Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Adamantine123_from_caste_topics

(Initiated 5 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 66 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 59 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric

(Initiated 27 days ago on 17 September 2024) A RFC on a WP:BLP that is winding down and could use a close from an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	1	3	11	15
RfD	0	0	0	16	16
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 140 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 63 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

(Initiated 25 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for sanction removal

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

---

Normally editors do not need to make requests before making edits, and as a copy editor and content creator, the sanctions which I am under are having severe consequences limiting my ability to make contributions to Wikipedia. The origin of the sanctions were what I thought of as a perfectly reasonable request to spell thinks correctly, and remove any guideline limitations that indicated that Wikipedia should make up spellings instead of using what reliable sources use. Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed. I have fastidiously adhered to the sanctions for six months, resulting in the loss of many edits that no one would ever complain about not being made, due to those sanctions. I therefore humbly request that the sanctions all be removed so that I can go on with making contributions. Apteva (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase, and then please tell me if I understood you rightly. "Please remove all bans and other sanctions that currently apply to me, because..."? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are the sanctions: Restricted to one account and "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." Both are preventing necessary edits. I am working with a keyboard that is missing a key, when it comes to making edits. It is never appropriate to topic ban someone because you disagree with a proposal they make. We do not topic ban because of the position someone takes, only if they are unable to make positive contributions to the subject. Apteva (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think it would be useful to your appeal if you would comment more specifically about your impressions regarding the complaints about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, and then User:Seraphimblade's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please, User:Gatoclass's close at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon, Spartaz's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon, and why your block within the past two months was made more restrictive by User:Black Kite and then by User:Beeblebrox. What is different now? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What is different is I know enough to shut up and edit. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you still seem to be justifying and rationalizing your previous actions. Describing the situation that led to previous sanctions "a perfectly reasonable request" raises red flags that you actually intend to continue the same behavior. Blocks and bans are prophylactic, and this indicates that yours may still be necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance. The behavior was pursuing the issue ad nauseum. While I am willing to defend the practice, I am not willing to annoy anyone myself. Which would any of us prefer, an encyclopedia which is correct, or one that is incorrect because various editors are bullied against pointing out errors? I am not interested in the drama. I can point out errors, but beyond that it is out of my control. The funny thing about Mexican American War is that over 90% of reliable sources use "Mexican War", rendering the entire discussion of punctuation moot. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly demonstrate in this very thread, you have not learned to "shut up and edit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) An appeal against a sanction generally links to the discussion where the sanction was imposed. It is also advisable to not say "I was correct" (a perfectly reasonable request to spell things correctly) in the appeal because unless the intention is to re-argue the whole case, an appeal should work on the premise that the community was not incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[double EC] Only commenting on the "restricted to one account" bit. Looks like the issue with your Delphi234 account was that you were judged to be using it improperly, apparently circumventing previous sanctions or something like that. There's nothing better than a declared alternative account for legitimate uses "security", "maintenance", and "testing and training"; if the Delphi userpage contained a prominent link to your Apteva userpage and vice versa, you obviously wouldn't be using it improperly, and if people thought you'd remove it and start socking again, you could demonstrate good faith by asking that the userpage be fully protected — you can't edit your own userpage when it's fully protected, so people would be able to see that you weren't planning to obscure the connection betweenthte accounts. I see no reason to prohibit that specific use, but I have no comment on further one-account restrictions or on the restrictions unrelated to sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with my primary account has never been with improperly using alternate accounts, but was to monitor my observance of the topic ban, and was never necessary, as I would never normally make any of that sort of edit from that account anyway. I have never socked. Ever. Using an alternative account appropriately is not socking. Socking is completely different. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I wish to return to appropriately doing so. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per block log. --Rschen7754 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The last block was for complaining about incivility. Is that wrong? It was clearly an inappropriate block because it was solely punitive and not preventative at all. I had already agreed not to use ANI/AE to complain abut incivility. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, you seemed to be using frivolous civility complaints as a weapon against opponents of your views on the MOS. This BATTLEGROUND approach to the subject has generated a lot of disruption and your failure to realize the problem with that is why you were blocked. I do not adhere to the idea that an editor needs to admit wrongdoing to be freed of editing restrictions, but I do think requesting a lifting of all your sanctions just a few weeks after coming off a long block for your treatment of opponents in the underlying dispute is a bit premature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is important to allow all points of view and I have never targeted anyone who has a view either in agreement with me or opposed to me. I am not here to be treated with incivility, and it is only incivility that I have objected to, not someone's point of view. On that everyone is welcome to state their point of view, and consensus prevails. I am bringing the appeal now because I want no doubt about commenting at the RM discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, which I probably could anyway, but with the sanctions removed I would not have to wonder. And no, I am not the IP who did comment. Apteva (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I detest to see a legitimate editor under sanctions and was initially inclined to support, but changed the mind on discovering of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 #Dicklyon about two-months old. Although there are some problems with the guy mentioned, one should never attack a fellow editor on a noticeboard with a wall of text consisting almost entirely of irrelevant linguistic stuff and external links instead of diffs and [[]]s. Sanctions shall remain until the editor in question learned more constructive ways of defending himself and his point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already have. As mentioned, I am waiting for the civility enforcement RfC to make a recommendation and will adhere to whatever it says. I am planning on helping move the RfC forward but have not had the time to do so yet. It has not had any edits since February, as I recall. Apteva (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[2][3][4][5] —Neotarf (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I confess that I have not made a particular study of this, but it's my impression that although Apteva has insisted that it is necessary for him to use an alternate identity to edit certain articles or subjects, he has never made it clear exactly why that is, simply asserting it as a fact, without acceptable explanation. I cannot see why this would be, especially if the secondary ID is linked to his main ID (as sockpuppetry policy requires). I'm afraid that my AGF has been streteched, thinned out, and broken by Apteva's behavior, and I can no longer believe much of what he says. For these reasons, I oppose removing the sanctions on his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is him or her, he or she, his or her, thank you. Alternate accounts are not required to be linked and can not be linked where privacy issues are concerned and they are not linked. You are blocking my primary account, which makes no sense. Block this account and there are many articles that I would not be able to edit. Neither block benefits Wikipedia. I have at all times maintained a high level of integrity and am a valuable contributor. I adhere to all guidelines and policies. If any one has a problem with my edits, I have a talk page and welcome criticism. Statements such as "I can no longer believe much of what [they say]" are patently ludicrous, and have zero credence. Point to one diff out of 10,000 edits that was not in good faith, and that was an example of not being believable. For example, I was not unblocked because an admin did not believe me when I said that I was not going to bring ANI actions for civility. Well I am unblocked now, and have I? No. Would I if I had been unblocked? No. This lack of faith is completely, 100% undeserved. One of our rules is to ignore all rules, and one of my options is to simply ignore the sanctions but I have not done that and that is a measure of my integrity. It should be patently obvious that I can not maintain privacy and explain why I am doing that and how, because I could only do so by giving up that very privacy that I am protecting. I edit solely under the condition of anonymity. Apteva (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for removing sanctions from users who've shown that they're no longer necessary. However, considering that in your very request to lift sanctions you've repeated the same problematic views that got you topic-banned in the first place, I'm not sure this would be a great idea. Furthermore, your comment that "Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed" actually contradicts the WP:ICANTHEARYOU portion of the disruptive editing guideline:

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

  Could you please answer the following questions: 1) Do you understand why your continued advocacy of your positions on dashes, etc., was considered disruptive? 2) If your sanctions are lifted, do you plan on returning to said advocacy? 3) Could you please give some examples of dash-modifying edits you'd like to make?

I'll say right here that I don't see myself supporting a lifting of the sanctions, but I could possibly support allowing you to make uncontroversial changes to dashes in articles... but that depends on your answer to the third question. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, even though it was not. Airports and comets are not spelled with dashes, only hyphens. I can propose that, but decisions are made by consensus.
2. No, I am considering that there is a moratorium on dashes and hyphens until next year. I am hopeful that Wikipedia will start spelling things the way everyone else does, and that does not seem to be too much to ask.
3. Often people use hyphens, dashes, and minus signs incorrectly, and as a matter of discussing proposed name changes and as a matter of copy-editing it is helpful to correct errors when they are seen. It is horribly draconian to not be able to make simple corrections. During the moratorium I will not be proposing name changes, but should be expected to contribute input to any that have been proposed.

Sorry, I should've been more clear in my third question: Could you please show some sample edits that you'd make? Five to ten should suffice. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a minus sign to a dash or hyphen, removing spaces around an mdash, adding or removing spaces around ndashes, changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges, such as 1819–1922. None are controversial. I do a lot of RCP so I see everything imaginable. We allow minus signs for negative numbers, but I would never change any to or from that, as that is not important, but when a minus sign is used for a dash or a hyphen that is significant and does need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has made it clear enough that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, constantly lecturing others even when it is abundantly clear consensus does favor their position. No valid reason is given for ifting these sanctions. The supposed privacy concern is nonsense since it is known what the pother account is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The valid reason is to allow valuable edits that might not otherwise be made for some time, if ever. I have been watching one error that I would have fixed and it still has not been fixed. There are many others. I have never used intelligence as a criteria for editing, and recognize that all of us do our best to contribute. It is often possible to learn private details about editors but that falls into the category of outing and is not permitted. We simply do not tell editors not to fix things. The bottom line is there are no positive benefits from the sanctions and serious consequences, almost all of them unintended. Removing them would clearly benefit the project. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no outing concern here, that is a lie. I don't recall the name of your other account off the top of my head but I recall it being specifically mentioned, by you I might add in previous discussions of these sanctions. Your apparent compulsive need to argue endlessly with everyone is plain for anyone to see and does you no credit. This is part of why you have been having such trouble and it's sad that your ego apparently makes you unable to see that you are your own worst enemy. If you could just get over yourself and shut up about the sanctions for a while (and maybe consider the possibility that you have been wrong once or twice in your time here) you probably could get them lifted. As long as you continue to act like this you will continue moving further, not closer, from unrestricted editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it took me about one minute to find this. There we go. Your other account is User:Delphi234, and it is blocked per the near unanimous conensus in this discussion] some six months ago. So, you can just cut the crap about there being a privacy issue at play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apteva is both interested and involved in the project. I knew nothing about Apteva a couple months ago, and I thought an enforcement boomerang would be too much. The follow on trip to ANI suggests a continuing problem. Since then I've seen not only continued good but also continued trouble. Recently there were issues at Talk:Go (game)#Move? (see edit history). Apteva has clear and consistent views and vigorously defends them, but those views don't always align with the community. Despite Apteva's claims, I doubt Apteva understands the reasons why the restrictions were imposed: it is not the belief but rather the behavior. He has raised the understanding and unreasonable restriction arguments before, but they have not flown. (See Bwilkins decline at User_talk:Apteva/Archive_7#Next steps; Bwilkins doubts Apteva's prior claims to understanding.) I want things to go right for Apteva, but there needs more uneventful history. Glrx (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is he or she, please. So the result is I continue editing with one hand tied behind my back and can not contribute as much as Wikipedia needs? What is the point of that? Who benefits from that? No one. Who suffers? Everyone reading Wikipedia, and readers out number editors by 1000:1. The edit that I am watching is on a page that is viewed 3500 times a day, 100,000 times a month. As the months tick away, that is one, two, three, four, five, six hundred thousand times that viewers have been presented with erroneous information. Is that what everyone here really wants? For that to continue for another six months? Does anyone really understand how ludicrous this is? Apteva (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless you specify what gender you prefer to be addressed as, it's up to the other editor what form to use in a situation where gender isn't known. Your attempt to force other editors to bend to your preferences is typical of your attitude and your behavior throughout Wikipedia, and is indicative of the root cause of your sanctions. You clearly have no plan to change your behavior one whit which is why your sanctions should not be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. as a fellow grammar nazi, on the basis of uncorrected spelling errors in Apteva's request.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That spelling error was introduced deliberately as an example of a spelling error. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Amend the sanctions as follows:

Apteva is topic banned for six months from proposing or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation in article titles. All other sanctions are vacated.

What this would do is give me my keyboard back and I would not bring up or discuss moving Mexican American War or other such titles for the balance of the sanctions. By making it a definite time, it is trivial in six months to extend it if needed, but it would not require bringing the same appeal here again if no problems occurred. It would limit the false information from being seen a million times, limiting it to only 635,000 times (add 3,500 for each day it takes to implement this sanction amendment). Since the sanctions have already been in effect for six months, it is effectively a one year sanction. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question Solar power and wind power both fall under the realm of renewable energy. Delphi editted wind and Apteva editted solar, which seems to be the cause for the topic overlap that the single-account restriction was based on. Is it possible, if the sanction is lifted, to create an alternate account that edits strictly renewable energy topics and then use Apteva or Delphi to edit everything else on the 'pedia? Ishdarian 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the single account restriction was to see if I was violating the topic ban, and solely for that reason. It is not needed, and has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unreasonable to believe that the banning of a single editor, no matter how productive he is, has "severe consequences to the encyclopedia", and that fact the you honestly don't seem to understand this is part of the reason why your sanctions haven't a chance in a million of being removed as a result of this thread. It is also the reason why I doubt you will follow my prescription below, as you seem to be incapable of seeing your place in the big scheme of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humility. Look into it. There have not been "severe consequences" anywhere but in your imagination. You have failed again and again to provide a logical reason why you need separate accounts for editing certain topics, and you did not keep the two accounts you had properly seperated. That is why you were limited to one account, and your inability to comprehend the problem and insistence that it was not needed and wrong are indicitave of the other issues you have had as an editor here. We're all wrong sometimes, it's the abikity to learn from ones mistakes that helps us grow, on WP and in real life. If instead you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for them, there can be no growth. But if you already believe you are infallible I guess that isn't a very compelling point. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of us are equally important to the project. Without us it would not exist. I certainly recognize my faults and always encourage anyone to point out anything they see me do that is inappropriate, on my talk page so that I can be aware of what was done, and take corrective action. Sure I have a healthy ego, but there is no crime in that as long as I keep it to myself, and do not use it to belittle anyone. I obviously recognize that I could be wrong on absolutely everything. That is why we discuss things, so that we can learn what is right and what is wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you make some hard to believe statements. You say above that the restriction to one account has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. What are the severe consequences? Why can you not make the edits you need to make to avert those consequences from your Apteva account? You also say that readers are suffering from you not being able to make an edit on an article that is viewed 100,000 times a month. What is the problem with this article that readers are suffering? GB fan 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3

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

---

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first and only appeal to the community (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, which none of the commenters here seem to have noticed). All closes can be appealed to the closing editor and to ARB. This was (in January), so this is the first and only repeal request (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, so comments that it should or should not be continued are all moot). Apteva (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Wikipedia, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Wikipedia, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Wikipedia, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This gaming of the system has gone on long enough. If this user needs to be forced to accept their restrictions due to their behaviour then so be it. If this user had merely waited out the appeal period and edited constructively then this would not even be happening, but they didn't and here we are! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support what? All of the sanctions that are proposed are already in effect. There is absolutely nothing the proposal would change. I have in fact waited out the appeal period and edited constructively. I will in fact wait out the next appeal period and edit constructively, and the next, if necessary. Apteva (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In case you are not aware, the above reads like a promise to do whatever is necessary to resume the old arguments as soon as possible, no matter how long it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Apteva may not have thought this through: should his allowed appeal after 6 months be as non-substantive as the current one was, the community can easily extend the appeal period to 1 year or longer, and should that pattern continue to be repeated, it's likely that a total site ban would follow. The Wikipedia community does not have infinite patience, and there comes a time where even those with far more ability to WP:AGF than I have can no longer tell the difference between unintended disruption and deliberate trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand that Apteva's attitude is not the best, however, he wishes to do what he thinks is best for the project. Looking over his actions leading up to the topic ban and account restriction, I am fully in agreement that the topic ban on dashes et al should remain in place. The one account restriction puzzles me; maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else saw/sees. I found one instance from 2008 in which Apteva/Delphi234 overlapped and caused an issue, which was compounded by the fact that, when questioned by other editors, Apteva did not confirm that the two accounts were the same person. However, this was 2008. I was unable to locate any issues with two accounts since then. In an email I received from Apteva, he states that he uses two accounts for privacy reasons, and that's okay as long as the accounts aren't used for malicious purposes. I think that Apteva should be allowed to operate his present two accounts with the understanding that any sanctions earned on one account also apply to the other and that the two accounts should be given a wide berth in their edits. Reblocks are cheap, so if he misbehaves with one account or the other, he can be blocked on both and end it at that. Maybe a little bit of rope could do the entire project good? Ishdarian 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Should this be accepted I can assure everyone it will not be abused in the slightest. I have no interest in this appeal being nothing but a clean, no blocks, no issues, "I recommend removal of sanctions" the next time this comes up, so I really implore everyone who has any issue with my editing, even the slightest, to bring it up immediately when it occurs with me on my talk page so that I can take corrective action. What attracted me to Wikipedia five or six years ago or whenever it was, was to take pity on anyone who was reading misinformation, and correcting it. I have not been able to find my first edit, but I think it was correcting a date or time in an article. I still fix things I see that are incorrect, but have branched out to more content creation, and article quality improvement (moving every article towards FA). Apteva (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Ishidarian: Apteva has claimed privacy issues for a long time, but has never adequately explained what he means - and he's been asked to many times. He's already had a considerable amount of AGF and "rope" extended to him, which is how we've ended up in the current situation. I'm afraid that, given his behavior in this very discussion, his assurances are not at all believable to me.

      Then, of course, there's the matter of his WP:CANVASSing for your comment here via e-mail. This is not new behavior on his part, as can be seen here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

      • Thank you. I just want to make the clarification that he did not request I make a comment; I asked a question in the Prop 2 above and he responded to my question a bit more in-depth via email. I was satisfied with the answer and that's what brought me here to comment. Ishdarian 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case there is some doubt that this proposal is necessary, here is a review of the appeals so far (and I might have missed some):
  • Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
  • Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
  • Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
  • Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
  • Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
  • Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
  • Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
  • Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined. At some point this needs to stop. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Reyk, and specifically the single-account restriction. The tendentious punctuating and refusal to drop a wooden device have led Apteva into a corner they cannot easily extricate themselves. Full wiki-break might help. Narrowing the appeal options will only make him more frantic. Unless there is evidence of him using socks abusively, I don't see why this restriction is necessary. Frankly, I don't see how anything short of a full ban/block (for a definite period) with Apteva voluntarily agreeing not to appeal during that time is going to make a difference, here. And Apteva will undoubtedly perceive these (or any) sanctions as punitive, rather than preventative. (Which only exacerbates the problem) --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I wish I didn't have to. I think Apteva means well, but that only goes so far. Apteva, I've encouraged you before to think hard about why it is that a series of increasingly escalating sanctions have been applied to you. And no, it's not that everyone else is a fool, nor that we're all out to get you. It is squarely because of the way in which you have behaved. We've all lost some of the arguments we've gotten into here, and there comes a time at which to accept that consensus has not gone your way and move on. The fact that you haven't done that, and continue to argue this issue rather than moving on to others, gives me no confidence in lifting the topic ban. Drop the issue for a year or two, completely, edit productively in other areas and interact positively with other editors, and then we might consider modifying or lifting the ban. If you keep this up, you are perilously close to exhausting the community's patience entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, supporting what? All of the sanctions are already indef. The appeal has already been closed as unsuccessful. Someone may have thought that the sanctions have an expiration date, but they do not. I was first able to appeal the sanctions on July 6 at 11:43 UTC. I waited about another 10 days and only appealed because of an RM that did not really conflict with the topic ban but I wanted the topic ban to go away so that there would be no question. All this support nonsense and proposal three is nothing but gravedancing. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The current proposal calls for your topic ban to be appealable 6 months from when this discussion is closed. In addition, any violation of the topic ban will be met by escalating blocks. That's what this proposal changes, and it's not "gravedancing", because your own behavior brought about the proposal. If you want to have any chance of this proposal not being enacted, you must shut up and stop commenting here. Every comment you make is just another nail in your coffin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What they said PantherLeapord (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Since when are blocks not sharply escalated? Since when is six months different from six months? All of the above is pompous rhetoric that changes nothing. What is this, Lord of the Flies? Just out of curiosity, in the last couple of days I made a list of articles that someone else can correct, because I can not. Gabriel Orozco, Prefaxis Menen, Cohors IV Delmatarum, Edward Snowden, Sérgio Leite, Rate of climb (last year it was estimated that 40% of articles misuse punctuation, but that is probably a lot closer to 4%, but out of 4 million that is still a big number of articles to correct). Multiply 3/day times six months and I will likely run across another 500 articles that I can not correct. Who benefits from that? No one. Just for giggles I will check back to see if anyone reading this thread or anyone else for that matter corrects those articles. Or are we solely here to see who we can sanction, and not to build an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a misuse of punctuation only if we bow to your preferred MOS the choice between dashes, en-dashes and hyphens are not spelling or punctuation errors they are style choices. Wikipedia is an electronic document that evolves to fit the preferences of the editors who write it. If as a community we choose to use a different style of punctuation because it best fits writing from keyboards and the community’s artistic choices, even if it becomes a one of a kind style unique to Wikipedia. It has been repeatedly shown that the community does not want to use your outdated formal style that you learned as a kid, you will have to learn to live with that before you restrictions can be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So change the MOS to say that, and everyone will be happy. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that if you made these edits, you would be violating your topic ban. Is that right? Well, let me explain something to you: Your topic ban prevents you from making such edits because you were far too willing to make a big deal out of inconsequential edits that 'do not actually improve the articles at all. That is rather the point of this whole thing. Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles. So no, probably these non-problems that so horrify you will not be corrected becausre they are not actually important to 99.99% of our editors or readers. Your inability to accept or even comprehend this simple point is exactly why you are so restricted. We are all sick to death of your constant pathetic whining about it and so these additional restrictions, which you wrongly imagine do not change anything, are being proposed. Alternately, you could just pledge to shut the hell up about it until January 20, 2014 at a minimum, with the same conditions, i.e. blocks, should you violate your pledge. I don't honestly expect you to do that, I expect more nonsense, but I'd love it if you surprised us all by just accepting the consensus on these issues and moving on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

B, you go too far in saying "Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles." Actually, quite a few wikipedians routinely work to make articles more consistent with the recommendations of the MOS, as it makes the encyclopedia more precise, readable, and professional looking. It's OK that you don't care. As for Apteva, the problem is not that he cares about or works on style, but that he has a history of tendentiously working against the recommendations of the MOS, and is generally unwilling to listen to others, understand, compromise, or tolerate opinions different from his own. It's not an MOS problem, but an Apteva problem. Anyone can fix hyphens in number ranges, or title case in headings; we won't miss his help; and if they don't get fixed any time soon, it's because it's not that big a deal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that not 99.99% but certainly close to 98% could not care a hoot about correcting those six articles, or can even tell that there are errors in them, and quite frankly, I would write the MOS to say that if punctuation is used consistently in an article, it is not wrong no matter how it is used, provided it mirrors a reliable source, and should not be corrected just to correct it (and yes I wrote an essay that said exactly that, until it was f'd up by "correcting it"), but that is not what the MOS says, it says those six articles have errors and should be corrected. Why I am sanctioned is not because I want to or do not want to correct those six articles, but because I want Wikipedia to spell things the same way others do, and not using cockemamy ideas about how punctuation should be used in titles when no one other than 2% of the world uses those cockemamy rules. Get with it Wikipedia. Spell things the way the rest of the world does or forever make us look like pompous idiots. Follow policies when choosing titles, not guidelines. It is not rocket science, but plain old common sense. Go visit the Reno-Tahoe Open and guess what punctuation they use? Not the punctuation our article uses. Read about it in any reliable source and what punctuation do they use? Not the punctuation we use. Why is that? Are we just that stupid, that we do not know how to use punctuation properly? And I am being sanctioned for that???? What has the world come to? I have absolutely no problem with saying absolutely nothing about the subject between now and January, as is already required by the sanctions currently imposed. It is not that sanction that is hurting Wikipedia as much as the sanction on one account. Probably 98% of the world is not going to know or care that we are misspelling Reno-Tahoe Open, which is why a moratorium was proposed for 2013 on discussing or making such changes, which is perfectly acceptable to me, but everyone does care if factual errors occur in important articles, like saying the moon is made of blue cheese (okay that one someone else would probably notice and fix, and that one even I could fix). Apteva (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware the our MOS calls anything an "error", or says things "need to be fixed". It provides guidance for moving articles toward a consistent preferred style, not judgements about the styles that others choose. And aren't you violating your sanctions again by using this venue to argue for treating the dash/hyphen distinction as a spelling error? Or did that one expire before you took up this nutty campaign again? Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is not an essay, which can be ignored at will, but is a guideline, something that all editors should attempt to follow. As a guideline, it will always have exceptions, and those do not need to be nor can they be listed. Some of it though, gives very bad advice, and apparently got that way simply by topic banning half a dozen editors who disagreed with the rubbish that others wanted to include. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS would be perfect if only we let you, the most important person on this entire project, wrongly accused and topic banned, to remount your white steed and charge once more back into battle to slay the evil hyphen-breathing dragon... You really are a lost cause. See you at the inevitable future discussion of banning you entirely... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, it it essential in a collaborative project to treat all contributors with equal respect, and not view one as more important than another, without exception. I certainly do not think that I am any more important than anyone else here. I see problems, I fix them. When others disagree, I discuss that proposed change, and a decision is made by reaching a consensus on the topic. It makes absolutely no difference who made the proposal that was finally accepted. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Anyone can see that from your behavior in these this very discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support It's obvious about Apteva's comments here and snippy comments across the project related to this well-deserved original restriction that Apteva just needs to stop whinging, and get to work. If they really believe they are a net-positive, then start to prove it. A good six months of such proof will go a long way to rebuilding the community trust. Both the topic ban AND this restriction that will allow them to get to work without worrying about appeals will therefore be good for them AND the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support re Bwilkins. This is an opportunity for the community to not have to deal with an editor who just plain doesn't get it, but could potentially be a net-positive to the project if they can just get over themselves. It's also an opportunity for Apteva to stop worrying about these meta-matters and figure out how to simply be a productive editor. (S)he has six months without having to worry about convincing anyone or researching policy vaguery. Just keep their nose clean and show that they can avoid being a pain that others are forced to deal with, and maybe their actions can speak more elloquently than their words. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this editor continues to protest valid sanctions without every actually stating why the sanctions should be removed, and continues to waste everybody's time. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The sanctions have the unintended consequence of my not being able to make thousands of corrections and additions that I notice. Sure someone else will notice them, but will they click edit and make them? We just rolled out the VE as a method of desperately trying to recruit more editors. We have been, since 2007, regularly losing 6.2% of our editors every year, at the same time that the number of Internet users has been growing. We are currently stable at about 3,200 active editors, total. One of them posted half a dozen articles above that our MOS says should be corrected. In the intervening three days no one has bothered to fix those articles, and I have a new list of 16 more that I have come across and could not but would have fixed, had the sanctions not been in place. Is that not reason enough? Is is acceptable for an article to say that someone is 173 cm tall when they are actually 156 cm? Who benefits from us publishing errors like that, which I know about, and can not fix because of the sanctions. The reason to remove the sanctions, and that is not even on the table now, is because they are hurting Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Apteva: - this is the last I will say on the matter, but the fact you feel the need to respond to every, single, bloody post is a perfect example of why your editing/attitude is not ideal. Not fully disruptive (yet) but certainly heading there. GiantSnowman 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6-month wait between appeals. The appeals should be one-and-done — only appeal in only one forum, no while-we-are-on-this-other-subject-let-me-bring-up-my-unjust-sanctions-in-the-hope-you-will-remove-them, no reverting an appeal close, and no appealing the result of the appeal. It might be appropriate to specify where the appeal should be made. Hesitant re sharply escalated blocks; I'd let the blocking admin choose (the next block could easily be 2 or 3 months); the previous one-month block was more for stick-wielding rather than the MOS ban. Sadly, things are headed south. I suggest that Apteva try to make all relevant points in a single post to a discussion thread and never make more than 3 posts to a thread. Such an approach would not unduly restrict content but would diminish the appearance overzealous prosecution. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is SOP to revert a snow close that the proposer wants to go a full seven days. It is ludicrous to close the two sections of the appeal and leave this one open. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Come on, people. What is this, steamroll unpopular editors? --BDD (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's stop the constant whining and making a specatacle of oneself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The imperviousness to what other editors are telling him is an interesting phenomena. This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support It is always of concern when someone seems to feel they are so valuable to the project that they are practically indispensable and that exceptions should be made for their behaviour. There are too many of these situations flaring up, and they should all be dealt with swiftly so we can get back to editing. Taroaldo ✉ 09:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - one of the worst WP:IDHT offenders here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The lack of insight into their behaviour is remarkable and doesn't show any evidence of, or prospect for, improving. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, yes. I'm really starting to question whether Apteva is even suited for this type of website. Wikipedia requires a high degree of competence — that is to say, you need to be willing to accept discipline in the original sense of the term. Apteva just doesn't get it, and we've all been trying to hammer the point home, but it's flown past his head. I don't know what else we can do at this point. I'm sorry, but we can't allow dramatic discussions over small, horizontal lines anymore. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And having them wrong is better than refusing to discuss them? This is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to at least try to get things right. Apteva (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Apteva; I am seriously considering putting in a proposal to extend your topic ban to all administrative noticeboards following a site block for at least one week after reading the above. It is clear that you do not understand why you were put under the initial topic ban in the first place and you are refusing to even attempt to comprehend how your behaviour has been disruptive as of late. As was said above unless you want to end up in even more hot water then SHUT UP as you are only digging yourself deeper into the hole with you current attitude here! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for close

Bump. I think this deserves a formal close. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Just looking at the headcount, without even considering the strength of arguments, we've got 16 supports for the proposal and 3 opposes(one of them "weak"), which puts support for the proposal at 84%. I think that establishes a consensus, but one way or the other the proposal should be closed. Can we please have a bold admin here to do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already been posted at ANRFC for closure; I just didn't want it to get auto-archived after 48 hours of inactivity before that happened. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to comment here at least once a day to prevent the archival before closure. PantherLeapord (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving has been delayed for 30 days. Delete the delaying first line when the thread is closed, or if anyone gets bored with seeing it open. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block." This is asking for problems because to make them work, topic bans need to be broadly construed. This means that Apteva discussing with another editor on his/her talk page about appealing may lead to a block. It's better to specify the venues where Apteva can appeal every six months and say that any appeal at those venues that comes too soon will be immediately removed with zero tolerance on any repeat violations of this restriction. Sanctions that go too far can lead to ridiculous effects (take e.g. William's restriction on not being allowed to edit postings of others, when this was also applied to his own talk page we saw a very silly dispute there). Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of this topic ban is to get them working on the encyclopedia rather than wikilawyering over and over again as they have done before. If it is not this broad then they WILL keep wasting our time on appeals that have no chance of removing sanctions. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but can't we just say that we'll ignore anything Apteva has to say on this matter unless done formally within the rules set out for this? Otherwise we become like frustrated parents of a crybaby. The solution is to ignore the crying, not to react to it (so, we would end up watching every move Apteva makes and having huge discussions about wheter or not what he/she said falls within the topic ban or not, and how long he/she should be blocked etc. etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not Apteva's parents. If Apteva decides to edit constructively, no problem, and the ban can eventually be lifted. If (s)he does not, or continues to try to stay in the debate after being told clearly to stay away, the topic ban provides a means to deal with that. I hope it is the former that will happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption following topic ban

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

---

While Apteva is banned from advocating that the MOS does not apply to titles, he continues to stalk me and oppose every requested move based on MOS considerations. Most recently these absurd opposes: Talk:R33 World's Fair#Requested move 2 and Talk:New Economy#Requested move. He has also gone off and made his own absurd RM to try to reverse one where his bizarre theory of syntax was bought by nobody at all: Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area#Requested move 3; he continues to not hear the point this when NOBODY agrees with you, you should stop pushing, because that's disruptive. It should have been clear to him already at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Requested move that his bizarre theory was annoying everyone who saw it. Do we need to continue to endure more Apteva disruption over idiosyncratic and bizarre theories of titling WP articles? Or can the scope of his ban be adjusted to prevent him from disrupting requested moves based on MOS, capitalization, and punctuation considerations more generally than just hyphens and dashes? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming in very late... It seems to me Apteva is impervious to reasoned argument. That being true, I suggest an indefinite ban is appropriate, since it seems clear to me there is no intention to change. Moreover, claims of "needing" two accounts do not engender faith in his willingness to endure even a temporary block. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef. Utterly impervious to reason or any encouragement to change, with an absolute belief that everything is someone else's fault, not his. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not stalk anyone. I only do three things, RCP, RM, and Solar articles, so I stalk all recent changes and all Requested Moves. I can not do anything else due to current restrictions on my account. I avoid User Dicklyon. I frequently disagree with User Dicklyon because many of their arguments are specious. Not mine, their's. I am not disputing the Rochester move, I am simply pointing out that no RfC decided the issue, and there are reliable sources that do not use a comma. That is fact. I do not have a problem with avoiding User Dicklyon, though, but I do have a problem avoiding RM, as that is all that I do. Dicklyon is the editor who has been requesting all of the sanctions against me, and I the sanctions against them. None of this tit for tat is helpful to the encyclopedia, and I have no problem voluntarily avoiding Dicklyon entirely for the next six months, who oddly describes themself as on a wikibreak anyway. Absolutely no one closing an argument is going to say that my comments are out of place, but is going to assess the strength of all arguments in determining the outcome. My comments are based on reviewing available sources, and saying what those sources say. That is how we build this encyclopedia, by referring to reliable sources and seeing what they say. The correct topic ban is to say that User Dicklyon is barred from requesting sanctions against Apteva. One of Dicklyon's favorite arguments is to say "typically", and when I check the references, I find that "typically" can mean as few as 1/50 and as many as 1/3. That is not typically, that is occasionally. Apteva (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At the first Rochester RM that I was referring to, you had written "I will be re-opening Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area and Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area, as it should have been closed as 'no consensus', unless the micropolitan area is totally contained within the city limits in both cases (neither is)." This is the bizarre theory that I was referring to, that had been rejected there and other places already, yet you continue to push it. You followed through with your threat to re-open those, at Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area#Requested move 3, and got ZERO support for your idea from anyone. Yet you persist. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• A full site an or indefinite block of Apteva is something I think everyone except Apteva has seen coming for a long, long time now. I would suggest to all parties commenting here to be prepared for more long nonsensical monologues like the one above, and that the appropriate response is to just ignore them and discuss this proposal without getting into a WP:LASTWORD battle with Apteva. In case it is not clear, I fully support an indef block or full site ban. Enough was enough a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, since I wrote that about Vidalia, the relevant guideline has been changed, and so what I will be doing instead is going through all of the other metro area articles so that all of them can be made uniform (with two commas), not just doing them one at a time. Apteva (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, what you're doing instead is yet another RfC!!! Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That was necessary because there are 100 articles to be moved, not just one, and someone (not me) was opposing the Rochester move, so what was needed is a formal close of the discussion so that we could get on with whatever is needed to be done. Apteva (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Regretfully support indef - After seeing the continued flouting of their topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas (The ban clearly states "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation...". This INCLUDES the use of commas in article titles!) I think that an indef is need just so that they abide by their topic ban! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - After reviewing May's drama, I doubt any of this will change. Respect for WP is placed well below own self-importance to the project. Very scary to other editors and contributes to editor loss. Brings valid points to discussions but method appears to be is a form of constant disruptive high-brow trolling from this account. Look at the attention grabbing time wasted here as confusion to the issues gets injected. And very good at it too. (amended after examples here) 99.251.120.60 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• So I am curious, in the real world, I continue to pick up barnstars and get thanked for making edits. Where are any of these supports coming from? Apteva (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef Apteva (talk · contribs) was topic banned from modifying or discussing punctuation in general (as summed up by similar types of punctuation. The fact that s/he is trying to circumvent that shows little respect for the concerns that were brought forward when the topic ban was created. Such disrespect has continued to this section and below, and I certainly doubt it'll be over once this is said and done. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not trying to circumvent anything, and have listed the items that are included in the topic ban below. If anyone wants to include "discussion of the use of commas" that is fine, but "using commas" would be absurd. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Apteva's disruption needs to stop, and needs to stop permanently. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - based on behavior, especially, that below. It doesn't matter how many barnstars or thanks you get, if you're violating a community sanction and trying to WP:WIKILAWYER your way around the edges of it, you need to be ready for the consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Apteva's comments below are so WP:POINTy and WP:WIKILAWYERing - eg, arguing that all edits are about MOS - that I am just compelled to admit that (s)he does not have the self-control to be a non-disruptive contributor to this community. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Find one edit of mine that is in the least disruptive. You have 10,000 that you can check. None are. Apteva (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm looking at one right here, right above mine. I can see several others in this sub-thread alone. Your lack of self-awareness is staggering. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not even close. Apteva (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef: Continued distruptive behavior despite topic ban and a massive case of WP:IDHT. Wikilawyering and skating on the thin edge is an inappropriate response to a ban, and portends that the editor intends to continue their troublesome behavior. This is backed up by their statements below. A block is long overdue, and the only option left at this point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not ever, nor have I ever, engaged in troublesome behavior. I see errors, I fix them, I see useful additions, I make them. When others disagree, I discuss them so that we can reach a consensus. In fact I am a model for what we would like all of our editors to be like. Apteva (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef per Andy Dingley, Beeblebrox et al. I don't think I've seen a case of IDHT like Apteva's for a long time. He appears to have no self-awareness whatsoever. Sorry, but I don't think there's any alternative left, and boy has stuff been tried. Begoon ^talk 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - I was debating about whether to support this or not, since it seemed too soon after the discussion just concluded above to be restricting Apteva again. I was on the verge of posting a remark in the section below suggesting that Apteva take account of the support votes in this section as an indicator that the community was still seeing his behavior as problematic. However, this comment from Apteva:

  I am a model for what we would like all of our editors to be like.

  has convinced me that he is beyond help. Apteva is either an editor without a shred of self-awareness and the ability to see himself as others do, or an extremely sophisticated troll. There really aren't any other possibilities left at this point, and whichever he is, I see no hope (not "little hope", no hope whatsoever) of his behavior changing in the near future. At this point, further topic bans are useless, since the editor himself appears to be totally unsuited for editing here. An indef block is really the only option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Facts are facts. I can not change that. If anyone does not like anything I do, I have a talk page for that. I do not see any complaints there that have not been appropriately addressed. I can not do anything other than what everyone else is expected to do, do their best to improve the encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees, I really question their judgement, because the fact is, there are no indications that I am trying to do anything other than fix errors, add useful content, and discuss disputes. Like this one. Apteva (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - the editor is clearly a net loss time suck for others, unable to set aside their self-righteous obsessions or accommodate community input and complaints. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right that this thread and the one above are a totally idiotic time waste for the entire community. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. The community spent two weeks discussing extending a six month topic ban to a six month topic ban when it was already a six month topic ban. How stupid is that? Now in all good faith, I am 100% certain that the editor proposing the six month ban did not know that it already was a six month ban, but when that was pointed out twice did not say "oh", and close the thread. Yes this is a waste, but I am not the one who opened the thread, nor does it serve any valid purpose. You are simply tar and feathering a good editor who has never once done anything wrong. Never. Sure early on I did not know about 3RR, but the correct response would have been to tell me. I can not do anything I do not know, nor can any new editor. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I thought you stated you'd never been disruptive? So answer me this: how exactly does your repeated badgering of everyone, attacking editors, general whining etc, not count as disruption? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not badger anyone, I do not attack anyone, I do not whine. I mind my own business and edit. I do a lot of RCP and I notify a lot of editors, when necessary about their conduct. Nothing else, nothing more. Wikipedia has more important things to do than to badger a good editor, which is all that this thread is, and nothing more. Fact is I am very sensitive to the requirements of WP:NPA and WP:FOC, such as the aptly named WP:AVOIDYOU. Nothing wrong with any of that. Apteva (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation

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

---

moved from WP:AN/I

The relevant topic bans reads: "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion." Their recent postings at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas are quite clearly discussing the use of 'similar types of punctuation' and as such constitute a violation of the topic ban. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how a comma is a 'similar' type of punctuation. Dashes, Hyphens and Emdashes all link two words together. A comma does not. If the intent of the community was to topic ban all punctuation related discussions, it should have said so, but it didn't. If a comma counts as similar punctuation, what type of punctuation is not similar? Monty₈₄₅ 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a "similar" type of punctuation if you look at Apteva's past history and how they came to acquire this topic ban (and thus I see this as a very clear violation in spirit, even if outside the letter).

They have a track record of applying bizarre grammatical interpretations to naming issues, seemingly just to generate dramah. There is no support for these changes, either evidence or consensus. Yet they persist in initiating them. Such behaviour has long turned disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This look like an instance of an editor testing the limits of his topic ban. A prudent and reasonable editor under this kind of ban would keep far away from anything even remotely resembling the area that got him into trouble, but Apteva's switching his focus from one type of punctuation to another is troubling. If he begins the same kind of disruptive behavior in this area, I'm afraid an indef block is going to be necessary, as I can't see the community taking the time to discuss his behavior (yet again) and settling for yet another topic ban that he can slide away from. I think Apteva would be well-advised to stay away from anything that involves punctuation until he is back in the community's good graces. 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Monty is correct is that it's probably not a violation of the letter of the topic ban, but Andy hits the nail on the head: it runs roughshod over its spirit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Commas are not similar to dashes in any way but I have no problem not using any punctuation including periods if that makes anyone happy I doubt that is what anyone wants Apteva (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are four types of punctuation included in the topic ban; minus signs, hyphens, ndashes, and mdashes. In addition there are four other similar but rarely used items that are listed on the page on hyphens and dashes that are included in the "broadly construed" words. Apteva (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second. That's slippery slope argument. If using comma is considered as a violation, you're just an inch from suggesting that periods, colons, question marks, and anything else found on a keyboard. This is time and time again why "broadly construed" is such a ambiguous term because it can be applied loosely by anyone that devoids of any common sense. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not that we should be wikilawyering over the which punctuation marks should and should not be included, it's that Apteva has gotten into problems regarding disruptive behavior when it comes to discussions over the use of punctuation. It's not that the community objects to Apteva using punctuation, or that we care particularly which punctuation is or is not covered by the ban. The issue is that the community is weary of Apteva's general combative and unhelpful behavior whenever discussions of esoteric punctuation issues arise, and it would be best if Apteva didn't get involved in such discussions. It has nothing to do with specific punctuations per se, its the way that Apteva has, in the past, behaved in discussions surrounding these issues which has left people distrustful of Apteva's ability to contribute constructively to such discussions, which is why the ban was enacted in the first place. The comment above urging Apteva to avoid the topic of discussion entirely is apt. The issue is not which punctuation marks should or should not be discussed by Apteva, the issue is that Apteva needs to find something else to do with their time at Wikipedia, and leave the discussions about various punctuation issues to others. --Jayron32 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is the concern, I would propose that the topic ban be modified to "is prohibited for six months from discussing the use of punctuation", but you had better add, "and capital letters", because that has also been brought up. The issue is that everyone knows that I am a productive editor, and if anyone thinks they do not like my arguments, I have no problem backing off for six months and focusing on productive work. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not heard of one person preventing you from doing just that. --Jayron32 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I will consider it a voluntary ban. Apteva (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When I opened the RfC, I knew there was one editor who opposed using two commas, now there are three (I have not taken a position). Apteva (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To sum up the topic ban, though, I wanted to spell things the way everyone else does, using the type of dash that everyone else does. Some people had railroaded through a view that we had to use our own flavor, and did not want me to either change the article titles that I thought were wrong or even discuss whether they were wrong. I have no problem with that, as there are plenty of other things that need to be fixed, and I have been focusing my energy on those. I really do not think that anyone can legitimately be concerned about me making corrections that are indicated by our MOS within articles, but that is oddly also included in the topic ban. Most people do not even know that it is an error to use an mdash where an ndash would normally be used or vice versa or to use or not use spaces around either. I initially opposed moving three articles that used commas in a particular manner because 100 of our other articles do not use them in that manner. At the present time I am facilitating discussion and will implement whatever we decide, but am not taking a position. Apteva (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I'm at a loss for words here. As being originally involved in the ban, I agree that commas were not technically covered under it. Yet in the very comment I'm responding to, you're stepping right into an area that is clearly and unambiguously covered by the ban, by complaining that we don't "(use) the type of dash that everyone else does." Regardless of whether the comma issue violated your ban, you just did it now! You're also skirting right around the limitation on appealing the ban for six months, by yet again complaining that it's somehow not warranted. I don't know how much clearer it could have been made that your participation in these areas was disruptive, and that you were to find something else to do besides focus on MOS. I initially thought that a ban on all MOS-related issues was too broad in scope, but now I rather regret not having gone with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears that way, but if the topic ban is being discussed, it is important to understand what it is, and why it was imposed. Topic bans on not using the MOS are impractical, because every edit uses the MOS. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh boy! No, commas are not covered by the topic ban, but drama seems to follow Apteva around like the cloud of dust surrounding Pig-Pen wherever he goes. Apteva's "skill", if it can be called that, is to take an an otherwise innocuous detail that involves style but isn't in itself covered by the MOS or hasn't been the subject of controversy, and build such drama and polemic out of it that makes people jump up and down in anger. I'm at a loss for words. WP isn't "everyone else", as our assembled editors have made choices over certain styles, some of which are grounded in common practice, others for good practical reasons, and some that are avant grade. It's not for anyone to then decide to come in and drive everyone elses' coaches and horses through "our" rules. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Over time we have lost a lot of good editors. I do not wish to be one of them, and will comply with any requests that anyone has. Some of our policies and guidelines display the sort of brilliant writing that we expect of our Featured Articles. Some are baffling in their idiocy. While I always adhere to all policies and guidelines, I am here for one reason and one reason only, to improve the encyclopedia, to add knowledge, to fix errors when I see them. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else anyone wants me to do is not a realistic request for anyone. I am not aware of any drama ever "following me", although I am not unwilling to wade into controversial topics and lend a hand. Apteva (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

After closing a contentious FFD discussion, I was reverted

Greeting. I'm Quadell, an admin who sometimes closes old FFD discussions. Today I closed a rather contentious discussion regarding a non-free, official rendition of the coat of arms of Canada: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg. It was a difficult case, and I would not be surprised if it ends up on DRV. Based on the decision at FFD, I removed the non-free image from five articles, though kept it in one. My change to the Canada article to remove the image was immediately reverted by User:Fry1989, one of the most vocal participants in the debate.

I don't want to get in a revert war, and I don't think I should be the one to issue warnings or protect the page or anything like that. But I thought I'd bring this to the attention of the wider admin community, to see what should be done. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I only partially reverted you. While I agree that the image should be restricted to as few articles as possible, it is still required on both Arms of Canada and Canada. The other articles can survive without it, but these two both need it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean the others can survive without it? Template:Infobox monarchy has a field for the monarch's coat of arms. What's supposed to go in there on Monarchy of Canada if not the monarch's coat of arms? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. (ec) I see that he has also reverted my change to the image description page. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it was only a partial revert. The file was being used on over 7 articles, most of which was removed. However it is still needed on Canada in the main infobox, and that was one of the articles you removed it from. It's needed, and a rationale is provided and valid. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The revert could be seen as edit warring around a consensus. The decision to remove the image seems sound and even a little generous if it really doesn't pass NFCC#1. As the discussion indicates, the COA can be created entirely original from its description and it has been done before. I actually saved this image some time ago to begin researching the basic elements in COA to see if it could be re-created in a Public Domain fashion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what consensus? If you read the discussion, everyone supported keeping the image in full, except for one user who wanted it deleted, and one user who wanted to restrict it to just Arms of Canada. The consensus was a full keep. I however did not revert to a full keep, I only partially reverted to maintain one of the many many articles it was removed from. I absolutely also reject calling a single revision "edit warring". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS, and in particular the passage which reads, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Consensus has nothing to do with how many contributors argued for any one action. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware, and even with the claimed superior quality of your argument, everyone else disagreed. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "everyone else" didn't. Our policies on use of non-free media have been developed and endorsed by a community of thousands over the course of many years. The arguments of a handful of editors in a deletion discussion lasting only a few days cannot override this wider consensus. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: User:Miesianiacal reverted in a very similar way at Monarchy of Canada to restore the non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was never aware of any discussion proposing to delete that image (until just now). I explained above why one is necessary at Monarchy of Canada. There is presently no alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I mean absolutely no disrespect or hostility to Quadell, in fact I wish to thank him for keeping the image as it is desperately needed here with the lack of any free alternatives on Commons. However, restricting the image only to Arms of Canada just won't do, and I made that point clear in the deletion discussion. There will be other articles where the image is needed and a relevant rationale can be provided. The image's use can be limited, but there will be other needs. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has properly restored Quadell's closure implementation at both articles. I suggest to both Miesianical and Frye1989 that they don't alter that closure in this manner. If they persist, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as much as Miesianical and I do not get along, I am sure we will both agree that limiting the image to only Arms of Canada was neither a consensus decision, or appropriate. There are other places where this image is needed. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred and I positively resent anyone calling it that. I made a single partial revert to keep the file on one article. I did not revert it to keep it on all of them, and I did not revert multiple times. There was no consensus in the discussion to strictly limit this image to only Arms of Canada, the consensus was by all measurements to keep the image in full. Now if people feel it should be limited to a single article, let them state that here, but please do not call what I did edit warring. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good grief. Block threats already?

What I find most improper about this is: 1) Very little to no notice was given to alert editors of Canada, Arms of Canada, Monarchy of Canada, National symbols of Canada, etc. that this image's deletion had been proposed and was under discussion; I'd think that's why only 10 people offered their opinions. 2) A proposal made by one person (and opposed by two editors) was taken to be the consensus. The force behind this "rule" is thus incredibly weak. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a thoroughly unacceptable close. The quote given above from WP:CONSENSUS misses the point — the point is that we're not a democracy, so vote counting may not replace proper judgement, but here we've had an admin supervote to declare a supposed consensus that was opposed by numerous good-faith participants. No definition of consensus, either on-wiki or off-wiki, includes situations in which "consensus" is defined as being one person's input versus everyone else's. The closing admin quite obviously has failed "to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms", for if this result be consensus, we have no need for FFD — only another method of deletion tagging. DRV will be filed immediately. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you believe a deletion discussion was closed incorrectly or decided in error, there are proper venues for that. That's what deletion review is for. If I've acted out of process or acted against our non-free content policy, then my decision should be overruled. But simply ignoring the decision by the closing admin at an FFD discussion and reverting is never appropriate. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I was going to say that but we edit-conflicted. You said it better than I, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If its a non free image....couldn't it...or rather, shouldn't it be discussed at length at Wikipedia:Non free content review to see if it meets all ten points of the non free content criteria?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We already know that it fails NFCC #1, because a free image could theoretically be created using the description given in the blazon. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But only in theory and not to the extent that it would accurately represent the coat of arms. Any drawing would have to be so far from the truth it would be a mockery. This is the exact same issue we have with Singapore's coat of arms, and probably a few others as well. In theory, they can ALL have a free alternative created. The question is; when? I raised that question in the deletion discussion and failed to get an answer. Without an alternative here now, or the promise of one coming soon, we are essentially discussing leaving the respective articles blank. Surely nobody desires that outcome. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you: Only in theory. There are literally thousands of non-free crests on this wiki currently tagged for fair use, and unless we have someone skilled enough to create high-quality crests and shields and coats of arms from the blazons, we risk losing them all. The Canadian coat of arms is only a high-profile example of the problem. For example, there's twenty listed at FFD right now: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have a problem that people believe it can be "created using the description given in the blazon". The image is copyrighted and any recreation that is even close is covered by 17 U.S.C. § 106 no? So if yes - then we are entering the realm of original research images as seen at File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg. Its a nice try but does not represent the arms in any correct fashion that helps our readers understand the meaning of the symbols within it - looks like OR guess work to me ...the kind you would get from trying to avoid a copyright. I could be way off here but this is how i see the law written. -- Moxy (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is actually something covered more extensively at commons and discussed at length in a number of places. That any artist could create the COA from the description is not just theory, but is practice as well. What is copyright is the artist rendition, not the COA itself. This may have other restrictions, but the description itself is not a copyright and COA are created with elements that are common. While artistic expression and style vary, the basic elements remain very similar. Can a Wikipedia contributor create a work good enough that isn't so far from the truth it would be a mockery? Of course. It isn't that difficult and obviously someone very talented created the non free SVG....but of a non free artist rendition, which commons would normally delete because it is based on the current artist rendition being used. You could just as easily take the older versions that are public domain and use those elements with the newer descriptive additions from 1994 etc.. In fact, we actually have a number of COA from Commons that are original versions of COA of such good quality that they are being used commercially. Here is the copyrighted COA for the Vatican from their site: [6] and here is our commons version from several public Domain sources and the overall description: [7]. At any rate it is more than a theory, it happens all the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: the deletion review is open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31, and anyone is free to weigh in if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected - if that second image does not fall under copyright my strict interpretation of the law was way off. Thank you for that example. -- Moxy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only in this instance as the second image was not created using any of the elements from the copyrighted version that was created in 1994. Now, I am not arguing that the second image is of enough quality to have much encyclopedic value in many articles, just that there are probably enough existing elements in individual heraldic svg graphics or full svg COA to recreate the Canadian COA with the same encyclopedic value as style need not be a factor.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And now I stand corrected as it seems a similar COA to that second image is used at Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom so, it would seem these recreated COA, while perhaps not as stylistic as we might imagine heraldic emblems to be, they are being used. I'm still going to finish working on my version. I just a little more contrast and outlining.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Side topic - there should be a banner like with templates so more can see that there is an ongoing talk on the pages that they appear on. I would say in most cases and image is much more important then a template would be - so why dont images get a nice little banner?.---Moxy (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The nominator is supposed to do that, by adding the {{FFDC}} template to the captions at any locations where the image is in use. Also, a template {{ffd}} is added to the file description page. Also, the uploader is to be notified using the {{fdw}} template. These last two steps are done automatically if the nomination is done via Twinkle. It is up to the nominator to add the FFDC template to each usage of the image, and it is optional, as the instructions say "If the image is in use, also consider adding {ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2013 August 1} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious: a few people have mentioned that a free rendition of the arms, accurate to the blazon but different to the official version, could be created based on the blazon because the blazon is in the public domain. How is it, though, that the blazon for the current coat of arms, written in 1994, is in the public domain? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you cannot copyright an idea or a description. The only difference between the 1921 COA and the 1994 description is the proclamation adding the ribbon and motto. It is not the description of the COA that is the issue, it is the original work of the artist that created the version that was copied as an SVG file inappropriately. Look, the 1994 COA uses elements from other COA. It can be pieced together in a truly free version. It really can.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that an idea cannot be copyrighted, which is why we can describe the coat of arms without a problem, but any reasonable visual representation of the coat of arms is likely to violate the copyright on the logo itself, since it will be substantially similar to it visually (it can't help but be, coming from the same description). To compund that, it is deceptive to our readers to say "this is the coat of arms", when, in fact, it is not the actual visual representation of the coat of arms used in reality, but someone else's conception of what the coat of arms might look like in an alternate reality. That's hardly encyclopedic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, to violate copyright, you must be actually copying. Clean room design can avoid that concern, by giving those developing the new item only the description and specifications of what's desired, but ensuring they do not see the thing that spec actually came from. That way, even if they come up with almost exactly the same thing, they didn't actually copy and thus didn't infringe the copyright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Also, the original concept of the coat of arms in it's current configuration is past copyright. What is not past copyright are the 1994 artist's original deviations of that design. One of the biggest issues to me on the current configuration was the mantle being depicted as maple leaves. I had thought this was an original concept, and part of the artist's original deviation. It is not. The mantle of maple leaves predates the public domain, 1921 COA of Canada. So, just making the mantle of maple leaves in another original version is not, itself a copyright violation. It just must not be a copy of the artistic style used by the 1994 artist. Mantles have many different imagery for their use. Capes, and/or drapery is a common imagery as are oak leaves and a blending of draping effect with oak leave flourishes. Doing so with maple leaves is not original enough to compare as a copyright violation in an original COA version. The COA of Canada could be created copying a number of free public domain versions to be faithful to heraldic concept and traditions and produce an SVG file that could be licensed as CC or public domain.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken did bring up something I had touched on earlier....what is the actual COA? Is that to be defined as an official version? The 1921 COA is still used. The 1994 version has been modified by other artists by official grant to place in official locations. There does not appear to be an actual COA depiction, there is an official description and an official heraldic illustration, but how and whether it is the actual COA is not really accurate. It is probably, at least notable to mention that the article Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom uses original COAs. Why does the article on the arms of Canada require special consideration? I like the compromise as a form of DR resolution, but the fact is there is indeed a free alternative the article could be using right now. They just don't like it. Fine. Make a better one.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

I am here to revisit the ban imposed by User:Bishonen as stated by her here. My first rationale that this needs to be revisited is because the closer of that discussion was also a participant in that discussion, constituting a possible conflict of interest. ([8])Curb Chain (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The ban was not imposed by Bishonen, it was imposed by the community after discussion, with Bishonen acting as agent for the community's wishes. The original AN ban discussion can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Curb Chain; Apteva is already testing the community's patience in regards to wikilawyering about the technicalities of topic bans... Do you REALLY want to be the one in the firing line when the banhammer is swung when the patience runs out? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Curb Chain has previously brought this up on their talkpage; for my response, please see here. There I also recommended them to "If you wish to contest your ban or any aspect of it, including my closure of the ANI thread, please do so on WP:AN". That's what they're doing, even if a little belatedly, as I closed that thread six weeks ago. I don't think I acted improperly in closing it, and even if I did, I don't believe anybody else would have summarized the thread differently. It contained substantial complaints about Curb Chain's editing of list articles, and not least, it contained references to several previous, unactioned, ANI threads with similar complaints, showing a long-term problem. Curb Chain, if you have other rationales for revisiting your topic ban besides the IMO rather formal one of who closed the thread, it would make sense to present them here. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

• The topic ban was created by the community (who enacts it is irrelevant) - and any lifting of it would need to be based on arguments surrounding what has been done by the editor since that would warrant such a lifting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion, I think it's safe to say that I would have closed it the same way - though note that I commented in the early part of the thread. And if there were a conflict of interest (a fact I do not stipulate), the time to raise that issue was when the ban was proposed, in the same thread. What has changed from then to now?But let's set aside the COI issue for the moment - the question you have to answer at this point is this: Curb Chain, how do you plan to edit List articles if the topic ban were removed? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am left wondering, if Curb Chain felt that Bishonen's close was inappropriate on purely procedural grounds – given the form of the request, there's no indication that Curb Chain is appealing or addressing the substance of the discussion or topic ban – why he didn't raise the issue for review six weeks ago, when the discussion was closed and the topic ban imposed (18 June). Or three days later, when Bishonen (and others) raised concerns about Curb Chain's editing of an article in violation of the topic ban, and Curb Chain complained on his talk page about Bishonen's close and was advised that WP:AN would be the correct venue for a procedural appeal (21 June). Instead of appealing Bishonen's closure, Curb Chain then went ahead and started asking Bishonen to carry out edits on his behalf, apparently not quite getting that his topic ban applied in userspace as well as article space: User talk:Bishonen#List of blues rock musicians (22 June). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note also that Curb Chain violated his (broadly construed) list topic ban about a half hour before posting this here, by challenging another editor's use of a particular source for an entry they added to List of progressive metal artists (see Curb Chain's comment here); ironically, the same editor who had started the previous ANI thread resulting in his topic ban. Curb Chain just can't leave these things alone and has not even demonstrated any awareness or understanding of the problems other editors have had with him. He also failed to notify Bishonen of this post (I took care of it), despite the very clear warning you must do so above the edit box when you post anything here. Just more evidence of his general lack of observance and lack of care here. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final - but you don't need to broadly construe anything to see that Curb Chain is banned from involvement in List articles. That includes commenting on them, exhorting other editors to make particular edits on his behalf, and other similar edits that don't involve actual edits to the article itself. It's a topic ban - the topic being "List articles". Violating the ban is a really really good indication that the ban should not be lifted at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final" Actually, that's not true, and Curb Chain (CC) has been aware of that since at least June 22, 2013. CC really hasn't been doing much editing on Wikipedia since June 18th - when his list topic ban was originally put in place. To be fair, it's summertime in the Northern Hemisphere (assuming that CC is in the Northern Hemisphere), and I'm not sure if Wikipedia editing drops off in the summertime or not. It does appear to me though that at least one of the primary areas that CC was interested in editing here on Wikipedia was list articles, so the ban still seems appropriate from my perspective, which (again, to be fair) is the perspective of the editor that originally complained about CC's behavior at AN/I. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I was looking here, and there it is right at the bottom, clear as day. Mea Culpa. It is a side issue, though - the violation seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• No --Guerillero | My Talk 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I was a participant in the original discussion (as 86.121.18.17), but I really don't see how any uninvolved admin/editor could have closed it differently than what Bishonen did. So it's not a violation of WP:INVOLVED (which is probably what Curb Chain means by "conflict of interest"). Since then, Curb Chain has edited very little in general but has violated his topic ban quite a few times, showing a lack of understanding as to the concerns that led to his editing being restricted. I suggest declining this request, and perhaps extending the duration of the topic ban until he can show some evidence of collaborative editing elsewhere. Although he may have a big edit count, most of Curb Chain's edits are gnoming over some formatting issues only he seems to care about, which is probably why his style of editing got him into trouble once he started to apply it to some content issues others cared about. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• In addition to the straightforwardness of the close, there is probably an argument to be made that attempting to resolve a case at the Administrator's Noticeboard is participating in one's role as an administrator. (I'm not aware of any past attempts to claim as much, and if its been done, have no idea how it turned out) Regardless of whether we find a way to rationalize the close or not, at best, the discussion would be reclosed by a new admin with the same result, so there really isn't a point in splitting hairs over it. Still, best practice is to let a totally independent editor/admin handle the close so as to avoid the need for just this sort of discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:UNINVOLVED says: "[T]he community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", so that's the standard that's to be used here, not whether Bishonen was "involved" or had a "conflict of interest" because she participated in the discussion, but would any reasonable administrator have come to a different conclusion and closed the discussion differently? I would say that the answer to that is clearly "No". The community discussion was fairly straight-forward and clear, and the close was appropriate to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, there is bupkis to be contested about the closure. The only question here is who throws the WP:BOOMERANG and blocks Curb Chain for violating his topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• While it was incredibly silly for Bishonen to propose the topic ban and then close the discussion, it appears to be the same decision that anyone else would make. My question for CC is, do you understand what a list article is, and why they rarely have any references? If they can answer that question suitably, I see no reason for not lifting the ban. Apteva (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to know the answer as well - Curb Chain has not edited since starting this discussion 4 days ago. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect at this point that this entry here by CC was just an attempt to needlessly waste everyone's time. To basically amend my previous comments, CC hasn't made as few edits as they have recently since December of 2011...so it seems that the recent topic ban is having its desired effect. Without rehashing the details that have been discussed in numerous other places, it has been suspected for a while that the CC Wikipedia account was not CC's first (or only existing) Wikipedia account. They may be editing under another name(s)...who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • They may be editing under another name(s) - or IP(s). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tammy Duckworth RfC

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

---

Hello. Last week, I initiated an RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth regarding the exclusion of the subject's date of birth, as per WP:BLP. A discussion started to develop over the next several days, but was closed today by Srich32977.

I am requesting that the closure be overturned, and that the RfC be allowed to continue. RfCs usually last for 30 days, so this discussion was closed prematurely. Since there were several editors weighing in on both sides of the debate, a consensus had not yet been formed. Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened by Hot Stop. It seems that the RfC is continuing, but I welcome input from all interested editors. For the record, I have notified Srich32977 of this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... the reopening was reverted. Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And I, in turn, reverted Hot Stop. I was asked to re-open the RfC and I declined. This ANI is the only proper forum and the reopening of the RfC must be done by an admin. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This was really a never valid RfC to begin with, as WP:DOB is pretty crystal-clear policy on what to do when the subject communicates their desires regarding the reporting of their date-of-birth. Everything else is irrelevant once "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" criteria is met. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  The "include" side was also citing Wikipedia policies, such as WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:OPENPARA. Since policy was being cited on both sides, we were having a legitimate discussion. I was not attempting to "set aside" policy, but rather seek community input on how to interpret all of the relevant policies in the context of this specific article. Edge3 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The issue in the Duckworth RfC (as it has been in 5 previous discussions) is whether Duckworth's date of birth should be included. All prior discussions have closed with the determination that WP:DOB policy be followed. There seemed to be little point (or authority) in seeking consensus to ignore policy in this case, so I closed it. (I was asked to reopen, but declined.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Tarc said. It seems to me that the proper course of action would be to start an RfC on the policy, rather than on a specific BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What utter nonsense, for her to claim that that some "identity thief" will obtain her date of birth from her Wikipedia biography, when she is a well known public figure, in the United States Congress, and her exact date of birth is included in her official US Congress biography. Edison (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agree. We may not censor something that's reliably published in secondary sources, and even if we've gotten an official communique from Congresswoman Duckworth objecting to the presence of her birthday in the article (very unlikely), we need to remind her that her birthday is already present on a well known congressional website and tell her to complain to the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives to get her birthdate off that page first. Read the first sentence of WP:DOB and remember that the context here is protecting privacy, which definitely isn't being protected by the well known congressional website. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• No one cares if you agree or disagree; we do not change policy via RfC on a bio's talk page. WP:DOB is pretty clear on the matter, in that "subject requests removal == the removal is performed". What else on the the Internets the info appears is not relevant to the policy spelled out at that page. Tarc (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Nyttend has un-hatted the closure on the RfC, so this discussion can end. But I will add that I am surprised – and disappointed. I would hope that policy would prevail here. (It probably will at the RfC, after more and more of the same merry-go-round.) Sadly, the rationale for re-opening the RfC stands WP:DOB on its head. The policy says "anyone" who requests can have the DOB info limited to YOB. The "why" of the policy may be weak, but that does not justify ignoring the policy. The real confounded logic/justification for re-opening the RfC goes like this: People who are notable enough to have articles in WP should be aware that their notability will result in an exception to the DOB policy so long as there is some RS that gives out their DOB. Therefore, don't make the request for any reason because it will be ignored if enough editors get together to override the specific provisions of the policy. Nor will we allow people to dictate to us what policy to follow. The first sentence of the policy then becomes an exception for everyone with RS-supported info in WP, and that is not the policy. Censorship? My gosh! "Include DOB otherwise you are engaging in censorship." Really quite disappointing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is in fact the WP:DOB policy, it completely flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTCENSORED. If (in this case) her official Congressional biography and the Washington Times list her precise date of birth, restricting her Wikipedia article to only listing the year does nothing other than feed the nabobs who like to point at Wikipedia and laugh about how inaccurate, stupid, and stupidly inaccurate we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the RfC should be on WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. Feels like a policy that is broken (at least on the edges). Hobit (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As there is no DOB/N noticeboard, the only noticeboard applicable was, in fact, BLP/N. If you wish to start a DOB/N noticeboard, then start a discussion to create one. Duckworth almost absolutely has some control over her official biography, and to ignore that control is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I was unclear. I mean I think the discussion should be about changing WP:DOB. So the discussion should be on changing WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. If WP:DOB does get changed we could revisit this specific case. I wasn't proposing changing the venue for the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have we forgotten about WP:IAR. All policies other than actual legal requirements can be modified in individual cases. We make our own rules, and we make our own exceptions. I agree we should be very careful and conservative about using IAR with BLP and especially BLPs with privacy issues, but when something actually has no privacy issue, then the solution is to do what is right & reasonable, rather than further complicate policy. IAR is intended to preserve us from literalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IAR works if ignoring the rule if doing so improves or maintains WP. I maintain that IAR applies to the project, not our views on individual articles. The Duckworth article is an example of people fighting over whether the DOB policy as it pertains to that particular article (not WP as a whole) should be ignored, and they are citing IAR as justification. I've asked/tried to get that talkpage discussion moved over here so that the vagueness or validity of the WP DOB policy (not just as it applies to Duckworth) can be resolved. Sadly there are no takers so far, not even from Admins, who should be enforcing policy. It seems that people want to focus that BLP, and they cite IAR as justification. And when the "consensus" conflicts or does not coincide with policy, WP looks bad. Improving WP is what's needed here. We can do so best by getting clarification on where and for whom DOB applies. And I urge Admins to move the discussion over here. The result of the community discussion, as opposed to the Duckworth group, will apply to Duckworth and other BLPs. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The policies clearly state that the information has to be "noteworthy" to be included and in my opinion the exact date of birth is not "noteworthy" and so does not qualify for an exemption (granted there may be a few exceptions --like the birth of an heir to the throne, or a saint who gets honored that day). Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Useful template

There are a few articles out there that are becoming inadvertent edit-wars because of the interaction between bugs in the new Visual Editor, experienced editors that don't recognize that the newbies are just tripping over VE, and newbies that just don't know enough about what's going on to defend themselves. You can look here for an example. Generally, any article that uses {{Certification Table Top}}, {{won}}, {{nom}}, {{lost}} or any other complex template-driven tables are going to be problem spots.

When you see an article like that, you can place {{disable VE top}} and {{disable VE bottom}} on the article and place an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) on the article. That will disable use of the Visual Editor on that article until the bugs are corrected.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds useful. For simplicity's sake, though, why not place that template (or the relevant CSS class) directly on the complex templates? — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found a good way to explain to the VE editor that he can't edit the section. The template will work, but I don't know how to talk about it.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe <div class="ve-ce-protectedNode" title="This content cannot (yet) be edited using the VisualEditor. Please click &quot;edit source&quot; instead"> ? — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The title doesn't display when VisualEditor is invoked.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that it is not actually disabling editing, just working around that by making it a template, which I can still load VE on and edit the template. It, however, is extremely slow. I don't support using this until it can disable the loading of VE altogether. Anyone smart enough to click the puzzle piece can still edit it. This will just frustrate people more. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't actually change any of the text inside of the template. There's no way to prevent VE from loading.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Kww: I was able to change the text inside the template, it's just harder and a lot slower. So slow that when someone tries to edit it, it freezes up sometimes. However, what this does do is allow for easy "delete the whole page" vandalism, and vandalism at the top and bottom of the page. It doesn't actually disable the editor, but does cause lots of slowness and confusion, across *all* open windows. I wouldn't support using this workaround, but I would support something that just disables VE on those pages altogether through some sitewide blacklist or something. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't work quite as well when it isn't substed. Now try, Charmlet.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It loads still, but it's so slow, and I can't click on *anything*, not the Wikipedia logo in the top left, not my username, not logout, etc. I can't even scroll. Not sure if this is intended, but if that can be fixed I will love this template. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That's bizarre. What browser? With Firefox, it simply prevents you from putting your cursor anywhere inside the article text.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome 28.0.1500.95 (Official Build 213514) m

OS Windows

JavaScript V8 3.18.5.14 Hopefully that helps :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To make it clear, this isn't a "I just don't like VE" idea. On this particular article, any edit to the lead causes the infobox to be deleted.—Kww(talk) 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree this needs to be made simpler and more newb proof. I suggest this:
  1. Add <span class="ve-ce-protectedNode"></span> to the templates that are affected.
  2. Add a little bit of JavaScript to common.js to disable VE on the page if ( 'span.ve-ce-protectedNode' ) exists (I know there's a userscript that can do this already...)
• Call it a day. I'd be happy to help with the coding if needed when I get to a computer. Technical 13 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Snowden#Government bias and edition of the page

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

---

an IP - 99.252.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted his/her latest conspiracy theory; and has posted an external link which I cant verify is safe, can an admin review this please. LGA _talk^edits 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin here, but here are the facts:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling someone as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Wikipedia users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government -A1candidate (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, A1candidate, Wikipedia is no place for paid shills who try to clean up the mistakes of Senate. Given the talk page of LGA, he/she has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behavior involving the wiping and predilection of multiple Wikipedia pages. Seems like a paid shill and shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, as this is supposed to be an impartial area for information. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swams/pol/

• Ok, the IP from the senate made one edit to the Snowden article, for which they have received four separate messages from four different users (including myself). It has been discussed here and is under discussion at the Snowden talk page. I don't think we need an ongoing thread here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Misleading template

It seems like some people outside wp are reading template:Shared IP gov as is transcluded on User talk:156.33.241.5 as actually being a block notice, and that Wikipedia has blocked this user. That might be blowing things slightly out of proportion. Such notice templates may need a bit of tweaking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate page

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

---

I just saw this page, and I'm sure it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. The title is based on a placard a teenager was carrying. The event itself is not notable (1 event only, not even a major event) The title of the page is pretty eye catching (not really neutral either. Normally, I'd just AFD it, but I'm under a voluntary restriction that precludes my doing that. I would appreciate some extra eyes on that page, an AFD would be great, but if the consensus is I'm wrong, so be it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Request Block of 109.156.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP user 109.156.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making repeated blatant vandalism of the article "The Smiler (roller coaster)" (changing the the rollercoaster's name from "The Smiler" to "The Failer"). When the vandalism is undone, the user reverts the edits. In-spite of final warning, user has reverted the corrections back to "the failer" three times. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked Mfield (Oi!) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Morts623 unblock request

Morts623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in January 2011 by Kuru, and now wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of their request (UTRS #8400), which they have agreed to have copied here:

I believe I should be unblocked because back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked, I was a teenager. I know there were times where I did some disruptive editing and there were times I've blanked some pages, but that was a long time ago when I was a teenager. I understand what I did was wrong and I promise not to ever do it again. I would like to be forgiven for what I did.

Please review this unblock request and determine whether Morts623 should be allowed back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• My inclination would be to let them take advantage of the standard offer assuming they haven't socked, or done anything else wrong since their talk page access was revoked. While they clearly earned the block in the past, the conduct was the sort of thing that a couple years may make a difference.That they are asking to be unblocked, rather then socking, speaks well for them. I think another chance is in order. Maybe ask them to address the articles they created which needed to be deleted, just to make sure that problematic articles wont reoccur as an issue. Monty₈₄₅ 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Struck in light of CUnote. Reconsider in 6+ months. Monty₈₄₅ 03:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• The phrase "back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked" gives me zero confidence whatsoever - if they don't even know why they were blocked then how do we know they will not repeat it? GiantSnowman 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Like Monty, I think that it's an admirable display of honesty to request unblocking of the original account instead of just creating a new one (technically a policy violation, but rather easy to get away with after several years). On that basis alone, I support unblocking. Nonetheless, since we had a very persuasive unblock request the other week by someone who turned out to still be socking, a CheckUser query might be prudent. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I can confirm that this user evaded their block by editing while logged out between June and July of this year. Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tiptoey - don't think I'm being mean or anything, but I tend to assume a ton of good faith. If you still remember the evidence, was it undeniably him (as in, there is absolutely no possible explanation)? If he's telling the truth and he hasn't edited in 6+ months it could've been a family member, an internet cafe, a school, etc... I think we may need more clarification from him (Morts) if there's any chance he's telling the truth. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There is always another possible explanation and  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. That said, I am sure it is him. Both the technical data and the behavioral evidence back it up. Tiptoety ^talk 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

Rangeblock of troll

I have evidently offended blocked user Georgy gladkov (talk · contribs), who has taken to writing "You are a jew? Is'nt it?", "HeilHitler!" and the like on my talk page. Fortunately the range of IPs is small, and after the fifth message this morning I blocked 217.118.78.0/25 for 31 hours. I bring it here (a) for review because I am the target, and (b) for opinions about a longer rangeblock if it continues. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Yo, Judío" - Jorge Luis Borges.

Your blocks are fine, unsure if a wider range is needed at this time. GiantSnowman 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a small amount of collateral damage from the block, but it can be extended for a few days if necessary, and the /25 will probably be sufficient. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems like a good block to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If this continues to be a problem, an edit filter may be a good alternative to longer term rangeblocks, but looks fine for now. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see [9]) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see [10]), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see [11]). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see [here]).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases [12], [13]). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Wikipedia editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about unblocking Science Apologist

ScienceApologist (Previously_ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)) wishes to be unblocked. His contributions have been of high quality, while there has been some issues with socking in the four years he has been blocked for socking (this has formed into a vicious cycle, the only reason his block has continue is because he wants to edit wikipedia). He also did have some bad interactions with editors in the past who have themselves, for the most part, now been blocked or left (we are talking 4 years ago after all). Considering the only issue is that he wants to edit wikipedia but can't, the easiest means of rectifying the situation is an unblock. SA is willing to accept additional requirements to provide reassurances to people: "I accept any conditions on an unblock". Thoughts? SA notified by email IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. No recommendation, at the moment. But unblocking would set a precedent - sock until the community gets tired of dealing with it and you're unblocked. One would think that the best way to convince the community that you intend to follow the rules would be to - wait for it - follow the rules. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No socking in at least the last two months. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But he socked for the previous 3 years 10 months? GiantSnowman 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your wording. There have been instances of socking in the last 4 years, but not in at least the last two months. Also, as far as I am aware, SA did not sock before this while unblocked. What are you preventing by having him blocked? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You say he has been blocked for 4 years but hasn't socked for 2 months. That implies he socked for 3 years 10 months. GiantSnowman 18:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not imply, you inferred, and I don't agree. If I said you hadn't socked for at least the last 2 months, it doesn't mean you were socking before that. It means what I said, that in the last 2 month period there were no socks. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But he has socked - numerous times, as you say so yourself in your opening post. GiantSnowman 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said "there has been some issues with socking", that isn't the same as "numerous times". Can you focus on the unblock request itself rather than whether I implied X or Y. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for thinking that "issues with socking" isn't all hunky-dory. GiantSnowman 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) For those in the audience who haven't been following this matter closely, could you provide a bit more information and context?

1. Is there a link to the original discussion (AN/I or ArbCom or what?) that led him to be blocked/banned(?) in the first place? Could someone provide a brief description of the events that led him to be banned/blocked?
2. Regarding block evasion with socks, when and how many? When was the last one?
3. On reasons why an unblock would be a good idea, can the justification be expanded a bit beyond 'most of the people he was fighting with are gone'? (I mean, I suspect that there are at least a few new editors who might disagree with ScienceApologist now.)
4. Regarding the desire for an unblock, where or how did he make the request? Does he have any statement that he would like to make on his own behalf?
5. What has happened with previous unblock requests, if any?
6. What conditions, restrictions, or topic bans was he under prior to his block/ban, and would there be any such restrictions if he were unblocked?

I'm not trying to shoot down this request, nor to pre-judge or imply a preference for any particular outcome, but there's a lot of information missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist. I did not edit wikipedia until late 2010, so you will need to ask an arbcom member or such for an exact account. Anything I say will be based on reading the various logs and old arbcom cases.
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ScienceApologist. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) appears to have indicated that Eliminatesoapboxing (talk · contribs) was the last sock.
3. SA makes very high quality edits to both astronomy/science articles as well as fringe subjects. Even if he were not permitted to edit articles directly, his advice he could provide at WP:FTN would be invaluable.
4. His desire for an unblock is stated all over his userpage, and in his recent ArbCom request (ArbCom rejected the request on the grounds of jurisdiction; indicating that it was not an arbcom block and things should be taken to AN/ANI or similar).
5. His last unblock [14] was rejected stating he had a block log that was too long and that an unblock would not be considered.
6. The initial block was for 3 months per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist. That has since expired. New restrictions are up for discussion here, so I can't answer that question. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This was also discussed last week at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case [15] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• non admin second chance !vote a 3 month block, from 2011, extended to true infinity seems excessive in the absence of a arbcom decision or wider consensus of a community ban. Certainly the repeated socking is problematic, and while block avoidance is troublesome, he was not using the socks for otherwise nefarious purposes (trying to swing consensus etc). I think a Wikipedia:Standard offer, with a very short leash can be appropriate, especially in light of the judgement that his edits are generally of high quality. Per the discussion above, he has not socked for 2 months : When is the last time he was caught socking? The standard offer suggests 6 months. Could the 2 months be counted towards this, and reset his block to 4 months? Or in a worst case scenario give him the full 6 months starting now? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Extend standard offer - this would be a terrible precedent to set. If there's any reason this is a "special case" then reduce the sock-free period required from 6 months to 3, but some indication that this user is willing to play by the rules is needed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We've gone down this road before. "You made me sock because you kicked me out" is one of the least compelling arguments I can think of. If he can show the self control to follow the standard offer for the full six-month period, that's much more compelling, and even then I'd like to see a CU run just to be sure. Other times we winked at block evasion it has not ended well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a couple questions before I weigh in. How have the confirmed SA socks behaved? (The only one I can recall is the one who kept trying to delete Wikipe-tan.) Have his socks been editing constructively or engaging in disruption? What are the most recent socks that we know of? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think pointily is the best way to describe it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the socks were identified as being problematic. i.e if they weren't socks they would not have been blocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree the standard offer is the way forward here. If an editor can't comply with our straightforward policy on socking for six months then that isn't very promising for any possible return to editing. As noted above Eliminatesoapboxing (talk · contribs) was still editing two months ago. Hut 8.5 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - here is the information on SA:

Block log

Declined ArbCom Unblock request

SPI records

Note that Checkuser confirmed that SA used two socks as recently as two months ago.

I don't believe that he has shown he can abide by rules, and would oppose a standard offer.

Disclosure - SA and I have a negative history. I'm not going to go into anything else on the matter or discuss the history. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "declined arbcom unblock request" is kind of missing the point of why they declined. They referred the case to AN (as I mentioned above). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you have rather I called it a "rejected" request? I did not contradict your statement that it should go to AN. In any event, SA's pattern of repeatedly violating rules that he doesn't agree with bodes ill as a reason for unblocking him. GregJackP Boomer! 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Support standard offer - If SA really has changed, six months of no socking (verified by CU) would be sufficient to give him another chance. If think he has things to offer to the encyclopedia, if he could just moderate his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• SA has done excellent work in defending the encyclopedia from crankery, but the avalanche of nonsense with the continual arrival of "new" editors ready to argue the same points over and over wore him down. I support any unblock appeal from SA that includes a brief statement explaining how he will deal with that problem. I would suggest, for example, that if a group of new editors were to start using Homeopathy to promote the sale of bottles of water to cure disease, then SA should just walk away after doing a few reverts or posting a dozen comments in a week—leave it to someone else. We routinely unblock disruptive editors who have no record of improving the encyclopedia, and per WP:ROPE, there is no problem with unblocking SA who does have a long record of improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The argument that someone should be unblocked because we can't permanently stop them from evading their block is not sensible, and should be rejected out of hand. The sustained socking and unhelpful editing behavior set out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive appears to indicate that not much has changed since the conduct which led to the block (as set out at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist). As such, I see no grounds to unblock, so I oppose this proposal. WP:STANDARDOFFER obviously applies, but it would also need to be accompanied by a convincing commitment to avoid the conduct which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - having looked into this further, I feel an editor who cannot go 2 months without abiding by basic rules (i.e. no socking!) should not be unblocked at this time. Standard offer applies - 6 months is the minimum for me. GiantSnowman 08:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why not support, at a minimum, changing the indefinite block to 4 months? The issue is that his current requests are being rejected out of hand [16]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because what if he socks again in that time? Indefinite =/= forever, as you full well know. Evidence 6 months of sock-free-ness and then we can review. GiantSnowman 10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Two points: You might call Science Apologist the AndyTheGrump of his time. Kww's rationale, also at the recent RFAR, for keeping him blocked is interesting, almost provocative: "If this were an ideal world, I would simply ban most of the editors that SA disagrees with, as that would eliminate both the edit warring and things like Wikipedia's excessively gullible point of view towards crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena, vaccine hysteria, and similar topics. This isn't an ideal world though, and SA's contributions, while nearly invariably right, served to galvanize the forces intent on inserting these things into articles. … I've advocated banning all pseudoscience advocates from Wikipedia before, and continue to believe that's the best solution. Until we do that, though, SA's presence is counterproductive."[17] (Please read the whole.) As with Swift's Modest Proposal for eating babies, it's logical, I have reluctantly to agree with the reasoning, but is there really no other way? What will blocking the defenders of the wiki do — what is it doing — to article quality? I'm getting really cynical about this project and its openness to "crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena" etc. Secondly, in his recent unblock appeal to ArbCom, Science Apologist says he wasn't socking, but other people at his institution were using the same IP or "user agent" (I don't even understand what that means) and that he has no way of ensuring that the same thing won't happen again in the next four months.[18] Therefore he fears never being able to benefit from the Standard Offer. His tone is a little uncertain; if I understand it, he's not denying all socking, but only the more recent cases (supported by checkuser like the others). If there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him, can someone explain them to me, please? Bishonen | talk 12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

I'd like to ask for an earlier-than-normal close to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. It's still active, but we have WP:SNOW level closes on all the original questions and most of the activity now seems to be the addition of "additional proposals", a practice which is going to keep this thing open for decades.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing rollback

Is it possible for me to remove rollback? I don't use it and it seems like its only purpose now is accidental reverts. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's good. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Let us know if you ever change your mind and someone will flip it back on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf (Norse mythology)

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

---

• Not sure what to do. A vandal has destroyed a many-years established article, “Norse dwarves”, by “moving” it to a his own personal POV-extreme article, “Dwarf (Norse mythology)”. Are you able to repair the damage, by restoring the history to before it was “moved”? Thank you for any assistance. Haldrik (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit restored the version of the article that 68.202.81.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote ... are you and the IP the same person? —Soap— 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Advice on mass AfD nomination

I had this conversation with The Writer 2.0 after declining an RFPP request of theirs yesterday. The Writer came across many American football biographies of borderline notability created by Pmaster12, 173.78.231.251 (talk) and 71.180.91.32 (talk). My first thought was that they would all need to be nominated at AfD, but as mass nominations like this have proved to be controversial in the past I would like people's advice on what to do. Is a mass nomination the way to go, or is there a better way of dealing with this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How about posting up a batch nomination, say no more than 3 or so, to test the waters? I'd suggest that the nominator have a go at filtering them by similarity (I haven't had a look at any of them so this is just plucking ideas out of the air). Leave a note at the start of the AFD that this is the case and that future AFD batch nominations will include larger numbers of articles. That should draw the criticisms out beforehand without stirring drama after the case. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to make a list of all of the problem articles, if only so that nominating them will be simpler later on. And it would give other editors a chance to pick out (relatively) more notable names before they go to AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin wheel warring

Can some admins sort out the Post-Pull-Post-Pull of the ITN Doctor Who over at WP:ITN/C. Admin User:Tone with his first edit in over a month took it upon himself to pull it after User: Secret had given his full reasons with no attempt to discuss. LGA _talk^edits

• Will post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• (cross post from WP:ITN/C - diffs available when I have a mo) Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Further Comment - outside of my cross post above, there has been no atempt to discuss this with User:Tone whatsoever. Do we have to jump into teh dramaz boards so quickly? Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close - As an ITN regular I feel compelled to defend Tone's correct and proper use of his tools to enforce a clear consensus. I strongly suggest complainant LGA is arguably in violation of WP:BATTLE on this post, which as Pedro notes is needlessly reactive, and I have suggested at ITN that everyone drop the stick and walk away, which will be difficult if this specious AN report is allowed to drag out. Can it, trout LGA, and let's chill. Jusdafax 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Tone did not pull the item unilaterally. He did so after a significant amount of additional comments, saying that he believed that consensus was for pulling. This is not wheel-warring. wctaiwan (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)