pairs of braces, the {{ and }} characters, makes our software think that you're inserting a template. Be very careful with your coding; nobody will complain at you for using the wrong coding (it's not prohibited), but the software will do surprising things unless you type everything correctly. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It now seems to work. I'm new to this so I expect to make plenty more mistakes until I have learnt all the procedures. Shirley49 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some deletion work to do

I think the Hungary nominations here can all be deleted under G5. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorted. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, almost. I have to go offline for a short while, if someone else could close the remaining discussions, I'd be grateful. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Um I may be missing something here but those cats were not created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban, and therefore are not eligible for G5... GiantSnowman 11:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Crapola. You're right, GS; the categories weren't created by a sock, and I'm due a slap on the wrist for failing to check first. I will willingly restore the pages if asked, but given that the parent project Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary was deleted (correctly) under G5, there seems to be no purpose served by doing so; which is why I'm not going to reverse the action on my own initiative. Trout me if you wish, I deserve it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Friday is fish day, after all ;) - they're not eligible for G5 but one could argue G8 seeing as the parent project has been deleted...? GiantSnowman 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the error! I assumed from what the nom had written that they were eligible for G5. Whatever the case, it wasn't worth wasting our time with them at CFD. Thanks for your help. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit notices?

Category:Political scandals in Canada and its sub-cats. They have BLP and various other articles that are not scandals, but do contain scandal or controversy sections. Could properly worded edit notices help keep the wrong articles out, or just re-name to articles containing material that some consider a scandal?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with editnotices for this purpose is that people almost never edit the categories themselves; you'd never see the editnotice on a category when you're editing an article to put it into that category. You'd have to remove the category from articles and perhaps place a <!-- comment --> next to the categories reminding people not to put the scandals categories back because these articles aren't about scandals. If you see people continually adding non-scandals to the scandals categories, it might be good to have editnotices created for the articles themselves. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

...here. I may take the time but I haven't lived in that province since 1998. If there is a wp:B.C. then they may deal with it. wp:Canada doesn't seem to care. I will rem the blp articles for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible IP sockpuppetry on User:Bongwarrior's user page?

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

---

Could you look into User:Bongwarrior's user page, please? I've been noticing a number of IP addresses doing the same thing - removing content from his talk page, and the content replaced is the same thing. I suspect IP socking going on, so I'd like an admin to look into this. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

indian castes and CSD:A1

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

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

Thanks, that's what I thought. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Afzal Guru

Can a admin please consider the WP:RPP for this article or keep an eye on it, the guy has just been hung in india and emotions look like they may run high. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 07:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The Puppy has done the needy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 nor'easter

There is a heated debate going on over at Talk:February 2013 nor'easter reguarding the article's name, is there an uninvolved admin that can intervene? Or possibly close the move request until a Common Name is reached? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere, just in circles. There is no consensus in the move request and I don't see one forming anytime soon (if you want votes, it is currently 11-10 in favor of those who are opposed to the move). United States Man (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OFFER accepted, your input requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to lift restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support lift of restriction - I have seen Hahc21 around quite a lot and I would be quite happy to put my opinion towards lifting the edit restriction. This vote made by his alternative account is a good argument and matched closing consensus as did this one. This was not as extensive as I would expect but it does weigh a bit and matched closing consensus. At this article for deletion he picks up and give a good depth. I can not see at the moment a valid reason to keep this user under the restriction, Granted they now understand the policy that is responsible for AfDs. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lift of restriction - Hahc21's been doing some fine work recently, and his apology seems sincere. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for Hahc21: I think it would probably be a good idea to relax the restriction, but before I commit one way or the other I would like to see how your understanding has improved. If you are willing, could you pick any three AfD discussions that are currently open and that are eligible for non-admin closure, and tell us how you would close them? (Please understand that there is no need for you to answer this question if you don't want to; if you would rather not, that is absolutely fine.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I am not willing to do more NACs, I'd be glad to answer your question. Give me a day to find and evaluate three discussions and come here with a response. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. One of the underlying problems in the original thread was that Hahc could not admit to his wrongdoings of making poor and problematic NAC closures. Now that he has acknowledged these errors it appears that the restriction does not seem necessary as it was before. However, I just hope that we won't see that kind of judgement in the form of closing discussions in the future Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I am inclined to think the user has learned from his mistakes, however I would be slightly worried about letting him resume doing NACs freely when the community has previously agreed he shouldn't; however, if Stradivarius' question above is answered successfully I see no other obstacle to the lifting of the restrictions. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Speedy close

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Request for interaction ban-lift

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

---

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[12] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[13][14] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[15] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[16][17][18] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[19] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[20] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[21], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[22][23] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[37], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[38] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[39] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[40][41][42] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[43] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[44] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[45] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[46]

So here I am.

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for wikihounding and gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Nyttends proposal. Pass a Method talk 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

  So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to Mokichi Saitō was not a "reversion" of TN's edit.[47][48] I mostly just cleaned up the refs. This is why I complained when Drmies reverted my edit, although I understand that TN was probably the one who misled Drmies into believing my edit had been in bad faith (it wouldn't be the first time). My edit was not an "interaction" with TN. TN's more recent edits, however, were obviously made in direct response to mine. Therefore, it seems reasonable that their edits should be taken as at least as much of a violation as mine. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
    • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[49] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
    • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me.[50][51][52] Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] [81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93], in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe[94]). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari[95], and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[96][97][98] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
    • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
    • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
    • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
    • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
    • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[99][100] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[101][102][103]
    • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year.[104] So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post.[105][106][107][108][109][110] It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Break for convenience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Wikipedia were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on Haibun[111], Haiga[112], Tanka prose etc.?? If so, I apologize, but you really shouldn't have posted those links to Wikipedia in the first place, as WP:SPAM and WP:OVERLINK, as well as WP:ELNO, are quite clear on that. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits.[113][114][115][116][117][118][119] THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.

Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a pointy edit[120] to Tanka, a couple of spammy edits[121][122][123] to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.

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

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

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

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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