Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 72 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 70 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 70 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 38 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. No longer able to close, another closer should look into this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	11	6	17
TfD	0	0	1	2	3
MfD	0	1	0	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	15	15
RfD	0	0	4	13	17
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 141 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

 Done Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Requested move 13 July 2024

(Initiated 0 days ago on 13 July 2024). Per WP:SNOWPRO, might want to take a look at this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by JPxG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus appears to been established. LJF2019 ^talk 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This is already listed in the "other types of closing requests" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cha Eun-woo#Listing of "model" as a profession

(Initiated 0 days ago on 14 July 2024) Requesting a uninvolved editor for proper closure as this discussion was created due to a dispute, discussion from registered users has stale, and currently is causing WP:WHATABOUT spamming by multiple IPs likely to be fans. In addition, based on closure's results, please also help to update the lead accordingly. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE and pornographic film actresses

This seems a little too long to post at WP:ANRFC, so...

There was a debate that seemed to start with this thread over whether pornographic film actresses with a common name should use the identifier (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). As is proven from the aforementioned thread, the result seemed to be the latter, shorter identifier. But...Number 57, an admin who possibly didn't see the result of that discussion (and who does appear to have been acting in good faith, mind you), closed two smaller related discussions ([1] [2]) in favor of the former, longer identifier.

After the Aja (actress) move, editors were directed to this discussion, which has stalled. Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier, I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency. The first time I submitted a move request, it was open for nearly a month; and, as you can see from that diff, I then posted it at ANRFC, and that request was then almost open for a month itself. (SN: I'm not sure if Number 57 even has any more interest in this, as s/he made no comments in this discussion that took place on his/her own talk page.)

There are also two more open move discussions that need assessing: [3] [4] Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be simply solved by removing any article that is not sourced to reliable independent sources (the porn fans have redefined reliable and independent to allow them to include a number of unreliable sources with vested interests in the industry, because the vast majority of porn "stars" are not covered in the mainstream media at all). Guy (Help!) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to quote others who I feel have made excellent and salient points on this topic. These are from various discussions. Pings are included so the User know they are begin mentioned here...

• [5]Film may be pornographic, actors or actresses are NOT. The usage is derogatory and cannot be condoned, especially in a BLP. Instead of this terminology, pornographic film actor/actress should be used. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 12:24 pm, 4 March 2015, Wednesday (1 month, 10 days ago) (UTC−8)
• [6]From the Aja (actress) discussion, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: "I know it when I see it." Porn is a genre (is it even listed on the Film Genre template?), but those who perform in its films are acting. They are thus actors. What, do people actually think it's like a reality show, with hidden cameras or something? They are acting, they get paid to act. If she was offered the next "role of a lifetime" in the next Star Wars or something she and her agent would jump at the chance. Acting, thus, is the profession, not the type of acting (are people who only do Stage work listed as "Stage actor"?). (EDIT:Just looked at her page, and the 'pornographic actress' label is given to her in the lead, so that makes clear her preferred genre type.) Randy Kryn 18:40 3 April, 2015
• [7]From the Savannah (pornographic actress) discussion, per WP:PRECISE. There is absolutely no reason to include "pornographic" in the disambiguator, and none of the oppose !votes here have given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, to insist on using the adjective when it is not necessary is POV, as it carries with it the implication that she is not a legitimate actress. That is not our call to make.  — Amakuru (talk) 4:06 am, 9 March 2015, Monday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−7)
• [8], same discussion as above, Came across the Aja discussion and realized that some people may think porn actors are working in some kind of reality show (or worse, hidden camera program). They are actors, acting in a film. They get paid to act. I don't think Wikipedia lists other actors according to their genre (Horror film actor, Comedy actress, etc.) so it seems odd that one genre (and I know it when I see it, which, my first name withstanding, isn't often) has been selected for more title identification. Randy Kryn 14:07 5 April, 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the basic reasoning that performing in pornographic productions is what these people DO not WHO they are, plain and simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what administrative intervention is being asked here. Are you trying to restart the debate? Scalhotrod appears to be summarising arguments for one side (BTW I don't accept that porn performers get paid to "act". They get paid to be filmed having sex, which is not "acting" by any definition. Indeed it is in some ways closer to a "reality show" for that reason. Any acting is incidental. As for the last comment, we always disambiguate by what people do not "who they are", so I don't even begion to understand what point is being made.) Paul B (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B, that's a fair question about my point. What I was trying to say is regardless of how we characterize the nature of their work, porn performers are still actors and actresses. The Internet Adult Film Database, roughly the IMDB of porn, is full of thousands of entries for "Non-sex" roles for these same people. If they weren't being recorded on a reproducible and distributable media, we could just label them all "sex workers" and call it day, but that is not the case. Even you admit that they act, even if its incidental. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought what I was requesting was pretty simple, Paul Barlow: whether to use (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). Some of the articles that are still listed under the longer identifier can't be moved, and their respective requested move discussions have stalled; thus for those, an admin does need to assess them. (SN: JzG, with all due respect, your feelings about pornography in general isn't even the issue here.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what my personal feelings are about pornography. I only commented on the substitution of unreliable sources for reliable ones by groups of like-minded editors after echo-chamber discussions where they agree this is the only possible solution to the absence of actually reliable sources for the content they want to write about. Same applies to bandcruft. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Um...your first sentence was the only part of your response that I understood. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Two users from WP Pornography are on a drive to remove the distinction between film and film actresses and pornstars in disambiguation, which is being discussed at WT Pornography but not at WT Film and WT Theatre. The citing of WP:PRECISE is a misunderstanding since (dab) terms use category terms such as (John Lennon song) not (Lennon song) which are not WP:SHORTEST. The two users have placed several RMs, most of which have failed, but 1 cited above is an exception in having passed. There have also been repeated undiscussed moves, which hopefully have now been reverted by admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi and JzG are right on target. There's an established practice/naming convention which enjoyed consensus support; there's no consensus to change it; but a small number of editors now are using fait accompli tactics, forum shopping, and WP:CANVASSing to get their way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have documentation of disruptive editing, then an editing restriction may be imposed. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, if the discussion was also being held at the other two forums, that would be forum shopping. The whole purpose of this thread is to ask for consistency; nothing else. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for some users to understand. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The OP is attempting to take a local consensus from a single page move discussion, with comment from a handful of editors, and turn it into a project-wide consensus to be applied to all pages. This is not how consensus works. If nothing else, one discussion closed one way and two others the other way; why not see that as indicative of the global consensus? If you want to establish a global consensus to change 'porgnographic actress' → 'actress' then this needs a discussion at the proper forum with wide input from editors, not just the result of a single RM that happened to go the way you like. GoldenRing (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You're completely incorrect. I did state: "Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier..." but right after that I said: "I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency." In other words, some shouldn't say (pornographic actress) while others say (actress); they should all say the same thing (how is this still not clear?). And it's ironic that you bring up WP:LOCALCONSENSUS considering the discussion that closed in favor of the shorter identifier had more editors comment in contrast to the two editors that commented in each of the other two discussions (which I was neither aware of nor commented in, btw). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Update Erpert has just created a new bio at (actress) and another editor moved Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress)) to Talk:Taylor Hayes (actress) despite a RM having just closed against the move. So these editors are determined... In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you're talking about Casey Calvert (actress), and if you'll recall, a consistent result to the issue has not been done. And another user moving the other article has nothing to do with me. (Have I moved any articles since the discussions started? No, but you have.) Why are you still holding that stick, anyway? (You've even been told to stop by several editors.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Erpert, anyone who looks at the article history can see that your claim that "moving the other article has nothing to do with me" is transparently false. You initiated the move at Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress); you edit warred without opening talk page discussion after your move was reversed, and you refused to substantively participate when talk page discussions were opened, instead casting aspersions and personalizing the discussion. You've been told to stop this, over and over[9], and this needs to stop now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) , 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Where in the world did you get the idea that WP:HOUND was a suggestion? You're not above the rules here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above is WP:HOUNDing you or anyone. As for Talk:Aja (actress)#Japanese actress "been told to stop by several editors" is bizarre, I hadn't noticed it, but I find it bizarre that you as a non-admin take it upon you to put a purple "procedural close" round anyone disagreeing with you on a Talk page. Never seen anything like it.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is listed in a different thread, so instead of steering the discussion in that direction, I'm not going to bring that here. But as for closing the discussion you just mentioned:

1. Non-admins can procedurally close discussions.
2. I clearly stated in the rationale why I closed it: to avoid forum-shopping on the issue. There are even diffs in the rationale that state that the suggestion to close it was given by different editors; did you not read them?

Anyway, as I said to Number 57 when I alerted him/her about this discussion, I'm not complaining about the way s/he closed the two discussions s/he closed at all; all I requested was title consistency. But I gave an additional comment in the now-revived (thankfully) discussion on the porn WikiProject talk page, so I have no problem if someone closes this thread. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Not so fast, Erpert. An involved editor cannot close a discussion, admin or not. You were obviously involved. Your explanation of the close shows reasons that don't justify a non-admin closure. And the outcome wasn't clear-cut, as policy requires. And closing it based on comments in a different discussion, in which you were also involved, is completely unjustifiable. As In ictu oculi quite accurately pointed out, this is an unprecedented departure from policy and practice, and should be reversed without any further delay. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • (Swimming right past the bait...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this close would have been completely inappropriate even if coming from an uninvolved admin, since it suggested (wrongly) that the result of the discussion was to move discussion of a mainstream Japanese actress and fashion model with an ambig problem with the article in question to WT:PORNO(!). Has anyone asked User:Steel1943 if closing the "Japanese actress" thread was actually what they were "suggesting" in the linked diff? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What I was stating on my diff was that the result of one article's RM isn't an appropriate reason to close a discussion on a naming convention page. I had no opinion on what was to be merged into that discussion, but yes, essentially, I felt as though he close was inappropriate given the discussion's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically, though, both discussions had to do with naming conventions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Moderation of Collections?

Greetings Admins,

Two weeks ago, Extension:Gather was enabled on beta for English Wikipedia mobile users, allowing logged in mobile users to create lists of articles. More stats will be shared soon on how the feature has been used so far. Meanwhile, we have drafted a document to discuss further moderation of created Collections--how flagging would work? What do we want to avoid, what do we want to achieve, etc. Please check and add comments/suggestions. Many thanks. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Under current policy WP:Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site it seems any such user pages would be speedily deleted if they don't relate to our work (for example non-editors making a random collections of their favorite bands). It seems to me there are a few possibilities here.

1. We could enforce existing policy and delete-on-sight all collections unrelated to our work here. (Possibly assigning a bot to just bulk-delete them.)
2. We could make these pages an exception to WP:NOTWEBHOST and work up some new acceptability policy for them. (For example a list titled "Likely Rapists", including convicted rapists along with politicians-they-hate would be flagrant BLP violation.) And we could devote substantial editor-time to policing (?)hundreds of thousands(?) of such pages.
3. We could accept this as a WMF project and exempt such pages from our policies and Community management, and let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them. Alsee (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the final option. We already have too few admins to perform the work; no good reason to add an extra responsibility. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As already mentioned in the shared draft, this is not meant to overload admins, if it is agreed that moderation scenarios could depend on different user groups, then be it, that is why we have this discussion. :-) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I still have to ask the question: Does the WMF actually know what editors and Admins actually do here? My contributions are small, but getting larger as time goes by and I learn. This "Gather" application creates "collections" of articles, to be personally maintained by end users, right? People they are somehow expecting to register as editors in order to make their collections? So, in effect, we will be creating a whole new class of editor; one who is interested in generating information for personal use, but not necessarily contributing to actual content. And the Admins will be expected to clean up the mess made by these inexperienced "collection editors" who know nothing about our policies and guidelines? It has taken me MONTHS to learn how to navigate Wikipedia policy and culture, and there are plenty of editors who are familiar with it - and refuse to abide by it! No wonder the Admin corps is shrinking - they are already overworked.

And to follow this, the WMF is going to suddenly allow 1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook automatically? Again, without experience - and suddenly where is the anonymity we swear by? The mind boggles at the vandalism, intentional and otherwise.

Do you know what us "little guy" editors really want? How about an easy way to connect with my Watchlist from my phone? THAT would be something cool to have. To be able to conveniently and intuitively respond to Talk Page messages from my phone, or to see when somebody has vandalized a page I care about. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Endorse ScrapIron's sentiments and option 3. These collections, having no encyclopaedic value, should not have to be managed by administrators of the encyclopaedia. BethNaught (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Eternal April? In all fairness, I don't mind getting lots of new editors, and who knows but that maybe this will attract new people. However, (1) there should be higher priorities for improvements, e.g. the watchlist-via-phone suggestion, and (2) when there are so few admins, don't expect us to start moderating something else. Unless you hire some paid editors to be professional admins, you'll have to remember that we're all volunteers here. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we can decide that in addition to AbuseFilter, which is planned to run on the lists, moderation scenarios, if agreed, doesn't have to depend on admins.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, I would suggest to all admins that they decline to deal with collections (having no encylopedic value), but if something problematic is brought to their attention, that they ping a random selection of WMF staff to deal with it. I'm sure they'll get very bored with that very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook": citation needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that citations were required on the comment boards, but suffice to say the WMF plan is to complete their "Unified Login" project, where one user logs in to all WMF sites - followed buy the "Facebook Unified Login" initiative, where people can log in directly from their facebook accounts - as many websites already do. A recent report shows 1.2 billion unique Facebook accounts log in at least monthly.Treat the information as you desire; as I am not putting it in an article, I don't plan on providing citations. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Like i figured. You are totally wrong. The WMF's unified login has nothing to do with the unified login of Facebook. You should read the latest announcement before making unfounded statements. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If it were true, Wikipediocracy wouldn't have covered it on April Fools' Day. (Or would they? ...) BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I got caught by an April Fool's Day joke, so be it. I had not read a follow up on it, and - to be brutally honest - I would not put such an idea past the WMF. "mea culpa; mea maxima culpa" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)I find the whole WP:NOT thing a total bogus argument here. It's too black an white. Because we are also NOT an encyclopedia (in the traditional sense) and we ARE a web host (also in the traditional sense).. and we are even a memorial site. All are (in)valid up until some vague gray area that we sort of collectively 'sense' that is right. If we start throwing everything that doesn't fit what we currently are under the bus on first sight, then we might as well put a bow on the entire website and call it quits collectively. A sentiment I personally tend to gravitate towards more and more every day. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I really, really try not to be one of those people who automatically poo-poo every new idea the WMF puts forward, but I cannot help but wonder how out-of-touch with the day to day realities here the staff has to be to come up with an idea this terrible, and then two weeks after they enable it ask us admins how we are going to police it for them. We aren't. Do it yourselves if it such a great idea. Don't dump new responsibilities on unpaid volunteers who can already barely keep up and expect us to just craft a policy out of thin air for a feature we do not desire or even understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just had a look at the list of "collections" linked to from the above page, and it already had one called "stupid" that contained a single BLP. (I've "hidden" it.) This will need policing if we want to keep it vaguely compliant with policies like BLP, if the WMF are counting on getting the community to do this then they should have asked first, and I doubt they'll find many volunteers given the very limited value of this feature. Hut 8.5 22:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The first experiment in this project is a pilot feature for providing users with an opportunity to create and share lists of articles - How is this different than a Watchlist? The only difference I can see at first glance is that these new lists would be static, unless you took off articles or put them on, while a watchlist is continually updated when a page (and not just articles) gets edited so it is dynamic. So, these would just be pages with lists of articles and you could "share" them basically how you can share any page, by linking to it...I'm not sure how much supervision would be needed unless these were annotated lists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A few hours ago I came across the list "Evil Corporations" and hid it, but had no way to find out what other lists had been created by the same person. So this is not just wrong in theory, it is problematic in reality. It is difficult being an administrator on this site if people are going to inflict this sort of burden on us. ϢereSpielChequers 04:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently, when you click on the username from the list view, or from the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GatherLists page, you are directed to a page with the user's created lists in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Gather/by/username. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. But when you've hidden a page you no longer have a username for it in the list view.... So normal admin workflows don't apply because these are not standard pages. Make this a way of creating pages in userspace and much of the problem goes away. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Um, how is this different from Wikipedia:Books, a feature we've had with little controversy for, oh, 6 years? Some people complain first, and then later try to figure out a reason to complain... --Jayron32 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• It has a PDF export functionality that is actually useful. This extension has no redeeming value. MER-C 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it primarily provides a similar functionality of making collections of articles, but with a focus on mobile usability. It should lso help with learning lessons on how to improve watchlist functionalities for mobile and desktop.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Request option one, bulk delete by bot – These must be deleted under Wikipedia policies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this extension does not have an API. MER-C 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Gotta laugh. For years we've been asking for multiple watchlists for registered editors (and hey, shared watchlists for registered editors might be useful) but instead we get this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

True, and this has been addressed in the FAQ--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the English Wikipedia community has no power over how the WMF uses its time and employees, and we do not have a way to make sure the WMF actually makes itself useful -- the useful tools we have are developped by our own volunteers via userscripts or external resources. This proposed gizmo is neither useful nor harmful to us and the pages generated by it will be treated exactly as any other userspace or Book: page would under our current policies. If we judge from the current usage of Book-space, I don't supposed the additional work imposed on our administrators to moderate these "lists" will be very significant -- if it creates more work than the benefits it brings, I'm sure the community will agree on ways to prevent its abuse. WMF must at least act responsibly in ensuring this "extension" works without a hitch on desktops (depite its mobile-friendliness) to allow the wide majority of our administrators to work with without obstacles. Creating more toys for people to contribute in ways that don't actually improve content shouldn't become yet another source of problems for the rest of the volunteer community to deal with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Melamrawy (WMF): Assuming I would like to see how amazingly life-changing this Extension is for myself, how do I actually create a list? Mobile Wikipedia is so shit (for admnistrative duties and talk page discussions and various clerking things) that even on my phone and tablet I use the desktop version, so please show me where I can make use of the Gather thing. It's not on my Beta features page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, if you have beta enabled (on mobile view, in settings) you will get a message while browsing articles inviting you to create a collection, or else, click the watchlist start and then you choose to add to watchlist or to a new collection. And as agreed, this is not meant to overburden admins (or any specific user group) with tasks, the product is in early experimentation phase, and the early discussion is to help decide on how to move forward with it--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mobile view makes it impossible for me to perform my administrative/clerking tasks and engage in discussion, so even on my phone I use Desktop. Where can I create a list using the Gather extension? Or are you trying to tell-me-without-saying-it that your shiny new buttons are Mobile-only? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a mobile feature, as clearly mentioned :-). From mobile or desktop, you can navigate, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, in settings, from the drop down menu on the left, you can enable beta features and hence experiment the feature. As mentioned, if the discussion is showing more inclination to treat the lists with less supervision as Liz (talk · contribs) suggested, or to treat them identically like Wikipedia:Books, or to form any other alternate model that doesn't involve admins then we opt to that. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF): What percentage of active editors (more than 10 edits in the last 30 days or some similar metrics) edit primarily using Mobile and not Desktop? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, probably very few, since mobile is currently pretty poor. But this new extension, sadly, doesn't improve that. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going for option 3 per my comments on the previous announcement, all of which are still relevant. MER-C 08:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the WMF product manager for this feature. Thank you for sharing your criticism and concerns. I think I have gathered them all here, but let me know if something is missing:

• This content is not encyclopedic (and therefore doesn’t belong on wp). Neither are personal books, but they have "Export" feature so are useful.
• Moderation tools suck and rely too heavily on admins
• Only on mobile
• Would rather have multiple watchlists/ are annoyed the foundation is not prioritizing features that you (ore even all admin) are asking for.

I think these are all reasonable. Am I missing anything? I wont go into every point, but I do want to share some thoughts on the first point. I share not to convince you, but to hear your take on them. I think of collections as new ways for readers to find content on an encyclopedia. Right now, most of our users come for a specific fact and then leave (I owe you a citation here, but our analytics team confirmed with me yesterday that the median number of pageviews is 1). So you have built this beautiful massive library of knowledge and most people aren't really browsing as much as they could. One goal of this pilot is to help people find interesting, objective encyclopedic content using subjective groupings. The primary reason they are associated with a single user is so that the subjectivity is clear and not mistaken for fact. I think this fits with our mission, but curious to hear if you do not. As Melamrawy (WMF) has pointed out, this is just the first stage for the feature and we hope to make it more useful in the future. We are reaching out in the very early stages to see what you think about the feature and moderation as well. Given that at core, this is essentially a list of pages, do you have any ideas for things that would make this more useful either for readers or as an admin tool? Thanks! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I believed that collections would be a useful way to acheive that goal, I would be more supportive. However, I don't understand how they will draw in that many people. First, people on mobile have to register an account (which currently requires the app, I believe), then start adding pages to their watchlist, which will tell them about collections. The kind of people who come for one fact then leave won't log in or notice these things exist.

Suppose that a significant number of people log in and make collections. The point, as I understand it, is to share them on off-wiki channels? (I wouldn't expect readers to navigate to a special: page to discover lists.) But the types of links that get shared on social media don't really include encyclopaedia articles; mostly it's armchair activism, funny stuff and memes, etc.

If the point is to share the lists with other users, well, that is a smaller target for increasing readership, but also, depending on how pages are marked as being in collections, it could be extremely similar to categories. How about you add them to mobile view?

This is why I don't think this is useful, though if you have some statistics to disprove my premises I'd love to hear them. BethNaught (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

These are all fair points.

1. I agree: people do not share articles on social. I think this is primarily because they are so neutral. By adding a bit of subjectivity, we are just testing to see if that moves the needle or doesn't. We are also exploring sharing from another angle via the share-a-fact feature that just launched on our mobile apps this month (on ios today). Here is the techcrunch article. There is an interesting startup called UpWorthy which recognized that people are sharing a lot on facebook and tried different tactics to get them to share interesting political and progressive materials. This is far far far more subdued experiment.
2. I also agree that any shift away from a quick fact lookup will take some time. I don't expect major engagement from quick-fact-looker-uppers anytime soon. This is another reason it is important to remember that this really is just a first stage--if we can start generating more collections (discovery is currently an issue) from more-than-casual readers or casual editors, then we can start to surface them in a way that does not detract from primary content and see if people find it more useful than categories.
3. Categories: I think one issue I see with current categories as a browse tool is that it is too neutral. If I want to find important German Philosophers, I have trouble using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers because nobody is able to take an opinion on who the influential ones are. However, if a user smarter than I am made this list, I can benefit from subjective knowledge. FWIW, I am also exploring getting categories onto mobile, but its going to be a little bit of an experiment. Okay, I have to run to another meeting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and please let me know if you find anything I said to be off. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Those all seem to be reasonable points. To be honest, I'm still very wary, as I'm sure others will be, of integration with social media. The other issue is why WMF is acting on mobile, not core users on desktop – but that's question 4, which you have declined to answer now. BethNaught (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason I am acting on mobile is because my team is the mobile team.  :) More so than that, because it is lower-trafficked, it is easier to pilot and experiment with things on mobile rather than desktop. Despite those reasons, we are making attempts to bring this from mobile to desktop. Set an alarm for 3 months and come harass me if you don't see progress there. ;) Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all again for your feedback. Given the sentiments and positions expressed (Alsee's option#3 seems to be the winner), my team and I will look to other solutions for moderation of collections. I don't think we will remove the gather-hide permission from the Admin group just yet, but my expectation is that admin's will not be taking an active part in moderation. This is early in the development of the feature, so I would be happy to resume this conversation at later point if you feel the situation has changed enough to warrant it. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So the WMF is going to hire moderators to deal with this content but leave other moderation to volunteers. That's a big change and requires some thought, in particular if someone is blocked by WMF moderators are they also blocked from editing other parts of wikipedia and vice versa? Are you going to set up another service like wp:Refund so that people can request that WMF staff reconsider the deletion of their lists? ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey WereSpielChequers, lets clear this misunderstanding :-). The current situation of moderation is that lists could be hidden, but the users themselves aren't banned. Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, unless you are an admin yourself, and definitely WMF isn't going to hire moderators to take care of a specific feature on a long-term, this would be a weird model. It is good that we are starting the conversation early, and it is good to hear the different voices. Ideally, the decision made collaboratively should depend on how to best maintain the feature in a way that aligns with our existing systems and make the best use of the feature for the movement.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mealrawy: Wait, what? the users themselves aren't banned -> Blocked users (locally or globally) would still be able to use Gather? And what do you mean Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, will there be a different user-right "Gather admin" (or equivalent) that is distinct from "standard local adminship"? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melamrawy, I was responding to Jkatz (WMF) saying that the WMF would look to other ways to moderate collections. As far as I'm aware the only serious options are that the community does it as volunteers or the WMF pays people to do it. Allowing totally unmoderated content on this site is a non-starter and while AI moderation is pretty good, it isn't close to 100% and it takes time and good examples to set it up. As for blocking users, I count myself as very light handed on that, but just as some attack pages earn their creator a block, so will some attack lists, and other list creators will get blocked because otherwise they will just go on creating and recreating the same attack lists. If you want examples of what I'm talking about go through the articles that I have deleted per {{G10}}. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's lots of unclear communication in this thread, and part of it is caused by lack of key information, and part of it is caused by the terminology being used. Generally speaking, Wikipedians (whether administrators or editors) don't moderate anything; we use much more specific terms to cover the activities that I believe Jkatz (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF) are thinking about. We do recent changes patrol, new page patrol, or page curation to review newly added content; and we may use various other tools to identify instances of other problematic content. If something needs to be removed, we revert it, revision-delete it, or possibly delete the entire page. Sometimes we even suppress or suppress-delete content. For most websites, all of these tasks fall under the scope of "moderation"; but because we're a lot more picky about our content than, say, Facebook, we are a lot more fine-grained in describing the tasks related to management of the content.

  I don't think that many people have noticed yet, but these pages will go into the Special:namespace, not into the creator's own userspace. (Yes, they'll be in there with Special:Block and Special:Watchlist and Special:New pages feed and all those other automatically generated pages. This extension adds user-created content into the Special:namespace.) I've tried to explain why this is not a good idea, but perhaps someone else can also do this. As best I can figure, the reason it's in the Special:namespace is that it's sort of vaguely considered to relate to watchlists. I've read just about all the documentation available (although I can't read the underlying code well enough to understand it), and I don't see the connection, either philosophically or technically; however, if the theory is that these pages are closely related to watchlists, then that is an argument to move watchlists into the userspace rather than an argument to permit user-created content into the Special:namespace. I've made that argument already on phabricator. To the best of my knowledge, there's no ability for administrators to do anything in the Special:namespace otherwise, so I don't think this should even be available at the beta level until these issues are adequately addressed. (To me, putting user-created content into the Special:namespace is roughly equivalent to keeping the staff fridge in the basement boiler room.)

  There is also no provision at this time for deletion of this content, only "hiding" - and the "hiding" will still allow the creator to see the content. I see this as a problem as well: Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to allow anyone to keep a 'gathering' of articles with a header describing them as "Bitches I've been stalking" or "Military installations I'm planning to blow up" or....well, a lot of us are quite familiar with the kinds of things that users can create. These need to be DELETED, not hidden. They may even need to be deletion-suppressed, reported to emergency@wmf and the users blocked. I'm relatively indifferent to people keeping lists of stuff in their userspace, so I don't have any concerns about the philosophy behind these pages. Risker (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for anyone else, but my understanding of the situation, based upon discussions at the Project managers talk page and WMF edits at the project page, is that the WMF posted here on Admins noticeboard because they initially pictured Admins doing the work, and my understanding of the current situation is that they take this discussion as us rejecting *admins* doing the work..... and my understanding of the current situation is that their solution is to steamroll forwards with the project based on the idea of assigning this work to *editors* rather than *admins*. Speaking for myself, the WMF has a painfully poor understanding of who we are or how we work. They have no conception of "the Community" in any meaningful sense. We're just a bunch of random Facebook users, and if they set up a DATING NETWORK, then by-golly some random users will show up and do whatever work needs to be done to manage it (because that's what we are, an infinite MAGICAL pool of free labor).... and if ADMINS don't want to get involved that's fine, the Dating Network won't take up any admin time. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. My most recent post to the Project Manager's page was an offer to help him take this to Village Pump, to get a Community Consensus regarding the plan of "editors" moderating collections rather than "admins". Much of my efforts for the last few months has been desperately trying to get the WMF to constructively engage with us in that sort of manner. Alsee (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alsee hmm, I am not sure where did the assumptions of dating service and random facebook users come from, but I have replied to your points on Project managers talk page. Thanks for your points Risker, agreed that "moderation" could better be replaced with "maintenance", also agreed on the need of complete deletion, and sending emergency email to ensure no real threat/damage is taking place. This should be something to develop for the upcoming sprints.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF) Sorry, Dating Network was a Wiki-joke. WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE is the same policy link as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The policy says in part:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Lists of "my favorite bands" are out-of-scope distraction from our work, and in bulk they become disruptive. Alsee (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Right Alsee, maintaining someone else's list of favorite bands, should not be anyone's task at first place, as the drafted document explains, the point behind discussing methods of flagging, revision and deletion, is mainly to ensure that legal policies are met. Something, which regardless of this feature could still be violated, with content that exists under userspace, with creating a book or when multiple public watchlists are enabled for desktop, at some point. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I request a restructure of my current TBAN

Preamble

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

Brief history of the ban

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

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

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

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

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

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

My proposed outcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begoon I kept the restriction because it worked well for me. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

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

• In this edit, he changed the title of a section from "Ethnicity and language" to "Nationalities/Ethnicities and languages", and right below that section, the article reads "..Indians in the United Arab Emirates|Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates|Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates". He also spaced between "[[Bengali language|Bengali]],[[Sindhi language|Sindhi]]". Editing the section title was clearly a major edit because section titles changes the basic meaning or even conclusion of the part that is written below. Most of that section concerns the backgrounds of the people coming from India and Pakistan.
• He made a page move[10], where we can read a major section about India.
• He added a new section to Astrology,[11] where we can find major sections[12][13] about India.
• This edit was major, the article mentions India about 8 times and mentions Pakistan about 7 times.
• [14][15] He has also disputed the factual accuracy of this article[16], that has section about India and he has also participated in the discussions.[17][18]

There are just more to mention, but I think that these few are enough. I have discussed this issue with both Worm That Turned and Dennis Brown.[19] One had unbanned him,[20] while other had blocked him for a month[21] after he had detected some of his topic ban violation upon returning from the site ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Are you saying that it is a violation only if he has edited about those countries and not the articles? Still, at least 2 of the diffs are topic ban violation. Per topic ban, he cannot contribute to these articles because these articles goes on to explain some of the important aspects of those subjects that are related with his topic ban. He made an edit on Liger[22] and the source[23] has mentioned "India" at least 5 times as well as its other locations. Not only once, but at least 2 times[24][25] he had been told not to contribute on those articles that have significantly covered these 3 nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

War edit

User removes the template in The Voice of Peace (marathon). --User:Green Zero — Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Your reason for asking for deletion wasn't one of our criteria for speedy deletion (like the uk:Вікіпедія:Критерії швидкого вилучення page), and please don't edit-war to ask again. If you want me to help you have it deleted, I can help you use the articles for deletion process, like uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати на вилучення. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the template for what it appeared they were aiming for, feel free to throw it off if you dont feel it meets it. I left a note at the original authors talkpage so they hopefully dont remove the tags from their own pages in future. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

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

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

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

Request for Interaction Ban between OccultZone and Zhanzhao

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

I'm raising this at the suggestion of @Yunshui:[26]

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

• blocked twice for edit-warring against a sock he thought was me,[27]
• raising 2 new (failed) SPIs against those same people in an attempt to link them to me [28][29] as well as an ANI,
• accusing other admins (some of them are mentioned below) of incompetency when they did not rule to his liking, and got told off for that,[30][31][32]
• threatening to action against them in ArbCom [33] (other admins have weighed in to say their sanctions against him were justified),
• admin shopping both on-and-off-wiki without success with his list of so-called "evidence" against me,
• and still trying to pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment.

Most of which I documented on my userpage but had hoped not to bring up. He was told repeatedly by many admins to move on after his ANI and 2 SPIs as well as other interaction with the admins i.e. (@DoRD:@Worm That Turned:@Callanecc:@Bgwhite:@Salvidrim!:@Mike V: off the top of my head), and he has found no new evidence against me that he had not previously declared. Some admins even explicitly warned him about his behaviour against me [34]. After he did not get the results he was looking for, he has upped his game from admin shopping to approaching an arbitrator Yunshui directly.

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

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

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

In last 12 days, I discovered and found a lot of things in this case that I haven't even seen in long term abusers. How evident it is that this account was created for evading 3rr, after he could not edit war with IP anymore. Control + F, "eight years have passed" and check his IPs edits [35] [36], and then he created the account and continued the edit war, [37] [38], [39] [40][41] this sort of scenario has been a major factor in his small contribution history. Yes he admitted this IP in question to be his after few months,[42] after he had reverted with it[43] and the page was protected.

It is easy to accept that Zhanhao has abused multiple accounts policy since he joined en.wiki years, he was blocked once for evading his block with IP as well.[44] He explicitly states to have read the the WP:SOCK#LEGIT on an unblock request that was declined.[45] When I made an appropriate attempt to expose his on going abuse of multiple accounts,[46] he insisted that "it was my brother", and a problematic and a non policy based decision took place.[47]

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

Again, abuse is also evident with socking with IPs,[48][49][50][51] and proxies.[52][53][54] This range was recently rangeblocked by Mike V. He admits to to have abused this San Francisco range.[55] He has also reported suspected socks,[56][57][58] in every sense he has abused the policy.

• Apart from the talk pages and the articles, he has abused his two accounts across many namespaces. That would include multiple AfDs,([59][60], [61][62] critical RFC/UA ([63][64]) that saw de-sysopping, deletion review,([65][[66]), topic ban discussion of User:La goutte de pluie.[67][68], ANI,([69] [70], [71],[72], accepting own article for submission.[73].

• It also includes tag team edit warring, for evading 3rr. a)[74][75][76](account signed in after 58 days) b) [77][78][79] [80](this time 45 days after), Zhanzhao [81][82] and many more, list is just too large.

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

His tendency is to bother, irritate many productive editors, often by using multiple accounts. Such as Lee788[83][84][85][86][87], Ahnan,[88][89][90][91][92] etc. That is how he has managed, I am his current target.

• Even now, he uselessly reverts my edits[93] and says that it was his brother who did it.[94] I never hound his contribution history. There is no doubt that we need indef block for this WP:NOTHERE case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am sure this [95] was a coincidence. As I said, which you showed on your 2nd link, That was one singular edit, and I have taken steps to prevent my account from being compromised again. Practically all your evidence are either from years ago, used in the previous SPIs/ANIs, and/or you've already shared them with other admins who ended up disagreeing with you. As for using a VPN service, its the nature of my job as I need to look at US websites that might have content blocked by location. I am sure a verification of the CU data will show that when I am logged on to it, it stays the same throughout and doesnt jump around as if I were trying to keep switching my IP. If I was really socking, I can easily abandon this account. Why would I even want to draw attention to my other so-called available accounts and risk them being linked? Your logic fails here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Yes the blocks were overturned, but he warred against what he assumed were my socks, as seen from the SPIs he raised. Also, Bgwhite who overturned the first block, explicitely said that he regretted it[96], while Worm That Turned said that both blocks were not wrong as well[97]. Other admins have weighed in on it too, if you look at OccultZone's talk page.

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

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

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

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

*He has raised 2 SPIs and one ANI against me, and this takes me away from contributing to wikipedia. As you pointed out, I edit on a wide range of articles. But my range and volume dropped significantly after this happened. And I'm not the only one affected. Even uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta[98]. Not to count the time wasted by all the SPI clerks and admins he has approached who have to go through the same "evidence" repeatedly case after case. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Don't mislead others Salvidrim. Yes your judgement was highly innappropriate. Sad thing is that you even want to fix it, even after having compelling evidence that the abuse was intended. Have you checked those violations through IPs, proxies? Callanecc and DoRD already knows that I have proven the remaining suspects to be blatant sock puppets.(also check [99]) What a silly misrepresentation of outdated "warning" you have made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Looks quick and premature. Only a few days of interaction and 6 or 7 talk pages. We can still hear what they think now. Hajme 17:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nonsensical on so many levels.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Proposal is withdrawn by the requesting user per discussion below. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

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

I have also realized now, he is probably correct that he was not really a problem anymore for me that had been started since 23 March, unfortunately he became the target. That can be also a reason why he watched the contributions. In that case we can just return to our normal form. Having content dispute is one thing, but unnecessarily raising the conduct issues is different.[100] But hopefully, I can agree now. Normally how 2 editors act, that is what we will have to prefer from now. I am writing this not only because of a few realizations but also because of the seriousness that has been shown above by others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socking

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO Delibrzr, actually the context was totally different back then. If you looked at the thread where that about me supposing to know about meatpuppetry [101], it was quoted by DanS76, not me; it was from years ago; and the offending editor Ahnan was actively going to off-wiki forums to recruit people to come into Wikipedia to editwar on his side. When that policy was mentioned years ago, I didn't even think much about the family angle, it was just looking at the "off-wiki" part when I saw that. And you'll observe from the conversation that DanS76 was riling Ahnan up while I was trying to calm Ahnan down to prevent prevent escalation (yes, we don't always agree, which I pointed out before in the old SPI).Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request alteration of WP:EDR entry's wording

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

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

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

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

So I'm here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I demand immediate assistance

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

---

I demand immediate assistance. It seems that a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry. The machinery of the SPI system seems to have been corrupted. We must root out this corruption at once. I need assistance from able-minded editors and administrators at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon. I have provided obvious evidence of sock puppetry, but a group of editors, including a partisan in related disputes, is trying to negate it. It would be appreciate if uninvolved persons could read the evidence, so that we can stamp out this corruption once and for all. There has never been a more clear case in the history of Wikipedia. I will not tolerate the continuance of this corruption. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does a SPI discussion in which only three people have participated provide evidence that "a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry"? RGloucester starts the SPI, Reaper Eternal explains policy - that we don't use checkuser in this particular context - and Bbb23 assesses the evidence. Even if Bbb23 is wrong (or even 'corrupt' - though we have had no evidence for that), there is precisely zero evidence of any sort of conspiracy being presented here AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked over everything and I see no evidence of any sockpuppetry. I also see no evidence of "corruption". Perhaps you need to adjust your perceptions, RGloucester, as I could point you to thousands of cases which are more clear than this one. Perhaps get up from the keyboard and walk it off. It seems you may be getting too emotionally involved in this instance. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you Know?

That framing your request for assistance from your fellow volunteers as a "demand" is the surest way to make people not want to help you? I demand a paycheck. Then we can talk. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is for the common good. No one can reject the collective will. That would be inhuman. There is clear sock puppetry. I don't know what people want from me. It is so clear as to be so clear as to be so clear. There is nothing more to be said. This must be dealt with AT ONCE. The evidence is absolute. Absolutely absolute. There is no room for anything less. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The only evidence for anything you have provided so far is that a single person disagrees with your assertions of sockpuppetry. That person might possibly be wrong. Even if they are, it provides precisely zero evidence of 'corruption'. I suggest that you either provide the evidence, or retract the claim - because otherwise the 'collective will' may very well go against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "you". Only the collective. Regardless, the "corruption" I speak of lies within the accused Dicklyon, who has participated in such corruption since the year 2011. Now that sock puppetry is added in, it is clear that he will not stop at nothing to get his way. He must be stopped! There is not enough time. He must be STOPPED. The evidence is provided at the SPI. It is as light as day. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think RGloucester is referring to me here. I think I plus bbb23 is the "complex of editors". You can review my edits from today to Talk:Blackfriars Massacre and RGloucester's and my talk page. But maybe I'm wrong: RGloucester, it would be helpful if you would be more specific about whose behavior is problematic here and notify them on their respective talk pages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non administrator comment) For the benefit of the OP, perhaps they could be temporarily prevented from continuing this, and have it handled by the admins? It really looks like they could use a break from this for a bit. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone must be problematic, for there is no "ONE". Combined we are a complex, separate we are non-existent. Destroy the sock puppet. The sock puppet must be destroyed. I will not allow the continuation of this corruption. One cannot criticise the person who sheds light on sock puppetry. One must challenge the master. It is the master who must be CHALLENGED. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to go ahead and say what we are all thinking: you are ranting like a crazy person. I don't think you are a crazy person though. So maybe you just need to calm down and consider the possibility that you are simply mistaken and there is not some vast conspiracy to promote socking? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I will not tolerate...I will not allow. This is not your call. You can choose to continue editing or stop, those are the choices that are available to you. Do not dig yourself into a deeper hole or you might not be able to get out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Dicklyon of this discussion. RGloucester, etiquette demands notice to involved parties when posting here about someone. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

CORRUPTION! The corrupt have no concern for etiquette! Do we grant them what they deny? Enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god. I decided to try to figure out what Rglou was ranting about. Maybe I didn't look deeply enough, but it appears the issue is whether "Blackfriars massacre" should have a capital M. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty close to accurate. A true shame. Two generally useful editors banging their heads together. Produced more heat than light. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Given the above, it seems self-evident that at this moment in time RGloucester has gone into full-blown hyperbolic rant mode, and accordingly doesn't stand the slightest chance of winning over anyone to his point of view. I would thus have to suggest that it would be in his own self-interest if he were to be blocked for a period of 24 hours so he can calm down, think about the point he is trying to get across, compile proper evidence, and then make a case that doesn't involve denial of the existence of contributors as individuals, assertions of being the personification of the collective will, and other attempts to channel Mao, Stalin and/or Charlie Chaplin. If he has a genuine issue, it will be better discussed calmly, and without calls for revolution and the return of the Patriotic Shortener. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this RGloucester/Dicklyon conflict for some time and while I have tended to side with RGloucester on the merits, I now believe that user has gone too far. There's something deeper and uglier here which needs timely treatment. Previously I was going to suggest a iban between the users but in the SPI and the thread above RGloucester has revealed that some preventative sanction might need be taken against that user. If they can't themselves take a time out, perhaps a block may help. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing his block log it is clear this is not the first time he has freaked out like this. Clearly very short blocks have failed to send the intended message, so I've just blocked for two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Both the block and its length seem appropriate and necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest one week, but two is just fine. Thanks for taking action. Still suspect an iban will be necessary. BusterD (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

For the record, within 24 hours of RGloucester's demand for assistance here, User:Dicklyon was blocked for violations of the sockpuppetry policy. Despite RGloucester's poor behavior above, it appears that he was correct in his initial assertion. It could be reasonably argued he disrupted the pedia to make a point, but if he'd been patient, he may not have gotten the same outcome. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is just sad and pathetic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Null edit needed on protected template

Would a helpful admin please make a null edit on {{sfn}}? Just open it and click save. I have added some TemplateData fields to it and would like to verify that everything has worked correctly, but changes don't take effect until an edit is made. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Done, did it work? NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  It did. May have to tweak it some, but the fields are now visible in the visual editor, which is what I was looking for. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure review of Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox

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

---

Perhaps this unedifying discussion can now end? Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The close was requested at Requests for closure, as can be seen above. I closed the thread "Infobox" with this statement. One of the voters who disagrees my closure, has reverted the close and started edit-warring about it instead of taking it to the appropriate place, which is here. The question is: Was my closure of the thread (an RfC/straw poll on having or not having an infobox) correct? Kraxler (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Your closure was highly partisan, and was rightly reverted. I note that the editor who reverted you has already asked an independent admin to re-close it, or to find another who will do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) May I quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review#Pigsonthewing's discussion style (II): "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present." Well... Kraxler (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Kraxler, your non-admin close was reverted and a neutral admin close requested in its place. That is an acceptable request by the parties. Leave it to someone who gives less impression of having a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I don't have any dogs in this fight. My closing statement speaks for itself. Check it out, opinion vs. facts, partisanship vs. guidelines. But if you say that a NAC can be reverted and an admin closure asked for instead, I'll take your word for it. Kraxler (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) It reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Your remit to weigh arguments extends only to their immediately-apparent validity and application of policies and guidelines; your task is to gauge consensus, however flawed you - personally - believe the outcome to be. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you, you are the first user who actually opines on the question asked. The result was no consensus because none of the arguments had much weight. They all say what their personal preference is, one says the article looks better with it, the other says it looks better without it. The actual vote was 6 to 3 or so, but we all know the famous RfA question of four voters saying A without citing guidleines and one voter saying B with a convincing argument, and all admin candidates say "the outcome is B". This requires the closer to explain why the outcome was B, and not A. I explained clearly why the outcome was "no consensus". That's my remit as a closer. I didn't vote. I couldn't care less whether Beethoven has an infobox or not. On the contrary, Beethoven's infobox consisted only of the most basic entries, about five lines, and didn't look all that horrible. But the result of the discussion is determined by the !votes and guidelines, not by my opinion. Kraxler (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Kraxler, your close seems not have taken into account that when the discussion started on 24 December the article had an infobox. Those opposing did not make a convincing argument to remove it. It was removed without respect for the ongoing discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Gerda, the existence of the box (for 28 days) was expressly mentioned in the closing statement. Come on Gerda, I know you can read. Kraxler (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I didn't read far, - so much was wrong with it. - A closure - any closure - should be made by an independent person. You seem not to be the one. Kindly step back and let an uninvolved admin handle it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I have stepped back already. Per Guy, any uninvolved admin may close the debate at any time. Also, I don't think that people who voted in a discussion should say anything in a review of it, as a general principle, not just right here. Because it tends to rehash the whole argument again and again, and not to independently review an issue. Just to remind you, the issue here was not to add or to remove an infobox, the issue was whether my closure was correct under the guidelines and policies. That point has become moot. I'll withdraw this request. Kraxler (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Where was the "convincing argument" to add one in the first place Gerda? CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC) This was a talk page debate, not an RfC. I've summarised the debate as I see it at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven #Summary. Kraxler, you were attempting to game the system, and I expect an uninvolved editor reading that debate to see that. Not one of the arguments made by those wanting to remove the infobox stands up, and all of the arguments wanting to retain it has been addressed (but that's a debate for the talk page). When the debate started on 24 December 2014, the article had had an infobox since I restored it on 30 November 2014. After the debate started, the infobox was once again removed contrary to our normal practice of stopping the disputed edits once debate starts. It seems that by your logic, it is important to edit-war one's preferred version into the article for as long as possible, since that counts as "stability" and "status quo". That's not how we conduct ourselves on Wikipedia and you should be ashamed of using such divisive methods to achieve your preferred goal. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Please sign your posts. The stable version is the one that persisted for years, not for 28 days. The "status quo" at this moment is "no infobox". That's a fact. I repeat: he "status quo" at this moment is "no infobox". Do you dispute that? Kraxler (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog

CAT:CSD is looking a bit backlogged, it's been hovering around the 100 mark for a while now. Could somebody take a look through it sometime? Pishcal — ♣ 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by 103.226.86.254 at Koobface.

103.226.86.254 has been repeatedly vandalizing Koobface. Please see Special:Contributions/103.226.86.254 Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peaceray, thanks for raising this. More than one IP vandalising the article so I've semi-protected it for a couple of days until they get bored. You can also get a quick response to vandalism by drawing attention to it at WP:AIV -- Euryalus (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes them a few hours even if the vandalism is obvious. Delibzr (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends if Materialscientist is online or not. But we could always do with more admins patrolling AIV. Nominations welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2 1/2 year Backlog at WP:EF/R

There are unresolved requests at WP:EF/R dating back to 2013! If any admins with Edit Filter experience could dodge over there and close down some of the old requests (it seems clear that a 2-year old unfulfilled request is likely to be formally denied) and perhaps respond to some of the new requests (there are several recent requests for new edit filters that could use some work) that'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron32 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• If there are any trusted non-admins with experience with regexes and such, you could absolutely help out. I expect that a majority of admins (like myself) know too little of this type of work to be of much use with setting up edit filters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New editor removing other editor's comments

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

---

Hi! José Antonio Zapato (talk · contribs) is a new editor who has decided to dive into discussing the potential deletion of a redirection. He deleted a comment I made at an RfD for a redirect. When I reinserted the comment and informed him on his talk page that editors should not remove or alter other editors comments, he reverted my comment again as well as reverted my comment on his talk page. He cited WP:NPA for reverting my comment on the RfD the second time- I don't believe my comment was in any way a violation of this, although his citing wikipedia policy indicates he should know enough to not remove comments by other editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment reads like a sarcasm, but it is not actually offensive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have done this. I've removed a sarcastic comment directed at me personally by name. It is unhelpful in a discussion about redirects and attacks me specifically. Please advise the editor above to stop re-inserting it. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not same as attack. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate this incivility is tolerated. I had no quarrel nor interaction with this editor previous to his comment, but one sarcastic remark encourages an equally sarcastic response, and on and on until the database contains more sarcasm than encyclopedia. C'est la vie. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack in the grand schmee of things. It is pointless snark. Inexplicably you have both now edit-warred to the edge of 3RR over this issue. I've hatted the comment so you can alternately ignore it and still feel like you made your point. Please now both find something more productive to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's an important lesson here. Sometimes, people do things they shouldn't. Sometimes also, the appropriate response is to do nothing. Yes, the sarcasm was incivil and should not have happened. The appropriate response, in this case, should still have been nothing. Wikipedia does not have mechanisms for punishing minor violations of the civility policy (nor should it.) Instead, we need to be able to both recognize that the initial comment should not have been made, and also be OK with doing nothing in response. --Jayron32 03:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog of 35 XFD items at WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

Proposal to use {{fakeheader}}s

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

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

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

Idiocracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP insisting on changing description of location.

Resolved

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

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

Andreas Lubitz DRV

There is a discussion about a merge outcome of an RfC. Given potential venue issues (I don't know that's it clear where such a discussion goes, here or DRV) I thought it wise to post a notification here. [102]. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

I happened upon this discussion on Talk:Nazi gun control theory, and saw this diff. I investigated further, and found that Lightbreather has a history of disruptively editing articles, as seen by [103], [104] and a multitude of other 3RR warnings. User:Ched has given Lightbreather a final warning [105] about her incivility, and I think it is time that action be taken. [106] Her uncivil "retirement" message where she talks about the uncivil discussions on gun control. I'd also like to reference her incivility towards Sue Rangell, which resulted in a messy conclusion, to say the least. She has also received a 6 month topic ban in the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, let's see if I can dig the desired diffs out of those links: [107] [108] [109] [110] (the last one seems to be referring to the box of big text at the beginning). That should do it for diffs of warnings, but I agree that it doesn't show her disruptively editing articles; if it shows anything, it's a pattern of general behaviour that may or may not need to be addressed (I haven't enough information to know). Disclaimer: I found out about this from IRC; Chess gave no names so as not to canvass, but the research required to find this discussion was minimal. ekips39❦talk 05:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article[111], they wanted this article to be titled Assault Weapons Ban and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[112] then before that closed a Move Request was initiated[113] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[114]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on.
• National Rifle Association - This is a frequent recipient of LB's efforts. The article has existed since August of 2002[115], LB joined WP in March, 2007. So far there are 1,372 distinct Editors to the article, but yet Lightbreather is responsible for over 10 percent of the total edits. I'm not saying that LB has not made worthwhile contributions, but the arguing over how exactly to say it and which sources LB considers acceptable are relentless to put it nicely. The article Talk page pretty clearly demonstrates this currently IMO, but it goes back quite a while.
• Topic & Interaction Ban and short term Block of the Firearms Project Coordinator[116] - I'm not defending the statements that Mike Searson made, but I feel that the situation happened because he was pushed to his limits and just finally went off on LB[117]. So now we have a Project Coordinator that is banned from addressing part of what his project is about. Another Editor and I have come up with a proposed solution for this, but that's off this topic for now.
• Recent ANI - This is one of a number of instances where LB makes a request and when its ignored, rebuffed, or not immediately and completely accepted, LB is upset over it. In this situation there was the mitigating circumstance of an injured arm, but its not the first time that LB has told other Editors to not edit an article because either 1) LB is actively in the middle of editing and does not want to be interrupted, or 2) cannot be around to monitor the editing of others. There are difs that further demonstrate this, but I don't wish to devote a significant chunk of my day to track them down.
• Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 - This example is IMO actually one where LB demonstrated restraint in what the article contained and how it was sourced. But what sets this article apart is that LB has nominated it for Good article status[118]. But even the selection of the Main image was not without its fair share of debate[119]. Some of these discussions, then bled over into Gun Control Act of 1968 where admittedly I picked up a WP:STICK I had waived around about 10 months ago[120] regarding one very specific detail in the History section of the article.[121] This time, after discussion on the Talk page I asked for a Third opinion which went against me. Accepting that outcome, I rewrote the section in question using all of the original references and attributing them sentence by sentence. It started out as this[122] and after discussion and the Third opinion, I edited it to this[123]. This included discussion and explanation on the Talk page of how I arrived at the most recent version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A link problem

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

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

Mis-spelled name

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

---

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

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

Requesting restoration of 3 pages

Hello,

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

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

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

IBAN notice

• User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Contravention_of_IBAN

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