Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 84 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 43 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler#Splitting proposal - Sep. 2024

(Initiated 62 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	13	0	13
TfD	0	0	9	0	9
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	9	0	9
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 192 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Larnoch_Road_murders#Requested_move_2_October_2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 2 October 2024) Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

I propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title [6] [7] [8] and adding disputed material [9]), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say [10] [11] [12], and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used [13] [14]. On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [15] [16], made false allegations of sock puppetry [17], actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics [18] [19] [20] [21] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of Harassment [22] [23]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc).

Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, at this second GAN he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial discussion

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN specific sanctions

As per the discussion above involving User:Nyttend and User:Snowded, this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for Heathenry (new religious movement). It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded ^TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Update as of 18 November: A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ad hominem attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry here, including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to Odinism and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations.

I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (talk) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. )

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, [24] made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person.

For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --ThorLives (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--ThorLives (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.

As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".

All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, every edit that I ever made to Heathenry (new religious movement) was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article?

If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.

Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Several new points (before I leave.)

This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.)

After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on Odinism. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists.

Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.

Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one

Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing?

As for the "65-year old [sic] male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation.

I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent.

Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia.

Cheers! --ThorLives (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Wikipedia and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were demonstrably not true because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing here at Wikipedia so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request backlog

The list of conflict-of-interest requested edits is at an all-time high of 130 requests; also, the list of semi-protected edit requests is also abnormally high, currently at 101. Any assistance in clearing the backlog is highly appreciated. There's another reason for urgency: while some PR editors initially comply with Wikipedia's COI editing protocol by making a talk page request, after weeks of silence they assume that their edits must meet our guidelines owing to the lack of objections, and make the edit themselves. Closer scrutiny by the community would probably have disallowed such changes. Many of the articles with pending COI edit requests are already littered with promotional material, and in the wake of the Orangemoody scandal, we should be doing all we can to clean up. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging ISIL community sanction

I motion to challenge WP:GS/SCW&ISIL with respect to ISIL in general, and the November 2015 Paris attacks article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed Israel-Palestinian sanctions, first [Syria] and then to ISIL, by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope.

I am not sure this really qualifies as "community consensus" for community-authorized sanctions, or even if community-authorized discretionary sanctions are a reasonable thing, but even if it does and they are, I believe this claimed consensus can be challenged on the grounds that less than a dozen editors formed it, while on Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks a comparable number of editors impugned it or objected to the application of the sanctions.

In fact, this sequence of events happened on the article's talk page:

• the original proponent of the Syria sanctions placed a notice that they were in effect
• I objected on the ground that keeping the recent high-traffic article under a strict WP:1RR policy would discourage editors such as myself
• An administrator removed the sanctions template under a multi-facted rationale
• There was support for this action, as well denouncing that the "broad construction" of these sanctions makes their scope indefinite
• I complained about receiving an 1RR warning notice shortly after I had newly objected to the sanctions, as a perceived act of intimidation fro mediting (the sender later assured me it was not, but I still think that's the practical effect, especially given the notice allows subsequent blocking without further warning)
• Proponents of the sanctions pointed out they still applied, regardless of the presence or absence of any template
• Fuzheado again removed the sanctions template with an explanation, although it was again pointed out that sanctions would apply anyway; but Fuzheado explained that the most important immediate outcome was to stop scaring editors away

Although the various points against the sanctions (at least on the particular article) were repeatedly stated in some of the above-linked diffs, I will make a summary:

• The community had created a decent working dynamic on the article without 1RR enforcement
• This is a current-events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and ISIL-related
• The potential for block with two reverts may have a chilling effect, when it's hard to follow the fast and often spurious edits
• Almost all editors involved at this point would be unable to revert without risking an immediate block, except for drive-by editors
• It's not an article among the ones in contention from the original and subsequently widely expanded ArbCom case

It is certainly due to my bias, but the points for the sanctions I could read basically amounted to:

• They were approved before

Therefore, I ask you to consider the following two questions:

1. Shall WP:GS/SCW&ISIL continue to apply unchanged on articles like November 2015 Paris attacks where there are arguably exceptional circumstances and a locally shared opposition to actively applying them?
2. Shall the current "broadly constructed" scope of these sanctions undergo new scrutiny and possible narrowing, considering it was previously expanded with little community input?
3. Shall the sanctions continue to exist at all?

My use of emphasis above is to underline the salient points of this motion as I recognize it is a relatively long read. LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought, by reading the archived discussion, that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? LjL (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so ArbCom established a temporary 30 day sanctions regime specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then replaced with community sanctions that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started "to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions", the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not "fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes", so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. LjL (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But possibly also much less editing, at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. LjL (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A similar problem is happening on Metrojet_Flight_9268. There is less and less controversy over ISIL, with pretty much everyone saying they are bad. The exceptions are punk trouble maker editors and/or johadists who come along and put pro-ISIL propaganda in. Any post I've made saying the sanctions apply should only be interpreted as affirming their existence, not as necessarily my support for them continuing. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context.

A summary of the main conflict as described above:

• For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a one revert rule (1RR) being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block.
• If we consider the November 2015 Paris attacks page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad.
• Out of WP:COMMONSENSE, I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me.
• That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of Hard cases make bad law, and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are not a newspaper. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's broadly construed, not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Wikipedia. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. 98.67.1.155 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: here are a couple of examples of these sanctions being directly used to have a chilling effect: "I will report anyone that exceeds 1RR", "In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions". These imply that there won't be, at least from the part of those editors, any discerning on whether there is an actual edit war in progress or just any technical violation of 1RR (coming from partial or unrelated reverts, for example), something which had been used as "common sense" explanation that the sanctions would only be applied when really deserved. I'm not sure I want to risk my editing privileges over people trying to make a WP:POINT by reporting every possible thing... LjL (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable. Volunteer Marek  07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Report me then. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, sending people more chilling notices because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they removed the sanctions template again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you promptly re-added it). You have previously accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of mission creep from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Wikipedia is not a police state, and should not be encouraged to become one. --John (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Requesting help with this matter, as User:Volunteer Marek is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me this sort of notice about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally WP:POINTY fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at this talk page section. LjL (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your WP:OWN version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAME, almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: You filed this freakin' motion!. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're challenging the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously?  Volunteer Marek  21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system". Volunteer Marek  22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread here appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You said initially that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and you acknowledged it, but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • This is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:GAMING: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. LjL (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
            • • You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your WP:OWN version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
                • 1) No, the motion was about the other article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) WP:CANVASSING isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article is in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to WP:OWN, you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because you seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. LjL (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, this report is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. LjL (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of WP:OWNERSHIP is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". LjL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support = Revoke an overreach of the sanction system and restore commonsense because a few editors have used this to push their own agendas. Bod (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I object to the imposition of the 1RR at November 2015 Paris attacks. In the talk page discussion about this, we had been assured by RGloucester, who I foolishly thought was an administrator (it turns out he's just an editor who has been blocked seven times) that, "Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy", implying there was nothing to worry about as long as we didn't edit war over ISIL or the Syrian Civil War. In practice, I received a warning for three unrelated non-SCW/ISIL good faith reverts. I feel that the policy has been abused and therefore support LjL's motion. Firebrace (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd read the sanctions page, you'd understand that 1RR is not on imposed on the basis of the content of edits, but on the basis of whether the page is related to the topic under sanctions, broadly construed. You received a notice of the existence of the sanctions some days before that explained this, and yet broke 1RR. 1RR is a bright line, and you should not've made more than one revert in twenty-four hours on that page. That's on you. I never claimed to be administrator. Anyone can issue the DS notices, as I mentioned on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close the TP discussion

Much of the above results from Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Consensus_about_Polish_reactions and a similar discussion elsewhere. Volunteer Marek is still reinstating the POV tag. I have just reverted. Can someone please review that talk page section and close as they see fit, otherwise this could ping-pong in perpetuity. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter RfC

Just a heads up that an RfC is now underway regarding an addition to the edit filter guideline, taking on board some feedback from the RfC for the recently updated page. Opinions welcomed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Resolved by motion of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Google Relying on Wikipedia

Google has, for the first time in two years, published their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/11/updating-our-search-quality-rating.html

The guidelines mention Wikipedia repeatedly (52 times) as a source of useful information. Those trying to maneuver to the top of Google will be here trying to engineer the right kind of content. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the above document, and watching for such activity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This document talks about Wikipedia being used to help determine the reputation of websites and companies. It also talks about assessment of authority of Wikipedia articles based on the number of references included. Updated Wikipedia articles are more likely to have a better reputation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to lift the topic ban of DrChrissy

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

---

It is 6 months since my indefinite topic ban was imposed on the 20th May 2015.[25] I am now seeking a lifting of this ban.@Awilley:

Although the subject-area of my ban was initially confused, the locus relates to three subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) WP:MEDRS and (3) human medicine articles. I have not edited any pages in these subjects or entered into discussions about them during the last 6 months. However, there was initially some confusion on my part whether the topic ban included my sandbox. It was subsequently pointed out how it did, which I accepted. At that time, it was unclear from the WP:Banning policy that personal sandboxes were included. Therefore, after realising the omission, I edited the policy article to specify this to improve the project and give more accessible and accurate future guidance for editors and administrators.[26]

Throughout the last 6 months, I have been highly motivated to remain a responsible Wikipedian and contribute positively to the project whilst avoiding violating my topic ban. To ensure this, I have on several occasions contacted the (final) closing admin, User:Awilley, e.g. here[27] and another admin, User:Slimvirgin, to discuss my potential edits.

During the last 6 months, I have remained a highly productive editor, focusing primarily on animal behaviour and animal welfare articles.[28] For example, I recently substantially re-wrote Pain in fish and started the article Pain in amphibians. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as the science reference desk e.g. here[29]

I believe the fundamental reason for my attracting a topic ban was my lack of understanding WP:MEDRS as applied to alternative medicine. This meant I challenged the guidelines in what became a very pointy and tangential approach to editing Talk pages. I was trying to make the point that it seemed to me at the time, there was inconsistency in the way that sources were being considered as reliable or not. I have now fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:POINTY. I recognise and accept my actions leading to the topic ban were disruptive to the project. I apologise and I pledge it will not happen again.

Briefly, I believe my topic ban has prevented the topic area from being disrupted by myself for the last 6 months. During this time, I have reflected upon and learned why I caused this disruption in the topic area. I will adjust my future editing in the topic area to ensure I cause no further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I have conflicted feelings about this request. I have some questions for DrChrissy that I would be interested in having answered. First, do you really want to be able to edit in that topic area? If you can be productive editing in other areas, as I believe that you are, what good would come from you returning to edit about alt med etc? Second, there is a significant possibility that the GMO arbitration case, now in the proposed decision stage, will end up issuing a new topic ban, in the GMO topic area. How can you reassure the community, in that context, that it is really true that you have taken on board the lessons of the ban that you now ask to be lifted? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Brief non-admin comment: This editor has violated their topic ban as recently as late August. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when I read this was much like Tryptofish's. If your behavior outside the area of your first topic ban leads to a second topic ban, how can we believe that removing the first ban would be a good idea? Deli nk (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Comment by proposer Thanks for the format change Trypto. You raise an extremely good point. I actually do not want to make editing in-roads into the subjects covered by my topic ban. I have no plans to edit human medicine articles (the irony here is that I cannot recollect ever having substantially edited a human medicine page before - although I may have at some point). I also have very little motivation to edit alt.med articles, except where these relate to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. I feel, however, I will become involved in WP:MEDRS, but again as this relates to animals. I have not looked at the MEDRS/Talk page for many months. The last time I did, there were discussions to extend MEDRS guidelines to animals and perhaps other science pages. I feel I have something to contribute to these discussions, but please be assured, these will not be disruptive contributions.

So, why do I want the topic ban lifted? It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing. There are several editors out there playing "gotcha" with me. Some editors have argued that because I have included content on the environmental toxicity of a substance to rats, this means I am making a comment on human health and therefore I have violated my topic ban. In reality, my reason for entering the content was that rats are often used as a model for the toxicity of a substance to other mammals in general. Other editors have effectively suggested that if I am using a source, I should count the words and if more of the words relate to human health rather than animal health, I am in violation of my topic ban if I use the source! Working under this extremely negative, microscopic surveillance has been totally exasperating for me and I wish to return to editing articles without such scruitiny of my editing.

Regarding the current ArbCom case, I would like admins here to look at this diff, please.[30] Note the first diff of apparent evidence at the PD relates to my behaviour well before the imposition of my topic ban and shows only a single reversion by me. The 2nd-4th diff in the PD also indicate just a single reversion on my part. I would argue this is not disruptive behaviour, but rather, indicates the topic ban I received here has helped me understand and develop a more balanced approach to engaging in such disputes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not-a-votes

• Strong oppose - DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems. I see absolutely no benefit to the project in releasing him from any sanction they are currently under. Further, the reason given for wanting out from the ban "It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing." Well, that's too bad, they shouldn't have edited in such a fashion as to be topic-banned - and the attitudes expressed 'All these editors are picking on me and looking over my shoulder monitoring my edits' does not bode well for non-combative editing should the ban be lifted. NO, just... no. BMK (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I obviously do not see it in such absolute terms as you do. One possibility I am wondering about would be basically to leave the topic ban in place, but to carefully amend it, by revising it to decrease the ambiguities over where the boundaries are. Perhaps some veterinary topics could be designated as permitted within the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support for editing pages related to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the TB handcuffs DrChrissy from being the productive editor he could be in his area of expertise. It has become more like a punishment than a deflector of potential disputes and that hurts rather than helps the project. Atsme^📞📧 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with Atsme that unshackling DrChrissy is more likely to help the project than hurt it. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I have to note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision a current case before Arbcom. Though it's possible they can change their positions before the close, right now it looks a whole lot like she's treading towards a topic ban in another area. I note the finding of facts here. This does not present much confidence to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support DrChrissy did not violate his topic ban as Yobol suggests, DrChrissy was in fact banned
  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)
  His post didn't cross that line. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• I continue to think that the wisest course of action here is to better define the boundaries. Personally, I am very sensitive to the fact that it is unfair to DrChrissy to always have to look over one's shoulder. There is a difference between a user being required to be careful in adhering to a sanction, which is appropriate, and a user always having to worry about getting caught in a "gotcha", which should never deliberately be part of a sanction. If there are "gotchas", that doesn't constitute appropriate "punishment", but rather it reflects excessively vague writing of the sanction.

So, @DrChrissy: Would lifting the prohibition on alternative veterinary medicine, while retaining the restriction on alternative human medicine, be helpful to you? If so, would you be willing not to get involved in MEDRS? How would you like to define the boundary with respect to things like animal studies such as that study about toxicity in rats? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply from OP Trypto, thank you very much for this. I know you are trying to help. I could argue for or against your proposal, however, I feel this ultimately comes down to the question, if the alternative veterinary medicine area no longer needs protection, why does alternative medicine and MEDRS need further protection from me? Where are the edits to suggest these latter 2 of the 3 areas of the locus still need protection from me? I feel very strongly that accusations here such as "DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released [sic] fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems." by BMK above should be supported by diffs or other evidence. Otherwise this may deteriorate into a drive-by shooting.

Just to indicate the difficulty of working with a topic ban on MEDRS, try explaining to a new editor mistakenly imposing MEDRS on an animal behaviour article with respect to primary and secondary sources without mentioning MEDRS! How can my inability to even point the editor in the correct direction possibly be beneficial to the project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to discuss the boundaries in this way, rather than just jumping prematurely to a concrete proposal. I see better now what you are saying about MEDRS. Perhaps you should be able to refer to MEDRS and to cite its proper or improper use in veterinary or animal-related discussions, without actually editing the MEDRS page or its talk page, or making or discussing proposals about how to revise MEDRS. As for alternative human medicine, I too would like to see specifics. From both "sides". I'd like you to indicate specifically what kinds of edits you would like to be able to make there, and I'd like other editors to indicate specifically what edits you have made that they think have been disruptive. Then, let's see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never edited WP:MEDRS and I see no reason why I would want to edit the main article in the foreseeable future. I have edited the talk page. At the time of my topic ban being imposed, there were discussions there about extensions of the MEDRS guidelines to include animals and veterinary science. I would contribute to these discussions - however, after having just looked at the Talk page, it appears these discussions are no longer ongoing. I would perhaps like to contribute positively in discussions where animals are used as models, particularly in behavioural studies and perhaps in zoonoses. Regarding alt.med articles, again I would like to edit where my knowledge of animal physiology, behaviour, and adequate design/controls for animal studies will benefit the article and the project. As I indicated in my OP, I have fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS and I would make edits fully compliant with these guidelines.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm pursuing this because I think it is becoming pretty clear that, no matter what, there will not be a consensus for a complete and unconditional lifting of the ban, so I'm trying to pin down something that would be better than nothing. I'm friendly to lifting the ban with respect to veterinary and animal-related topics. I think that, given what you just said, there may no longer be much reason for you to really be involved in the MEDRS talk page. Perhaps we can examine lifting the ban with respect to veterinary alt med (but not human alt med), and animal testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not share your belief there will be no consensus for an unconditional lifting, unless contributors are allowed to make unfounded accusations against me without providing evidence. What is your evidence that MEDRS needs further protection from me? (Please note that animal testing is not part of my topic ban and never has been.)DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have that kind of evidence myself, and I'm not claiming to. I'm just trying to discuss things, keeping in mind that this is not a vote. At this point, I'm going to step back and watch what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tryptofish, Yobol, and BMK. I see nothing that indicates the ban should be lifted at this time. That the editor wants such a ban lifted only 6 months later tells me they are chomping at the bit to start editing the topic banned articles immediately. And that tells me lesson not learned and disruption will once again likely be the result. If such is the case, what will the response be? An indef ban for the account rather than a topic ban alone? I don't see this request as a wise move on the requesting editor's part nor do I see that there won't be more problems for the editor down the road. The evidence just isn't there. More time has to pass, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to reply to each and every posting here - I have learned from experience that such an approach is not looked favourably upon at WP. However, Winkelvi (who I believe I have never interacted with before) misinterprets my keenness to have the topic ban lifted. I have already indicated above my future editing intentions if the ban is lifted - I will not re-hash these, but will re-iterate there is no desire on my part whatsoever to rush into editing any of the areas I am banned from. Winkelvi, please AGF. My chomping at the bit is to allow me to edit more positively and comprehensively (note the example regarding MEDRS I gave above - this is just one example where the project is actually suffering from my topic ban). You say "The evidence just isn't there." - could you please tell me what evidence you would like to see?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up - Tryptofish has not voted Oppose. He has actually made some very reasonable suggestions about a modified topic ban which are under discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that I have not yet really "voted" either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per Supports above, and DrChrissy's statement just above. Opposers are utterly unconvincing and appear to be grasping at straws. This is a noted content provider that has served their time, and is not intimidated by the experience. Bravo! Jusdafax 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor is up for an ArbCom topic ban due to the same behavior that resulted in the current topic ban and people want to lift it? Makes no sense. Though I see a lot of the same names supporting here that are involved in said GMO case.Capeo (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Capeo: I have just left a message for User:Edgar181 below, but as you have posted a similar assertion, I will pose the same question to you. To help the closing admin understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What is my evidence? Seriously? There's plenty over on the case pages themselves for those who want to peruse it. The same behavior would POV pushing and some edit-warring as well. Capeo (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. You have still not provided evidence; you have simply said where evidence might be found. The case pages are enormous! You are proposing a huge time-sink for the closing admin to determine if your statement is legitimate and worthy of taking into account.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick follow up - the PD presented only 4 diffs, all of which were related to only 2 interactions but clearly showed goading of me by one very notorious editor. The diffs contained only 2 reversions by myself, one in each interaction presented as "evidence".DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Whipsers): Psst, DrChrissy, placing blame on another editor isn't helping you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Typto - heard and understood.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I will indeed leave it to the closing admin to decide if my oppose is legitimate. Your history of conflicts in fringe areas is evident enough for them to see just from what lead to your current topic ban and the one soon to be imposed by ArbCom. Capeo (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of which "fringe" pages I have edited since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Since your topic ban? Not much, if any. Which was the point of the topic ban. If it ain't broken don't fix is my thought. Capeo (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The point of the topic ban was to protect MEDRS, human medical and alt.med articles - "fringe" articles (an absolutely enormous topic area) were not even mentioned by the closing admin. I am making this point because you and several other "opposing" editors have accused me of editing "fringe" articles since my ban. I have challenged each and every one of you to produce evidence of this. None of you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. This makes your opposition unfounded and repeats of this accusation are misleading the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Let me start by saying I do believe DrChrissy is a good faith editor who genuinely has the best interest of Wikipedia's readers at heart. I would add that there were some problems with the original topic ban, namely that users agreed to a ban on "biomedical topics" without really defining what that term means, leading to some messiness when trying to impose and define the scope of the ban, which in turn led to far more after-discussion than should have been necessary for a simple topic ban. Because of these factors I am inclined towards leniency/AGF here.

I'm not sure if the edit cited from August really constitutes a violation of the ban, but if it does I believe this was not intentional, and frankly I don't really feel like reviewing an entire arbcom case to see what's going on there. If arbcom feels a new, different sanction is warranted they are perfectly able to implement it, but I dislike the idea of denying this request because of an accusation there. As a former arb I am painfully aware of how many such accusations are made during cases, many if not most of which don't lead anywhere. I think we should give DrChrissy another chance, per WP:ROPE, which of course implies tht they also should understand that if they cause similar problems int he future the bar to re-imposing this ban will be quite low and there will be very little chance of getting it lifted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic here: the initial ban was not precise and had to be restated in more precise terms. That happened a long time before the edit in question, plenty of time for DrC to unserstand the boundaries of the ban; but even if we wanted to show DC some leniency because of the initial ban wording snafu, we've already done that: DrC was not blocked because of that edit. There's is absolutely no logical reason why an garble at the beginning of the ban, and a posssible boundary-pushing edit for which there was no sanction equals a lifting of the topic ban because the subject of the ban is tired of it. I will lay odds that the subject of every topic ban gets tired of it at one time or another.

Also, I do not agree that DrC has "the best interests of Wikipedia at heart." I think their editing shows that they have the best interests of their fringe POV at heart, and what they want for WIkipedia is to skew it in that direction. BMK (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I am someone who would, if anything, would be pegged as having a POV opposite to what you ascribe to DrChrissy (not that I really do, but it is how I appear to be perceived), but I do not see DrChrissy the way that you do. And Beeblebrox, there are two separate topic bans involved here, and the one that is under discussion here at AN is not an ArbCom decision, but rather, a community sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Will somebody please tell me what my POV is in relation to this topic ban because I have no idea!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have worded that inelegantly, but I wasn't trying to say that you have a POV. I was saying that the editors who want the ban to remain, full stop, seem to think that you have fringey views or something like that. But I don't think the issue here is really about POV, so I'm sorry if that's become a distraction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, my reply was not really aimed at you. It was more aimed at BMK. His accusations are a mixture of vague, wishy-washy statements without providing any solid evidence. @Beyond My Ken: What Fringe articles have I edited? How are my edits on those articles indicating I am pushing a POV? What is this POV? I think your reply needs to be very careful because as far as I know, it is not inappropriate to have a POV, but it is inappropriate to push a POV. Please provide evidence that I have been doing this since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I was also not sufficiently clear in my remarks.

@Beyond My Ken:Note the seperate paragraphs. I was not intending to say that the ppossible topic ban violation was due to the earlier vagueries about it scope, just that it looks like a bit of a stretch and I do not believe it was intentional violation.

@Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally said, to be referring to Arbs reviewing this topic ban. Never mind. But I think you are right about ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support Topic bans are silly and 6-month or more topic bans are ridiculous. DrChrissy is a good editor and he will either edit constructively or not in these areas. If not, there will be blocks and possibly a ban in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional support with alternate proposal I'm the admin who refined the wording of the current topic ban to what it is now, and I've been a point of contact when DrChrissy had questions or skirted the edges of the ban. I am encouraged that DrChrissy recognizes what the problem was with their editing 6 months ago, and though they have (in my view) been skirting the edges of the ban, I can also understand how it would be difficult to edit articles about animal medicine (their profession) without ever touching human medicine. Anyway, I think the topic ban has been a good thing overall for reducing drama so I'm hesitant to eliminate it completely. I would support, however, converting it to a voluntary "on your honor" topic ban, where DrChrissy promises to do their best to stay away from human medicine and MEDRS, but doesn't have to worry about being blocked if they mess up. ~Awilley (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Awilley, thanks for your input here. As ever, your words are well considered and very helpful. First, I don't think I have ever edited a human medicine article (I may be wrong here and other editors should feel free to indicate this if I am) and I have no desire to begin doing this now. However, although I have absolutely no motivation to start posting to the MEDRS Talk page at the moment, I feel that I may have something to contribute if animal-related matters arise in the future. I have worked extremely hard to build my reputation and integrity here on wikipedia. If I was to promise to do my best to stay away from MEDRS Talk and then edited there at some time in the future, there is no doubt in my mind there would be postings along the lines of "DrChrissy - you broke your promise. You have little integrity". In your proposal, I would not be blocked for the edit, but I feel it would leave me open to abusive and inflammatory posts. One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this? You agree to stay off articles specifically about human medicine and human alt-med, and away from MEDRS for 3 months. This is more narrow than your current ban, so you won't have to count words, scrutinize sources, or look over your shoulder. Just don't edit certain articles. This would be kind of the test period to see if drama increases again, and it ends automatically without appeal, after which you can edit anywhere on the site. ~Awilley (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed in principle to negotiating bans with the subject of the ban. Discussion can take place between uninvolved editors, but to put it on a one-to-one basis between the banning admin and the subject leaves it open to abuse. BMK (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse? Who should bans be negotiated with if not the subject of the ban? And what's wrong with giving editors some control over where they can edit? The way I see it if somebody has enough input where they can agree to follow a topic ban, that is a very good thing, and they are more likely to abide by that sanction than if it was unilaterally imposed on them by forces completely outside of their control. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your words. I would be amenable to considering this if the wording was very specific to articles rather than topics or discussion. For example, it was very recently announced that GM salmon has now been licensed in the US. I was editing the Genetically modified fish article to reflect this. The RS I was using stated that the fish would not be labelled as GM because it was "nutritionally equivalent to non-GM salmon" (I think those were the words). I felt this fact should be included, however, I did not include it because it probably relates to human health which is a part of human medicine. I think your proposal would deal with this type of problem. However, it is probably worth noting that the "count the words relating to humans and the number of words relating to animals" and "rats are used in studies for human health results therefore you have breached your topic ban" both occurred on the Glyphosate article - a herbicide, for goodness sake. I can see the distinct advantages of what you have suggested. But, I am mindful that many people have already supported an unconditional lifting of my topic ban now that 6 months has expired, rather than my having to experience a further 3-month test-period. I'm sure the closing admin will take all these points of view into consideration.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this would only apply to articles only. I too am aware of the supports piling up below, so you will likely be unbanned without needing my support. I think it's a good idea anyway, even if you just make the commitment to yourself and don't write it down on-Wiki. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting of the topic ban. It has led to several "gotcha" situations, and no-one being clear where the boundaries lay. DrC makes clear above that his understanding of MEDRS has improved. Lifting the ban will mean that he can work unimpeded, particularly on non-human animal health. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support unconditional lifting of the ban, with an accompanying understanding of WP:ROPE. I've seen enough discussion now, and I have made up my mind. I think that Beeblebrox makes good points, both about ROPE and about the non-dependence on whatever happens at ArbCom. I've waited for evidence of harmful edits around the boundaries of the topic, and nobody has really presented any. Lift the ban entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban given DrC's recognition of what caused the problems in the first place. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would feel very comfortable using DrChrissy's suggestion from his response to Awilley above: One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors) I maintain that he should be able to edit this site without question, and would especially hate to loose his voice at MEDRS-related discussions. petrarchan47คุก 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The community will do what the community will do, but if the ban is lifted, I see a significant probability that we'll see DrC's name on the noticeboards again. Remember, you read it here first! BMK (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. DrChrissy - straightforward, cooperative, professional. The Tban implementation - poorly-defined, "gotcha", dysfunctional. (How does WP attract/keep expert editors? By draining them of morale?! DrChrissy is a stronger editor from this muddy experience. That deserves recognition not bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• support a valuable editor, Wikipedia should be stronger, "knowledge-wise" with such an editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I do not recognise the editor described in many of the support comments here as the one who has been topic banned by the community. The editing environment has been improved in the topic areas covered by the ban. The fact that ARBCOM is examining those very same behaviours that led DrC to be sanctioned by the community suggests to me that this appeal is premature. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's also interesting to note that I recognize many of the "support" voters as being other editors who generally support the fringe side of things (QuackGuru being the obviously blatant exception). BMK (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although it's true that there are some editors who predictably line up to vote (not !vote) for the fringey "side" every time, and it's also true that the decision here is not going to end up as a vote, but rather as an administrative assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of arguments, I really do not think that DrChrissy is someone who advocates for fringe material. Nor, may I say, am I (and I hope that my pointing that out will not be portrayed as "whiney"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was not including you in the group of editors I mentioned, nor would I characterize your participation here as "whining", as opposed to your ongoing disproportionate response to your 24-hour ArbCom block over a month ago, which I advised you to put behind you ("Get over it"), instead of dwelling on it unnecessarily. Other editors have been the recipients of unwarranted blocks for any number of reasons, and you don't see them making it their life's work to rectify the injustice. (That's assuming that your block was unwarranted, which we cannot know because we are not privy to the information that ArbCom was.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I repeat: I see no evidence that DrChrissy will add fringey content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Then I would say that your evaluation of their editing is suspect, and advise you to re-read the community discussion which lead to the topic ban in the first place. You'll find it here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Roxy, thank-you very much for that first sentence. I could not have asked for a more eloquent piece of writing to indicate how much my editing behaviour has changed over the past 6 months, and how the topic ban has achieved its objective within the time indicated by the closing admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately misreading what Roxy wrote, or are you simply being disingenuous? What he said was nothing like your summary of it. He's saying that the subject area you've been topic banned from has improved significantly by your not being there, and that the description of your editing promoted by your supporters is unrecognizable to him when compared to your actual editing behavior. (Hint: It was bad for you, not good.) BMK (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh dear BMK. Lots of bold and underlining, but Roxy does not even bother to defend his own posting. Are you able to read his mind? He correctly identified that the community have recognised I have changed my editing behaviour subsequent to the topic ban and that is completely valid evidence for it to be lifted. I simply thanked him for that observation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, I can't read Roxy's mind, but, fortunately, I don't have to, since I can read their words, in which they expressed quite clearly what is on their mind. I suggest you try doing the same, since he said nothing whatsoever about the community recognizing a change in your editing behavior. It probably would be a good idea to read it again, this time without reading into it what you want it to say, instead of what he actually says. While it's often the point of snarky remarks, reading comprehension really is necessary to edit Wikipedia properly, if one is to, for instance, represent accurately what reliable sources say rather than what one wishes them to say. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. Real life, and it was bedtime. I dreamed about leopards and spots. Perhaps I should get a vetinary to interpret ... Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it is a very bad idea to lift an existing topic ban on an editor who is currently facing another topic ban for the same type of behavior that led to the first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  Edgar181, to help the closing admin. understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same type of behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Not an admin, but an editor who has worked with DrChrissy on articles such as glyphosate. DrChrissy is a valuable and hard-working editor. I think that judgments above that refer to DrChrissy having a "fringy" point of view are troublesome, for two reasons. (1) Having a POV is not against guidelines, but rather encouraged, actually, and i think DrChrissy's POV is valuable in editing here, as it's somewhat underrepresented. (2) The decision of what is "fringy" is rather relative. All judgment should be based on behavior, and relate to whether DrChrissy works well with other editors, uses appropriate sources, and represents them accurately. Any judgment that is based on an assumed "standard POV" for Wikipedia is creating a "party line" of sorts. I support DrChrissy's request for a full lift of the ban, and then future behavior being judged based on behavior in regard to the guidelines. SageRad (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another member of the crew. BMK (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: What is that supposed to mean? Looks a lot like poisoning the well and attempting to cast me as a gang-like POV editor. If that is the implication, then i ask you to either say that explicitly, or to strike the insinuating remark. Let's be explicit and honest about what we mean. I have indeed worked alongside DrChrissy on a few articles, very productively in general. A few times i've urged DrChrissy to slow down and to listen to other editors more, but on the whole i have found DrChrissy a generally good and conscientious editor. Now would you please explain your brief drive-by remark here? Thank you. SageRad (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• SageRad, considering your situation, you're hardly in a position to pass judgement on other editor's comments or to demand anything, nor can you be considered as a non-partisan voice in this discussion. I suggest that the closer of this discussion would be best advised to ignore your comment entirely as yet another one of the fringy crew. BMK (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• You repeat the same behavior that i've stated is problematic, attempting to poison the well against my input and framing me as a POV pushing gang editor and thereby trying to negate my ability to provide input here. That's wrong. I ask you to strike it. I've got editing experience with DrChrissy and can provide input. I'm generally in favor of the sorts of edits that DrChrissy makes though not always, and my input is quite as valid as anyone else's. What you're trying to do here is not ok. It's battleground behavior. I've stated my concerns. This section is about DrChrissy, not you and i, and I gave my input. SageRad (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and you certainly can do that. I also gave my input, which is that your input would best be ignored by anyone who closes this thread. I see nothing wrong with that. BMK (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what is wrong with it. SageRad (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to !vote (others have lined up to do that from the GMO ArbCom case), but myself and others have voiced concern many times on their talk page when DrChrissy has tested the edges their current topic ban(s).[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] If someone actually is going to consider removing the ban they should consider those diffs and talk page sections and that DrChrissy is up for another topic ban at ArbCom for the same behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you not !voting? It seems a little odd to me to contribute something like you have and than actually refuse to !vote. Perhaps you are not convinced by your own arguments? I feel you really should clarify which behaviours in the admin's closing statement for my topic ban are also being considered at ArbCom. You are stating it is the "same" behaviour, but I fail to see what behaviour you are referring to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because "votes" mean nothing here. The evidence should speak for itself. That and there's already a block of editors associated with the GMO case doling out supports, and I usually give those kinds of votes doubly less weight (whether support or oppose). Tossing a bold word or two in front of my post would carry just as little weight. What less involved editors determine from evidence presented in examples like mine is what matters, not vote counts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see more of the same aspersions that we've been seeing at ArbCom which includes providing diffs that don't support the allegations (and what makes them aspersions). The diffs I reviewed were simply explanations of the TB, not actual violations of it. Claims that DrChrissy has been "testing the edges of his TB" are part of the reason for his request to lift it - it was never done intentionally rather the TB is thoroughly confusing and extremely restrictive in places where it shouldn't be so it seems quite odd that anyone with a lick of common sense would condemn him to many more months in purgatory because of the flaws surrounding the TB. Ironically, the diffs used to support the unwarranted allegations (and I actually investigated them) also included comments by admins, SlimVirgin and Beeblebrox, who support lifting this ban, so how on earth could those diffs support keeping the ban in place? I will also mention that the long list of diffs look impressive but they don't support any of the reasons given to keep the ban in place. Thank goodness we don't have an overabundance of admins working under time constraints who will simply look at such a large number of diffs and ass-u-me they support the allegations. I find such a practice to be extremely disruptive and potentially harmful to both the editor being unjustly accused as well as to the project overall....but of course, that's just my POV. Atsme^📞📧 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As shown by Kingofaces43, DrChrissy seems intent on skirting their topic ban, by trying to edit articles which can be summed up "scientific consensus versus fringe unscientific POV / conspiracy theorists / Daily Mail health articles etc." with articles areas such as GM food, glycophosphate, acupuncture, high fructose corn syrup etc.. This does not suggest good faith. Why the heck can't they stay away from these areas and concentrate on uncontentious areas for a while? Their editing is not suited to WP:FRINGE areas whatsoever. It will just end up with future ANI and ArbCom actions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an outrageous posting! I have never edited high fructose corn syrup or its Talk page!DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about [40]? If you havent edited the article you've certainly discussed it. I have changed artcles to areas.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

E/C That is a diff to my Talk page in which I was discussing with a well respected admin whether a posting to the page would be a violation of my topic ban. They explained it would, so I did not make the edit/s. Are you suggesting that my seeking advice from an admin means I am in breach of my topic ban?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK it's not clear what happened. I shall redact it. But why even ask? Of course it would violate your ban. see WP:CIR --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to also redact your accusation about me editing the acupuncture page and its associate Talk page. My last edit of that page was on May 17th - 3 days before my topic ban was imposed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You had a community ban dated the 16th. See [41]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture is considered to be alt.med, not biomedical. Alt.med was not added until the close by User:Awilley to clarify the situation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

More quibbling? It does not inspire me to reconsider...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. This little exchange is typical of the Doc's behaviour with regard to his community imposed topic ban from the beginning. I see nothing to persuade me to change my opinion, expressed above. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) -

I reviewed our PAGs and couldn't find "quibbling" mentioned as a violation, much less worthy of a TB. What I do know is that casting aspersions is highly frowned upon as is baiting, harranguing and so forth. Wrongful criticism falls under that same category and may be considered a PA. DrChrissy is void of any such conduct and has simply defended himself against unwarranted allegations. Perhaps its time to more closely examine the allegations made against him to see what might be causing what some consider quibbling but is beginning to appear more like ill-will toward a GF editor's integrity rather than an attempt to resolve a real issue. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's where you're wrong, this is an attempt to resolve a real issue, that issue bring DrChrissys' problematic editing of WP:FRINGE topics. I've just noticed that ArbCom have just voted to topic ban DrChrissy from GM plants and agrichemicals [42]. To reverse their topic ban at this time would be ludicrous. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On the above dialogue, i do not think it's fair to represent the subject's clarification of scope of topic ban as "quibbling" and then to use that as more fuel against them, for that is a silencing sort of tactic. It must be permissible for the person in question to clarify as much as needed, until we are on the same page. I do not like phrasings and tactics that create the impression that any new words from the defendant are, in themself, further evidence against the person. It's a silencing tactic and not fair. It feels very bad to the defendant. They have a right to speak in their defense even if it's to clarify a detail. There is no limit to the amount of dialogue, as long as it's not a filibuster. Secondly, i fail to see how the GM ArbCom case's result is relevant here. Let's keep issues separate. I'm also part of the ArbCom case, and it's very complex and has its own many issues. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The recent ArbCom ban of DrChrissy is highly relevant, as it indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted. It shows DrChrissy has learned little from their community ban, and has continued editing with little regard for earlier criticism. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd I believe you are again inaccurately misrepresenting the situation. First, there is no recent Arbcom ban of me. There is a vote in process, but no ban has been imposed and I feel it is misleading for you to state this has been done. Second, you state that the ArbCom vote "...indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted". The evidence in the PD relates to Foie gras and Glyphosate edits. Are these "Fringe" topics? If they are not, which fringe topics are you referring to?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to discuss this further here, there is too much crap already in this thread. But if you're really curious you can ask me on my talk page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a matter of curiosity. You have made an accusation against me and I am asking for evidence to support that. What is your evidence for my editing "fringe" articles since my topic ban, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please take some time off from hammering DrChrissy and give an uninvolved admin a chance to carefully review the SUPPORT vs OPPOSE consensus before this discussion turns into 17 pages of meritless accusations and relentless repetition? Imagine being an admin having to wade through this stuff. Jiminy Cricket. We've already explained the pros and cons, and why the ban should be lifted (which has prevailing support) or not lifted (minority view based on the initial confusion as explained by Beeblebrox above). Try walking in DrChrissy's shoes for a week while trying to be a productive editor. It's frustrating to say the least. I will repeat what Beeblebrox stated above as it defines part of the problem regarding the oppose comments: @Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2015‎ (UTC)

You seem to assume that the discussion hasn't been closed because people (yourself and myself included) continue to comment, but I believe you're overlooking several possibilities:

1. The discussion hasn't been closed because no uninvolved admin who's looked at it has seen a consensus to lift the topic ban. Remember, the ban is in place, there does not need to be a consensus to keep it in place, only one to remove it, and since it's a community ban, that consensus needs to be at least as strong as the consensus was to impose the ban in the first place.
2. Some admins have looked at the thread but, considering the likely outcome of the GMO case, are waiting for a formal closure there to guide them here.
3. This is Thanksgiving weekend in the US, which means that many American admins are probably occupied with RL activities (such as family gatherings and Black Friday Christmas shopping), reducing the number of admins who might be interested in evaluating the discussion.

I'm sure there are probably other factors as well. BMK (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Not really involved, but there are some signs that the editor improved editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. DrChrissy's input was profoundly unhelpful in this contentious area, consistently supporting fringe views over the mainstream, and I see no evidence that he has gained any ability to accept that he might be wrong, which was a core part of the problem. I also believe that the ban has been flouted, or at least the boundaries pushed, with edits to the GMO topic area, where an explicit ban currently seems likely. The behaviours at issue were the exact same behaviours addressed in the GMO case, for which a topic ban is currently passing unanimously - the are is also a long-standing interest of Jytdog so edits in this area will also likely fall foul of the IBAN which is currently passing nem. con. If this topic ban is lifted it is my firm opinion that it will need to be reimposed in short order in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia in an area of healthcare where there is a major collision between quasi-religious belief and empirical scientific fact. And as a point of information, there is no "confusion" about whether topic bans apply to the sandbox. They do. They always have. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on wide support from Arbcom of evidence that DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring and is facing an imminent topic ban by Arbcom from GMO topics: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#DrChrissy_topic_banned. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose My recent interactions here and edit warring [43] [44] today at Glyphosate demonstrate that DrChrissy is unable to distinguish (or see the problem with citing) primary research studies. I can't see how relaxing this topic ban would be of benefit to the project. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

• Awilley, since you have been overseeing DrChrissy's TB, would you be so kind as to evaluate and close this discussion? It has turned to an ugly direction and what appears to be baiting. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be poor form for Awilley to close a community discussion in which they have voted. It is also poor form of you, as a supporter of lifting the topic ban, to pick a like-minded adminstrator to close this discussion, rather than just ask for someone uninvolved to close it.--Atlan (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I simply thought the admin who imposed the TB had to remove it. My mistake if that isn't the case. AGF, Atlan. Atsme^📞📧 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to practice what you preach, as you make a point of questioning the motives of oppose voters here.--Atlan (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't nice to cast aspersions, and it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. Please AGF and stop trying to make this discussion about me. You're being disruptive. Atsme^📞📧 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Cry me a river.--Atlan (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I never got a ping; I don't think it works with the {{u}} template. No, I won't be closing this discussion. As Atlan pointed out I did vote above. Also, it would be incorrect to say that I support lifting the topic ban. Mine was a conditional support with conditions that DrChrissy has chosen not to meet. My experience has been that closing admins tend to ignore extremely long threads full of bickering between partisans. It's possible to say your piece without creating several level-1 bullets and multiple section headings, and then challenging all the opposing comments. (I'm talking primarily to BMK and DrC.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Awilley: I think I might have been unclear in my postings regarding your suggestion of a conditional lifting. I did not say that I chose not to meet the conditions. Rather, I was pointing out that at the time, and still now, there is a community consensus for unconditional lifting of the ban. I was waiting for further discussion of your proposed conditional lifting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Will an admin please evaluate and close this discussion? Atsme^📞📧 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• And in doing so, please look at the hatted material. Most of it is frivolous, but there is also substantive argumentation in there.
  (BTW DrC and Tryptofish, the edit conflicts came about because DrC initially put his comment inside the hat, but at the top of it, and I moved it to the bottom of the hat, where it belonged to preserve chronology. Meanwhile DrC was apparantly deciding that their comment should be outside the hat entirely and reposted it, so we ended up with one comment inside the hat and one outside.) BMK (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The bottom line I think the bottom line here is that at the moment when a proposed remedy to ArbCom's GMO case is a topic ban for DrChrissy, based on a finding that DrC may have violated their current restrictions, has edit warred, and has been engaged in a long time "oft personalized dispute" with Jytdog, and that topic ban has already been supported by all 8 of the Arbitrators necessary for it to pass, meaning that barring any change in the voting, once the case is closed, there will be another topic ban on DrC, this one ArbCom-imposed; it is hardly wise at that moment it to remove DrC's previous sanction. BMK (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The bottom, bottom line I urge anyone reading the ArbCom case in relation to this lifting of a topic ban to do so very, very critically. There is an ever-growing plethora of concerns about how this case has been, and is being handled. Many of these concerns are coming from greatly experienced editors and are so fundamental to the case that some have called for the case to be withdrawn or restarted from a neutral point of view.[45]DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC The subjects of ArbCom cases, and philosophically like-minded editors, always have "concerns about how the case is handled" when it goes against them. It never fails, and it almost never amounts to a hill of beans. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind the bottom line - this case has bottomed out and needs to be closed, probably by the admin who originally imposed the TB. Two admins have weighed in and supported removal of the TB, while admin Awilly who has kept a close eye on DrChrissy's compliance and has offered a suggestion. The TB should not extend into this expert's area of editing which has nothing to do with human health other than guilt by association; i.e., humans consume animals, and some of the same alternative therapies are used. Interesting to see how the placebo effect works in veterinary medicine. *sigh* There's no reason to not allow an expert in his field to work unencumbered in his voluntary position on WP. The project might even consider expressing a little gratitude that we have volunteers like DrChrissy generously giving of their time and sharing their knowledge instead of inundating us with the negativity I've been reading. Atsme📞📧 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) As I mentioned below, this is a community-placed topic ban, not an admin-placed ban, and the opinions of admins carry exactly as much weight as that of any other community member. Even Awilly, who was good enough to straighten out the terms of the ban, is not in any way specially endowed to influence the removal of the ban, which is entirely a community concern. The role of an admin is simply to evaluate the consensus of the community when closing the discussion, not to override it, or to count admin !votes as more significant than the votes of you or I. BMK (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Forgive me, BMK, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. Was it not an admin who imposed the TB? Are you saying that a group of editors without authoritative tools can impose TBs on other editors, which pretty much makes this a numbers game? When did consensus become a !vote count? If that is the case, why do we need admins? Forgive my skepticism, but that's a scary thought because it could place editors at the hands of potential lynch mobs. It's bad enough that we have to deal with WP:POV_railroad but it appears to me that the procedure you describe may result in a kangaroo court. A call to Judge Roy Bean, and we've rid ourselves of opposition. For example, (purely hypothetical), let's say an editor claims that you (generalization) are a disruptive editor, and files against you at AN/I, then posts notices of the case on the TP of the WP project to which they are members and also at various other venues where they know they have support. You're saying that the sheer numbers of a "community" of editors casting votes can get you site banned or topic banned - do I have that right? If so, when did that happen and where can I read up on the policy? Jiminy Cricket, how is that not the makings of a kangaroo court, the latter of which should actually be what raises community concern. Doesn't the actual decision rest with the closing admin who then evaluates the merits of the case, reviews the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on those merits as presented by the community (which does not trump PAGs) rather than simply counting votes? Atsme📞📧 14:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The seemingly bottomless pit I rather think that whoever closes this request will determine the consensus, and whatever that is, will be the "bottom line" for purposes of this discussion. I think that DrChrissy has every right to respond to criticisms here, but I do not find it helpful for anyone else to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Absolutely, Tryptofish. And I hope that happens soon because the discussion has become less than helpful. Atsme📞📧 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Bottom's line "Enough; hold or cut bow-strings." [Exeunt] (Act 1, Scene 2) BMK (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I am rather reluctant to even comment on a posting which is so clearly off-topic, but it worries me that BMK also realises his posting and perhaps those below are totally inappropriate for the Admin's Noticeboard and yet chooses to joke about it on another editor's talk page.[46]DrChrissy (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Visible Pantie Line I'd pay good money for a Punch Line right now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "That's the way to do it!" [47][48] BMK (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Punch lines do tend to work better than bottom lines in some cases. Who shall we punch (data punch)? Atsme📞📧 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) The Bottom line "Poor blighter! All he needed was the love of a good woman. Well not even a good one, any old one would have done; slap a wig on a 'Speak your Weight' machine, he'd have been happy. And now he's gone and done himself in!" (series 1, episode 3) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The Northern line Mornington Crescent -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Regarding the Hatted content User:Beyond My Ken The fact you have made these edits which you describe yourself as humorous (rather than being topic related) on the Admin's Noticeboard, and you have joked about these elsewhere, shows a great disrespect to myself, the wikipedia process/community, and particularly the closing admin. I feel an apology to the community is well-advised.DrChrissy (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Since you've seen fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat, I've unhatted it so everyone can see it. As for apologies, none is warranted, and none will be forthcoming. I do, however, thank you for your comment, which well displays why the glowing descriptions of your behavior posted by your friends are so superficial and unconvincing. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC) See WP:BAITING Atsme📞📧 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I would like to point out that I previously attempted to hat the entire set of sub-threads about bottom lines and the like, on two grounds: that humor is unhelpful to an editor who is making a very serious request for the lifting of a topic ban, and that it is similarly unhelpful for one editor to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line" of a discussion in which the emerging consensus may be quite contrary to that claim of a bottom line. That same editor, first, reverted me to only hat the humorous sections, and then later unhatted everything in order to argue further with DrChrissy. I think that Atsme's point about baiting has some merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) For the record, while I was trying to make the posting, there were some very unusual edit conflicts which appeared to be due to BMK moving my comment in and out of the hatted content - all without my consent. For BKM's benefit, the reason I saw "...fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat" was very simple - the hat carries with it a warning that the discussion should not be modified. I was simply following instructions. And a third point BMK, please read WP:Hatting - this states "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors". You were clearly involved.DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Commenting only about template use, I was the first to apply the hat, so I apologize that I had failed to see what DrChrissy just pointed out about involved editors, although I also think that IAR applies to my use of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Trypto, I was assuming "involved" meant "has contributed to the material being hatted". You had not, so I consider you were non-involved.DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The Thin Red Line I have no idea how the title of this section is relevant other than illustrating how this entire discussion has degenerated into absurdity. Let's just lift the topic ban on DrChrissy. I find it hard to believe that editorial actions by DrChrissy have or will in the future waste as much time as this discussion has. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Wastage of time is not the issue, disruption of the editing of the encyclopedia and the skewing of its contents is. And, of course, this discussion -- a large part of which is garbage, I agree with you there -- has done nothing whatsoever to disrupt anyone's editing of content, has it? Nor has it done anything to skew our desired NPOV. Mostly, it's been a bunch of DrC's friends saying what a good person he or she is, so the topic ban should be lifted, and a bunch of other people saying that she or he a combative edit-warrior pushing a fringe POV, so the topic ban should stay in place. That's pretty much what pages like this are for. Oh, and yeah, there's some levity thrown in which apparently is a gross insult to DrC, Wikipedia and the Declaration of the Rights of Man ... apparently. BMK (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) BMK, I understand where you are coming from, but my overall view of DrChrissy's contributions to Wikipedia are extremely positive. I really don't see quite the same fringe POV as you do. I may be wrong, but I like error on the side of forgiveness. It fails sometimes, but I'll bet that in the long run it maximizes constructive building of Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I forgive DrC, I just don't want them to edit in an subject area the community has decided she's disruptive in. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about the tenor of her editing -- unfortuanately, lifting a topic ban requires a strong positive consensus to do so, and that's not here, and will not be here. (@Atmse: In determining whether to lift a community-placed topic ban, an admin's vote carries exactly the same weight as any other editor's vote.) BMK (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) FYI, DrChrissy is a he. With all due respect, BMK, I agree with the consensus here which appears to be that DrChrissy should have the TB lifted or at least modified per Awilley. Atsme📞📧 14:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Close out Consensus exists to lift the ban on Dr. Chrissy, can we have admin close this out noting conensus to lift the ban ? KoshVorlon 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) No such consensus exists, although a bare majority may (I haven't counted). BMK (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Informal poll

Comments are welcome at User talk:Tryptofish#Informal advisory poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mishae

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

---

I've just declined an unblock request here from Mishae (talk · contribs). By a strict reading, I could theoretically be considered WP:INVOLVED as I once had quite a snappy exchange with Mishae after I proposed an article he'd written for deletion; per my comment on his talk, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause regarding my decline, if anyone feels this is an unblock request that ought to be accepted. ‑ iridescent 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. --John (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Horrible decline. You were involved and you had no business declining. Caden ^cool 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. Mishae is fond of mouthing pretty words and sweeping generalizations and then after being unblocked going off and doing whatever the hell he pleases, including disruption, incivility, general incompetence, and outright deception. His last edit summary before TPA was revoked was so vile it had to be revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I had to deal with some of Mishae's behavior in insect articles and finally got a large number of vandalism-like edits fixed (removing Wikiproject tags from thousands of articles even when the project said they should remain). Coupled with attacking editors who disagree with their edits and overall demeanor described above, the unblock decline is very appropriate considering the history of going right back to the problem behaviors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah Mishae. I wondered why this name was so familiar especially after a quick refresher from the ANI back in April. I had made a comment at the time with the intention of joining the discussion but a job and city move prevented me. Reading back over his unblock requests, I get the sense that he never has truly understood what it was he was blocked for. While we should give all editors regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability the benefit of the doubt when it comes to contributing, there comes a time when we have to say enough disruption is enough especially when it's impacting the editing health of other editors. The needs of one cannot be placed above those of the many. @Mishae: your inability to fully understand the circumstances that led to your block are the reason why many, including myself, will endorse your continued block. This has never been about your disability, just your inability. Blackmane (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• I didnt realise being racist was a disability... While technically having a past disagreement with an editor might fall foul of the involved (as you dealt with them in a negative manner on a content issue) I would hardly say it disqualifies you completely. Otherwise, decline is fine given their patten of behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good decline. I can't see that INVOLVED is part of the equation. That said, at the risk of being INVOLVED I've just warned Mishae that he's verging on TPA withdrawal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

New essay

Wikipedia:Administrators' best practices.

I wrote this essay with hopes in exploring in essay-form how certain admin practices look and feel to non-admins with advice offered to admins on how to handle certain controversial interactions.

jps (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it had occurred to you that administrators edited here without the tools before they became administrators? Tiderolls 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Not all experience the full range of possibilities of what it's like to interact with an administrator as a non-administrator, though. Many administrators have never experienced what it's like to be blocked, for example. And many after becoming administrators forget what it's like not to be an administrator. jps (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's generally because they haven't done something necessitating a block. It's amusing when these essays come up for two reasons. Firstly, blocks aren't common for regular editors, and it's hypothetically it's quite hard to get multiple blocks; getting more than 10 blocks is a pretty major feat which, I'd say, demonstrates more about the editor in question than the trail of admins. The second point is, yes, blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It does seem to be rather WP:PUNISHing, I'd argue. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The point isn't to make you feel bad because you made a mistake. The point is to put an effective barrier in the way to stop whatever problematic activity is happening. The fact that that barrier is unpleasant has no bearing on whether it is punishment or not (real world example; mother tells daughter she must stop editing wikipedia until she finishes her homework (unpleasant, preventative). After finishing homework daughter is still barred from editing because she didn't do her homework first. (unpleasant, punitive). To cast it in like-for-like; someone causing disruption on Wikipedia is being unpleasant and will not stop, they are served with an unpleasant situation which forces them to stop. Of course, it should be used in modicum, but then it most always is.... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The point of the block is then not to be unpleasant to the blocked user but rather the unpleasantness is a side-effect which cannot be avoided. That's rather a different sense than saying: "blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point". One could imagine a hypothetical utopian sci-fi vision of a wiki-based encyclopedia where instead of blocking problematic users administrators were somehow able to refer the problematic useraccounts to a simulacrum where the problematic behaviors would only be acted out against a simulated community and the "blocked" user would never realize their isolation from the actual encyclopedia. In such an example, the "blocked" user would not feel unpleasantness but the point of the block would still be achieved. jps (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The essay presumes (accurately) that any action an administrator does will be perceived wrongly (which is accurate, just not the way intended I'm certain) so I'm not sure what the lesson there is. The issue is WP:INVOLVED actions, not all actions (unless you're dealing with jerks). For example, page protection will result in a WP:WRONGVERSION complaining only if the editors involved want it to be that way. Else, most editors with sense may not agree with the version protected but will actually then focus on the talk page discussion rather than fighting with the admin who protected the page as if the admin did it out of personal spite or whatever. It's nice but I'm not sure what's new with it. The bigger problem we have is with admins who shy away from doing anything (and I've fallen into that habit) due to the absolute antagonism you get no matter what you do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMINANTAGONISM might be another useful essay. I think that this one speaks at least a little bit to why such things occur. The most adroit administrators might find ways around being viewed that way while still helping to solve problems. I don't know, I don't have the bit. I am attempting to describe how certain admin actions may be negatively perceived by those who don't have the bit and are on the receiving end of such actions. It isn't really meant to be an admonition not to do such actions (the whole point of becoming an admin is that you are trusted to do such actions, after all). It's merely to explain how doing certain actions in certain ways can lead to certain problems and to offer certain alternatives that I've seen work. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that most admin actions are not based on some prior interactions with the editors. While there is a drop in admins, there are still far many admins than regular editors here (especially since admins aren't supposed to be using their tools when involved). For example, if I review WP:RFPP, there's a request for page protection. As I said above, no matter what version I chose to protect, someone could be angry about that. If your solution is that admins should, instead of actually using the tools, try to "help solve the problem" without it, you're suggesting what, I post on the talk page that the people there shouldn't edit war? If I don't use the tools, all I've done is remove the report, post (possibly again) on the talk page and then we'll wait and see what happens. The person who reported it to RFPP is now angry at the admin for not acting. If they stop, no one really needed an admin in the first place. If they don't, there really may be no solution other than protecting the page and forcing them to discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There may be no solution to the problem you describe, and the essay does not say, "don't use page protection tools". Instead, the essay tries to describe the very problem you are outlining. It tries to identify, as you are doing, what the consequences are and how page protection can set up a kind of power dynamic for better or worse. We can all name examples where administrators protected pages after editing the pages and the edge cases of what makes someone "involved" or not constitute megabytes worth of textual analysis on this site. This history necessarily causes problems between administrators and non-administrators. Who knows? Maybe someone smarter than you or I will come up with solutions to the problems, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as a place where these problems are described in clear terms. jps (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request topic ban for CheckersBoard

CheckersBoard has combined agenda-based editing along with making inept edits on André Marin. Request that any topic ban include Ontario Ombudsman. Highlights from this post:

• In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules.
• article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing
• Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry
• topic might be better as a blog elsewhere

All this about a version far from flattering. [49]

Editing ineptness: [50], [51], [52] (note edit summaries) [53], [54] (caused by own doing)

Content ineptness: [55], [56], [57] (material is already in relatively short article)

Lack of awareness of good content practices despite discussion: [58], [59], [60]

Agenda based editing: [61], [62], [63], [64] Note the wiping out of Marin's name. This series of edits is like removing all the policy content from Presidency of Barack Obama (leaving the criticism), moving it to President of the United States, and wiping Obama's name.

Plenty of warnings on user's talk page [65] including a block from me before I got involved with trying to prevent content damage. Edit summaries here are indicative of responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support I first became involved on the Marin page last month when I expanded the article with sourcing and better layout. It looks like CheckersBoard has been involved with the page for around a year, and there has been some suggestion about CB having a COI on the topic: [66]. A look at the page history for Andre Marin shows the repeated COI/unproductive editing, and frequent reverts by a number of different editors. CB has received over a dozen warnings on his talk page about editing on Marin and Ontario Ombudsman and has made no efforts to improve his edits or try to discuss these issues on the talk page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support based on apparent lack of reading comprehension alone. After being reverted by NeilN, CheckersBoard posted about it on the talk page, apparently under the impression that the information was being removed for being undue. I replied that the information was already present, yet minutes later, they re-added the information to the article without any acknowledgement of the talk page discussion. The agenda-based edits posted by NeilN are also quite concerning. Unless CheckersBoard acknowledges that they are causing problems with this sort of editing, they should stay away from the topic entirely. clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is a long-term problem, and multiple editors (including myself) have tried in vain to get Checkersboard to understand (and edit within) wikipedia guidelines. It's unfortunate, but there has just been too much disruption caused by this editor. Reluctantly support the proposed topic ban. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy question: is it permissible to edit for pay from an IP address?

WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY says "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries." IP editors usually don't have a user page, and if they have a shared IP address, it's not really meaningful to have one. So what's policy when an paid editor edits from an IP address, and discloses their affiliation in edit comments or the article talk page?

This has come up twice recently in two independent cases, WP:COIN#William_Morris_IP_editor_or_editors and WP:AN/I#PAYTALK. It's thus a real policy question. In both cases, paid editing was disclosed on talk pages or edit summaries, but multiple IP addresses were involved.

On the one hand, Wikipedia does try to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and while IP editors do face some restrictions, they're allowed to do most things. On the other hand, paid editing from IP addresses is hard to monitor, and makes checking for COI problems more difficult. It is to some extent gaming the system in the WP:GAME sense.

So, what's the consensus on this? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the practicality of enforcing this, the wording is "editors who..." not "accounts who...", so I don't see why this wouldn't apply. Sam Walton (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If the policy explicitly states that disclosure in edit summaries is appropriate when other systems fail (which they easily do for changing/shared IP addresses), then what's wrong with doing exactly that? LjL (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkans issue

The Boka Star article was recently nominated for deletion by Loesorion with the rationale This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. I'm not interested in the original shape of the article or any dispute that there may be between Loesorion and Bobrayner. The article has been improved by a number of editors (including myself) and the fact that the ship was involved in arms running is borne out by sources. With this edit, Loesorion claimed he had Deleted and corrected false information from article. This is not the case. The reference "nca" does indeed verify fuel for SCUDS and also parts for the Orkan rocket. The seebiz webpage that was deleted as a reference verifies the sale of the ship to Splitska Plovibda. I reverted the edit and raised the issue on the article's talk page. It seems to me that Loesorion is trying to push his particular POV in this dispute, despite sources verifying a situation opposite to his view. I have warned him via the article's talk page not to do so. As the vessel served with Balkan countries, are there any discretionary sanctions that can be applied to the article? Advice would be appreciated please. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For inof, Loesorion has reverted me. I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over this, but have explained my position at talk:Boka Star. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of Thewolfchild

I blocked Thewolfchild earlier along with Cassianto after I saw them still at it. TWC's edit summary contained a petty attack and it was clear that both were trying to bait each other. Later, after going back and looking further in TWC's history, I see that he had criticized me on Liz's talk page. I want to report that here because otherwise that could look like that had something to do with his block. I'm not sure why I was mentioned there as I only reformatted the thread originally at ANI and mentioned that but otherwise wasn't involved in that case. The criticism had nothing to do with the block but in all fairness to TWC and for the sake of prudence, I would like others to review the situation and remedy if necessary. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Legitimate block. I saw the baiting and general IDHT on Liz's talkpage and was preparing to do the same thing if it continued. ‑ iridescent 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I got flack for simply closing an ANI discussion that was clearly over when all parties received 48 hour blocks. But MSGJ got the brunt of the IDHT treatment despite their patient explanation on why the three editors received blocks for edit warring. At a certain point, you find yourself just repeating yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Legit block, they absolutely don't seem to be able to disengage and move on. Lots of rage flying around. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• A sensible response. Being criticized does not make you involved, if it did then it would be pretty simple for a user to make any admin they wanted to "involved". HighInBC 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Legitimate block - and even rather lenient all things considered. I'm also surprised that Cassianto hasn't already been blocked a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• I saw this and thought of this - should Cassianto bring his duelling pistols, or his swords? Anyway, this is okay as a cool down block, but for a week? Can we please shorten it to 24 hours? They're making themselves hot and bothered but not actually disrupting any other bit of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• We generally don't block to let someone "cool down". Given that the dispute between the two users has been going on for weeks now I don't think 24 hours is going to be significant. HighInBC 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think we're just going to have to accept we have different views on blocks and that's just the way of the world. I guess my stance comes from stopping my kids from quarrelling with each other, I can't "block" them! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well when I was a kid and being a little shit I was sent to my room. If I was really bad I was sent to my parents room(no toys there). HighInBC 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block. And you only got sent to your room? You got it light. I used to get a thrashing with a bamboo switch, or a feather duster, or a ruler or even an open hand. Nothing teaches a rowdy consequences as fast as a thrashing. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully my parents took a more modern approach. HighInBC 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I got whupped with a piece of rebar while I was walking 5 miles to school through the snow. And when I asked to have the Rolling Stones play at my 16th birthday party, my parents just sneered and booked Herman's Hermits instead. BMK (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at 6:00 in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work 20 hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed talk page access from Thewolfchild as they were using their talk page to further provoke Cassianto. As always my actions are open to review. HighInBC 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Given my and MSGJ's experiences, HighInBC, I'm pretty sure you will face questions once this block expires. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page you will see I am no stranger to that sort of thing. I am always happy to answer questions. HighInBC 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw this brewing on your talk page, Liz and the sad thing is that there is a long history of this sort of thing from this editor. See the last block review discussion for reference. I do not understand how the mentoring that this user was supposed to be receiving from TParis has been allowed to be twisted into such a mockery of itself without comment. Obviously both parties to this particular set of blocks are in the wrong, and the blocks are warranted, but I think this situation needs to be monitored. It's only possible to look the other way and kick the can down the road spooling out more and more WP:ROPE for so long. Severely anti-collegial behavior doesn't only make the perpetrator look like a fool, it drives away good editors who have to suffer the abuse. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: It has been brought to my attention by Thewolfchild that my comment about severely anti-collegial behavior can be interpreted as a veiled suggestion that his behavior is to blame for the retirement of Cassianto. For the record I wanted to note that I was unaware that Cassianto had retired when I made my above comments. I was not thinking of Cassianto as a victim but as a party equally as anti-collegial as Thewolfchild. The victims I had in mind were new editors who are likely to be driven away by caustic aggression of the sort we have witnessed here. Of course it's also a shame whenever an experienced editor is provoked into retirement over something as trivial as the matter these two editors have been squabbling over. -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if they do their IDHT thing again, they'll be blocked again. BTW, I also advocate some leniency for Cassianto here, who is much more of a net positive and (Redacted). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Drmies: advocate leniency for one party by all means, but probably better not to insult the other party ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• If we're going to redact that we got a long way to go. And if we're going to be picky, I think blocking someone and removing talk page access is a much bigger "insult" than a few mild words. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• An indignity perhaps, but not an insult. The thing to keep in mind is that people are perfectly capable of being insulted at something that was not an insult. HighInBC 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me. For the most part it is largely a useless exercise, as your block log is permanent and regardless of how questionable, or just plain bad a block may be, it will always be there to be thrown in your face, or even used to support further (and lengthier) bad blocks. Further, I now also see that questioning an admin per WP:ADMINACCT is now apparently a blockable offence per WP:IDHT. Lastly, I'm not interested in conflict, I'm really not, nor am I here to disrupt. I am here to contribute, in my own way. I may not churn out dozens of FA/GA articles, but I do contribute. I'm not trying to build a resume for adminship, I just look to improve articles of interest to me or fix small errors that I come across anywhere in the project. Sorry if some of you don't see any value in that. Anyway, I come away from this bearing no ill will nor carrying any grudges. This whole experience has certainly been... enlightening. - ^theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just be a bit nicer and you won't get personal attack blocks. It is directly connected to how you choose to act. HighInBC 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  That's certainly one of the more positive comments you have made in recent days. I think it may be time now to move forward and leave the past behind? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• We apparently can't ever take him at his word. When he wrote, "For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me.", he lied. Would it be considered disruptive that he responds like that here but turns around and does just the opposite? He just keeps on trolling...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I posted those comments. I did not challenge or question your block. I simply requested that we go our separate ways and that in the future you refer any admin actions towards me to another admin. I also listed my reasons for this. I did this is a respectful fashion on your talk page, instead of here in the open. The fact that you, again failed to respond to me, (or respect my request) and instead come racing back here to call me a "liar" and "troll" in front of everyone, underscores the fact that that you still carry a grudge and are biased, and certainly supports my wp:involved concerns. This clearly shows that in the future, you have no business taking any admin action against my edits or my account. I will ask that you remove these highly insulting and very un-admin-like personal attacks and disengage from any further behaviour like this. I can assure you, and the community I will also be disengaging, as I want nothing further to do with you. - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TWC, you posted falsehoods in that and I do not accept that garbage. Trying to get in the last word as if you were correct and make like it is a cordial post...please. I'm not getting into it with you because you have such a bad case of IDHT that I won't waste my time with you. No one believes your twisted logic...not even you. I don't accept your attempts to buy yourself insurance with the involved ploy. I reserve the right to block you if you do something wrong again which it sounds like you are planning since you are so concerned about it. Truth is that if you could behave yourself, you wouldn't need to worry. You tend to be all heat and well, no light. You bring these blocks upon yourself but don't seem to be able acknowledge that you are the one in the wrong. That lengthy block log of yours is one of your own making.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, well the question that kicked off this thread appears to have been thoroughly answered now. Thewolfchild is to be commended for attempting to drop the stick and to step away from this obvious sore spot, however it might also be worth his while considering that a lengthy 3-bullet-point outline of why he believes Berean Hunter's block to have been biased might easily be understood to constitute a "challenge or question" to the validity of the block. No doubt it would be putting too fine a point on it to recommend that Thewolfchild could look to Steelpillow or even SchroCat and Betty Logan for examples of how to step away from the sore spot gracefully, so in lieu of that perhaps a kindly admin could just close this tar baby of a discussion to forestall any accidental resumption of the flogging? -Thibbs (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "3-bullet-point outline" was simply reasoning to support my request that we go our separate ways and that he refer off any future admin actions. The persistent hostility and personal attacks in his two replies above also clearly support this measure. That's all I was asking for, some distance to avoid any future issues. I don't see how that merits such bitterness and rancor, from an admin no less. But, I certainly agree with closing of this... section. There's really nothing left to be said. - ^theWOLFchild 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To me that post looked like you were asking to stop further conflict with one side of your mouth while continuing to engage in it with the other side of your mouth. Like you were trying to get the last word in while stopping the conversation at the same time. It did not look like an honest attempt to de-escalate. HighInBC 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor vandalism on webisode episode listings

We seem to have a problem with very minor vandalism. Over the last few years, I seem to be in a constant struggle with someone with a changing IP address. This person seems to have a particular pleasure in changing the release date for the episodes of webseries a few days different here and there. The vandalism is small enough some of these changes have taken years, if ever to fix all of the damage. Yes, as seen in my recent edits of List of The Guild episodes and List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, the vandal didn't even take the time to change the List of seasons section dates. Here are a few of the IP addresses that have made these changes.

• 2602:306:CD51:9170:8419:466:565C:544C
• 2602:306:CD8F:9060:54B3:E942:F8E6:9AF0
• 2602:306:cd51:ab70:e944:9afb:5cb9:4142
• 2602:306:CD8F:8C70:14BE:366D:EA26:EA36
• 2602:306:cd51:8c10:3581:95e1:da38:5b65
• 2602:306:cdc2:3930:51c4:5933:e564:919a

Most of the edits seem to be coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I don't know if we can shut this person down. This person seems patient enough to wait editors out on these backwater pages. In the end, I know there used to be some sort of verify edit type of system that used to be on wikipedia. Maybe pages like these need to be under that banner. I am not as active as I used to be. It is just sad to see factual errors on wikipedia that aren't fixed for several years. Oldag07 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the addresses you've provided above the CIDR range seems to be 2602:0306:CD00/40. We could consider blocking this range if it is a big problem. Have you any examples of recent vandalism from these addresses? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here are a few more.

• 2602:306:c59c:5f80:ecad:897b:5c44:b306
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:E436:3CD0:6759:2A34
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:FC78:2634:D91C:D34F
• 2602:306:CD51:BDA0:75C2:A162:1855:123D
• 2602:306:c59c:5080:f1df:cb9b:c34a:470f
• 2602:306:CD51:A100:614D:A52:CF31:B105

• 2602:306:35FB:2EC0:584A:8ECE:39AF:E2FC - seems to be non vandalism address

Maybe the right answer is to just ignore it. There has just got to be a better way to catch vandalism like that. Oldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Added bullet points for ease of readingOldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't block such a large range unless there is significant ongoing vandalism from these addresses. If it is specific articles that are targeted then we could look at semi-protection or pending changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the "non-vandalism address" is unrelated, these are all within the equivalent of 3,072 IPv4 addresses (in between /20 and /21): 108.89.196.0/23, 108.213.24.0/22, 108.216.248.0/22 and 108.220.34.0/23. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume pending changes are for the very minor articles. Yes, I would prefer that we use pending changes for the webisode episode pages. Oldag07 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I put PC protection on List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, but not the other article. I was having a hard time justifying it because the vandalism was so old and there appeared to be an IP that was making productive edits. Blocking the IPs won't do anything because the person behind them has probably moved on to (hopefully) more productive pursuits. I think WP:Huggle and WP:STiki are supposed to catch subtle stuff like this, but it's certainly not a perfect system. ~Awilley (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Oldag07: - You may be interested in this. What you are describing in this thread is sadly textbook behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom remedies.

Where's the proper place to go, to have a Arbcom case's remedy revoked? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, is thanking someone for their edit or post (via the 'thank' button), considered a breach of one's Arb restricton, if it's a edit or post related to that restricted topic? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Case remedies can be revoked at WP:ARCA. And it depends re "thanking" - might be a technical violation, but as a one-off it might also be too trivial to worry about. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do want to point out -- without implying that it's the case here -- that there have been incidents where using the "thanks" button excessively to an editor one is in a dispute with or whom one is under an IBAN with or who has claimed harassment, etc. has led to a block of the "thanking" editor, as the excessive use was determined to be a means of annoyance. So while a quick "thanks" may slip by (which depends to a certain extent on the reaction of the other editor), I wouldn't make a habit of it. BMK (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As long editor-A is allowed to 'thank' editor-B for making an edit or post in a area that editor-A is restricted from, there shouldn't be any problems. Certaintly know way that editor-A could be accused of influencing editor-B. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about "influencing"? If there's an interaction ban, for instance, then the "thank you" is, as Euryalus mentioned, a technical violation of it, albeit (perhaps) a trivial one. The ban is not on "influencing" the other editor, it's on "interacting" with them.

But, now that you mention it, when Editor-A thanks Editor-B for something done in a subject that Editor-A is restricted from, I think that could easily be considered as trying to influence Editor-B, and by doing so being involved in the restricted subject. It's generally best not to test the boundaries of one's sanction, admins and arbitrators tend to look on it with disfavor - so I wouldn't do it, especially since you've now brought it up. BMK (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure. I'm under a 3+ year restriction, which was (of course) put in place before the 'Thank' option was added :) GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN, which specifically mentions the Thank extension, although the WP:TBAN section (immediately above it) doesn't make any references to it. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible change to administrative policy

Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RFA2015 Phase II RfC

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Some SPI cases which are CU completed and CU declined (An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behaviour investigation.) needs attention of administrators. --The Avengers 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical)

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical) to determine if the discussion was closed appropriately. The heading of the particular section originally was “Should all content be sourced?”, but after it was closed, an editor changed the heading to “Should plot summaries be sourced … ?” I discussed this close with the closer on his talk page, User talk:SchroCat. I believe the close was inappropriate because the closer was not an uninvolved editor, instead he was a part of the discussion. This is in spite of the fact that the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page indicate that the closing editor should be someone who is “uninvolved”. There are important reasons it should be someone who is not involved, for example: so that it won’t seem as if the discussion was closed only in order to get the last word, or to limit the ability of an opposing view to be expressed, etc. The discussion had been a good exchange of ideas between very active editors about “verifiability” and what the guidelines say about handing citations in articles. I think discussions on talk pages have value, and should be respected. Editors should indeed ask each other questions, and discuss Wikipedia policy, and discuss how it should be edited. Discussions should not be closed unnaturally by an editor who is involved and might want to make a point. It violates the WP policy (cited above). I think it’s important, and the discussion should reopen, and hopefully come to a conclusion, or fall silent, or what ever it might naturally do. Thanks. DagTruffle (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. And likely for your own good as SchroCat stated due to you heading nose down into IDHT territory. You opened a discussion with a non-neutral heading to start with and informal discussions rarely require a formal closure by an uninvolved party unless it is a formal advertised RFC or consensus is not clear. The discussion was very clear, and without rehashing it here, you are unlikely to find many (if any) who disagree. Secondly - this was explained to you repeatedly by multiple editors. You continued to argue, but you need to learn that there comes a point in a discussion like that where you either accept you are wrong, or that the other participants just dont agree with you. As wikipedia works by consensus, either option almost always means you should drop it or end up at a drama board. I suggest Dropping it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

As has been pointed out numerous times in many places, current guidance states that discussions can be closed by the participants where consensus is clear. As this was essentially DagTruffle not listening to everyone else, demanding an uninvolved person to close (what barely qualifies as) a discussion is just buro-wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

If an outside view is wanted, I have to say that I am in agreement with Caden. DagTruffle appeared to be making some quite reasonable points about referencing (with examples), and the insistence that the references should be removed seems very strange and contrary to most Wikipedia principles. They are certainly doing no harm, and are actually adding to the veracity of the text. If IDHT applied in that discussion, it looks more like it was those opposing DagTruffle who were guilty of failing to listen. The attempt at pulling rank was really rather depressing to see. I would recommend that the RFC is reopened, allowed to run for longer, and not closed by an involved party. Number 57 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What RfC? - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed this had been an RfC. Nevertheless, I would still recommend that the closure is reversed, and hopefully some more consideration is given to the valid points raised, rather than a new editor being brushed off. Number 57 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Equally or more valid points have been put in opposition; there is no consensus and it's a fairly pointless argument to drag on any further. I'm also not sure this is a new user. (Not necessarily accusing anyone of underhand behaviour with that). There is too much knowledge of procedures, wikilawyering to class them as "new". - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The most serious problem, as I see it, is that some editors think it is justified to strip entire article sections of inline citations. And citations are the way content can be verified. The best argument they give for for removing citations, is that something similar is done in articles on movies. But Broadway musicals and movies are different. For example, the only way an editor can use a “primary source” to verify the plot summary for the musical Allegiance, would be to travel to New York City, buy a ticket for $306.00 or less, and report back. That is until the script is published, if that happens. But since plots of musicals are often described in books and articles why not cite them? Especially since verification is one of the Seven Pillars of Wikipedia. (By the way, I did indeed have a previous Wikipedia account — Dagtorfleson — until my computer died, and took some passwords to the grave with it.) DagTruffle (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is rather disappointing. On the relevant page I congratulated both the protagonists on their courtesy and consensual approach, but I seem have been premature in that judgement so far as Dag Truffle is concerned. Whatever the merits of the arguments (rather caricatured here by Mr/Ms Truffle, in my view, as neither the Carmen, Carousel nor Romeo and Juliet articles refer to films) there was only one editor urging the Truffle line, viz Mr/Ms Truffle. There being no consensus for his/her point of view it was entirely within the normal WP rules to bring the one-sided debate to a conclusion. I am glad to note Dag Truffle's statement that he/she is not a new editor: not only was I too a touch surprised at such slickness in Wiki procedural lore but I feel that an experienced editor, albeit under earlier names, should recognise the need for consensus. Unhelpful comment removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC). Tim riley talk 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

• Next revert in this section gets a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure should definitely not have been closed by an involved user. DagTruffle had understandable concerns, even if others disagree with his views. I would have waited for an uninvolved user to close the discussion regardless of the overall consensus (or lack thereof). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know that there's much to be done here about the close. It wasn't a formal process discussion but let's take on that the fact that involved people closing discussions is poor form; an appearance of bias; a drama magnet. I do not have the time to start an RfC but the "three experienced editors" here got it very wrong in my opinion; a basic failure of logic. The fact that plots don't require sources does not imply that plots should not have sources, nor that it is okay to remove reliable sources once added where they weren't mandated. To be fair, the original post may have started with the notion that plots do require sources, which is incorrect by current policy and guidelines, but the underlying issue was removal of sources, and the very clear notion expressed by the opposition was that because sources weren't required, that warranted their removal. I would go to bat against that notion—one I think of as pernicious. DagTruffle was later arguing that much more fundamental issue, and the idea this was just a new user with some zany notion clearly on the other side of policy and guideline to be brushed off as an IDHT malcontent is troubling. Had I come upon that discussion in the ordinary course, I would have attempted to shift the focus to what I see as the real issue. This is all to highlight that, yes, I don't think the close directly violated any policy, but that nevertheless it was a very bad idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to move archives of Talk:List of YouTubers

A few months ago, the page at List of YouTube personalities was moved to List of YouTubers; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from here. Could an admin move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. I originally posted this request at WP:Editor assistance/Requests but it hasn't gotten any attention. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

All done. I didn't see the point of suppressing any redirects, so I didn't. Graham87 07:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Too be fair, there's nothing non-admins from mass moving pages via a script, just as admins do. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't have any mass-move scripts granted as part of the admin package. It's just that we get an additional check box when moving pages: "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable". That's the only reason (as far as I can imagine) why this request makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

Anyone have a mop and bucket for the backlog there? Several discussions are over a month old. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding unused community sanctions: WP:GS/BI

The "British Isles" community-authorised probation has not been enforced for more than three years, the last enforcement action having taken place on the 27th of May 2012. It is quite clear that these sanctions are not needed, and I believe that most in the community would agree that sanctions such as these should only remain in place if they are needed. Therefore, I propose that the authorisation for these sanctions be revoked by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd be taking away the sanctions on an area that is still quietly simmering, on the grounds that it hasn't exploded lately. Note the intensity of the arguments in Talk:British Isles/Archive 39. A typical comment there was "Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it." And see the current discussion at Talk:British Isles which is reminiscent of many that have occurred in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"British Isles", like many other topic areas, will never stop being controversial. That doesn't mean that a sanctions regime that hasn't been used in more than three years should remain in place. Plenty of controversial topic areas survive without such systems. If a volcano does truly "erupt", sanctions can be reauthorised. There has been no indication as such, however. Keeping unused sanctions regimes around merely because a topic area is controversial is byzantine. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove/revoke/whatever you want to call it. Support RGloucester's suggestion. Long-unenforced sanctions shouldn't be in place, if nothing else because they're not friendly to the uninitiated. Imagine that several new-ish editors engage in a good-faith content dispute on this topic: a longtime editor familiar with the sanctions can come in, play the sanctions as a trump card, and win the dispute. This flies in the face of standards such as WP:NOTBURO; we have too many rules, and getting rid of never-used rules is a good way to simplify things. As already noted, they can be reactivated if truly needed, but merely responding to intense arguments such as "Is there still...believe it" is no reason to have broad sanctions in place. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, leave in place It's rather silly to remove a sanction because it's working. The fact that it hasn't needed to be invoked doesn't mean that the problem has magically disappeared, it means that the sanction is doing what it's supposed to do, discourage people from editing in a way that invites invoking the sanction. BMK (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is hard to believe, given that there are no notices in place on any related pages that inform users of these sanctions (not even on Talk:British Isles). No notices regarding their existence have been given to users in more than three years, either. The purpose of general sanctions is to curtail disruption. If there is no disruption worth curtailing in more than three years, it is hard to believe that these sanctions should continue to exist. How can users be discouraged from editing in such a way if no one even knows that the sanctions exist? The only way one would find out is by visiting WP:GS, and that page is not a frequently viewed page. All in all, there is no evidence that an extraordinary regime is presently necessary in this topic area. General sanctions exist for extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the standard manner in which disruption is dealt with, and I do not see how an unenforced, unknown sanctions regime is aiding the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So ... if a public swimming pool posts prominent signs about no diving in the shallow end, and the number of injuries from diving at the shallow end drops down to nothing, your advice would be to remove the signage as it's clearly no longer necessary? If reducing the posted speed limit on a dangerous curve cuts down the number of accidents significantly, you'd tell the authorities to put the speed limit back up to where it was, since it's no longer needed? BMK (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a similar circumstance. First of all, there are no prominent signs indicating the existence of these sanctions. That's what I just wrote above. Furthermore, if it were a similar circumstance, we would have general sanctions by default in all topic areas. We do not. We only use them as extraordinary measures. If they are not used (or useful), we remove them. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The comparison to posting a sign would be to put a notice on related articles, whether by an ordinary template or an editnotice or something similar. Here, we're just pulling over drivers who infringe an unposted speed limit, giving them a warning, and arresting the ones who re-infringe...except for the fact that we're not doing this, because there's been no enforcement in three years. We don't need to maintain this policy of pulling them over, because infringing the unposted limit is a lesser included offense to dangerous driving, and we can still arrest people for that: editwarring over the inclusion of "British Isles" on pages, or willynilly removing "British Isles" from lots of pages, is outright disruptive and obviously nationalistic, and we don't need the sanctions in order to block someone who does that. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per BMK - sanction warnings appear to be working —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support If we're not using them and haven't been using them for three years, by all means lift them! KoshVorlon 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BMK. Sanctions exist both as a measure to take afterwards against problem editing, and to deter future problem editing. I am not persuaded that removing a sanction that is performing its job in preventing problem editing is a good thing. I would support say a 3-month suspension to see how it goes, if it kicks off again, it should be able to be reinstated without need for another long discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, how can these sanctions deter disruption editing ("preform their job") if no one even knows they exist? There are no posted notices of these sanctions anywhere, and no one has been notified of their existence in more than three years. However, the three month suspension is acceptable to me. If there hasn't been a use for these sanctions in more than three years, I hardly doubt that there will be in three months. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike some other areas where disputes can be settled through extensive discussion and guideline building, like the MMA sanctions that were recently lifted, this is not one of them. Editors will continue to hold differing views about the concept of the British Isles. The ever present threat of general sanctions being levied forces editors to go do something better with their time than to chew over old soup. Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK and Blackmane. Whether it is three months or three more years before and editor has to be informed about them is immaterial. They need to be there so they can be enforced when needed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a witness to the many back-and-forth edit spats over usage of British Isles in articles, I recall how it was before the enactment of GS/BI. That there hasn't been any spats since then, is proof that it works. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser data followup

In reference to a recent discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive276#Awaiting_statement involving apparent retention of checkuser beyond WMF guidelines, as written at the time, I asked WMF about it and they've clarified the guidelines [67] to make it explicit CU data may be retained long term. NE Ent 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It really wasn't necessary to inquire, a straight-forward reading of the policy shows that to be the case, as I pointed out at the time. BMK (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of topic ban - Armenian genocide denial

I issued a topic ban earlier and logged it here. As I have never placed a topic ban before, I would like to make sure that I have done this properly.

Background: I became aware of frequent problems with sockpuppets and paid meatpuppets in relation to trying to deny the Armenian genocide after working numerous related SPI cases this year. There is a concerted effort by PR firms hired by the nation of Turkey to promote the denial. There are actually more PR firms than mentioned there being paid whopping sums of money to conduct this campaign. See this web search. I blocked numerous socks/meats and had to protect pages including talk pages due to the disruption of these meats which took to IP hopping (see this history as an example). After suppressing puppet activity the disruption subsided for the last few months. The editor above is attempting to take up their baton and run with it. Quite frankly, I see the patience of the Wikipedia community growing thin on this perennial issue. Because that editor has constructive edits in other areas, I chose to place a topic ban in order to prevent further disruption when he filed a DR case earlier today. His bias is clear in this edit where he changes the wikilink to deny the title of our stable article. He has clarified that he is Turkish-American.

Named parties to that DR filing were EtienneDolet, Tiptoethrutheminefield and Dr.K.. I have not notified the above user because his involvement here would be against the topic ban and I want to deescalate the disruption not encourage it.

In addition to making sure that I have done this correctly, I would like to know if the community supports or opposes this TBAN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I responded to a query made by the user here. My comment was restrained—what I actually saw was that the user was enthusiastically pushing a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Give the guy another chance Changed to Neutral please see my comment below I already talked to Berean about this. I think Dominator is not as bad as the typical POV-pusher in this area. I am not going to second-guess Berean's admin discretion but I think he should have been warned more strongly under AA2 before the topic ban was enacted. Dr. K. 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Don't get me wrong, I vehemently oppose the fringe POV Dominator1453 is trying to push. However, intellectual honesty and fair play compel me to oppose a ban at this stage. First, instead of edit-warring over the content, he sought WP:DR. We are sending the wrong message if we ban people who seek DR instead of edit-warring. Second, in order for such a ban to be applied, Dominator would have to have been formally warned of WP:AA2 sanctions. To my knowledge this is not the case, so the ban is premature on procedural grounds. And lastly, being biased is not enough to warrant a ban. We all have out biases. It is when an editor causes disruption as a result of these biases that a ban is warranted. In my opinion, the disruption caused by Dominator at this stage is minimal. That may of course change in the future, but at this stage, I feel a ban is premature. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Following the further clarification by Berean Hunter below, I have reconsidered. It seems he was warned, and I find the canvassing attempts particularly disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dr.K. has asked politely on my talk page if I would reconsider the TBAN. In my eyes that is what this thread is trying to gauge and yes, I put this here for reconsideration by the community. So I am open to the idea of lifting it if that is the outcome here. Because it is here, I would ask for about three days to allow for more input before making the decision. For some reason though, Dr. K. and Athenean seem to think that he had not been warned about WP:AA2 and that is not correct. He was warned right here on his talk page on Nov. 13. I should also point out that yesterday he tried to canvass another editor that appears to be Turkish with "Hello, I am trying to add the fact that some scholars and historians deny the alleged Armenian Genocide but fear that too many aggressive users of Armenian and Greek origin are reverting my edits. Please have a look." and I see that as escalation of disruption especially in view of the fact that he filed a DR as well before that. Unlike his adversaries above, he doesn't seem to have a problem trying to have WP:AA2 enforced on others in the conflict as he also tried to file for Arbcom enforcement after filing the DR and trying to canvass. This may be taken as a given that he understood AA2 and didn't need more warnings about it. I have serious doubts that anything fruitful will result if the TBAN is lifted as it looks like he is trying to beat a dead horse. I also do believe that since his non-neutral POV and bias has been revealed that he has compromised his position and shouldn't be editing there.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification After Berean Hunter's explanation just above, I can see that the usual signs of disruptive editing in this area clearly exist. My comments above were based mainly on my personal interactions with this user, a few times on my talkpage, where he was unfailingly polite and even friendly. The one time s/he got me worried was when he mentioned the ethnicity of his opponents at the talkpage of Turkey. But I see now that he used the ethnicity of his opponents during the canvassing incident of which I was unaware. My mention of "adequate warning under AA2" simply meant that I thought the user should have been given a topic ban perhaps as part of an AE report or a final warning before any topic ban was enacted if an AE report were not filed against him/her. But I realise that Berian Hunter did his/her due diligence and the matter falls squarely under his/her admin discretion, which I respect. Again, although this user seems to be following the exact same path as previous users in this area, there was a certain respect shown to me during our interactions which caused me to extend AGF and stretch it to its breaking point. Given Berean's additional comments, I can see that he exercised his admin discretion well. Does that change my mind? I have to investigate a little bit more. Thank you all. Dr. K. 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I find articles where nationalist disruption persists need to be dealt with swiftly and decisively without wiggle room or mercy. When nationalism starts to come into play, AGF goes out the window. Nationalist disruption is like a spark in dry bush. If ignored, it becomes a bushfire that sucks in vast amounts of editor time and resources to deal with it. I mean, there have been 3(!) arbcom cases involving the Israeli Palestine articles and 2 involveing Azerbaijain / Armenia articles. Stamp it out, douse it and suffocate it with sand before it spreads. Endorse the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Looked this over yesterday but didn't have time to respond here. Not being as bad as the typical POV-pusher still leaves him as a POV-pusher. I'm losing all kinds of patience with ARBPIA/ARBEURO/ARBAA stuff lately. Katie^talk 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Upon further investigation, I note these edits replacing the memorial of the victims of the Armenian genocide with another of a Muslim massacre and this edit calling the subsequent revert of his/her edit vandalism. In addition to the other incidents such as the canvassing and the attempt at reporting Tiptoe at AE, a rather clear pattern of disruption emerges. The only remaining question, at least for me, is if Dominator can improve his/her editing behaviour. Realistically, the chances for that to happen appear slim. But I will stretch AGF to its ultimate tensile strength and I will remain neutral. Dr. K. 03:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I am still astounded how a country can have any historical integrity and deny the Armenian Genocide, even with blatant political motives. If an organization such as Wikipedia which aspires to be an encyclopedia even entertains such a notion, it would lose credibility on all topics and open itself up to further (undeniable) charges of historical revisionism. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely for violation of his topic ban. With this, he precisely showed his colors. "...you cannot judge me on my convictions on the lie called the "Armenian Genocide"."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Block review

As I have stated on his talk page, this is now a block review for the community to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else here aware that this user's name is referencing the fall of Constantinople at the hand of the Turks? I feel like we're staring at the face of evil here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How so? Dr. K. 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Constantinople fell in 1453. Not sure I'd go so far as to say we're staring at the face of evil, though. Katie^talk 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KrakatoaKatie. Believe it or not I am aware of the fact that Constantinople fell in 1453. However I am at a loss understanding how looking at a username making that connection is "staring at the face of evil". Dr. K. 02:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Closure review at Talk:Martha Jefferson

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

---

Purplebackpack89, and involved user of a discussion on whether subject warranted a separate article, decided to close the thread despite having an obvious bias. I stated on my talk page that closures to such discussions are inappropriate for involved users to make, but he insisted on taking this to a noticeboard rather than retract his closure. I am also concerned that WP:Notability (people) was being erroneously overlooked and/or disregarded. Whether the article is retained or redirected, I do not feel an involved user's closure should be allowed to stand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang: Fine, somebody can confirm that it was appropriate to close a discussion that was FIVE-TO-ONE in favor of retaining Martha Jefferson, with only Snuggums dissenting and nobody making any comments in two days. The discussion was also closed because Snuggums was shouting everybody else down, often by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Snuggums needs to just let it go! Surprise, surprise, most people want the wife of a VERY prominent American who became President of the United States kept! BTW, Snuggums was so adamant that this be merged or deleted, he even went around removing all the links to Martha Jefferson, which is going to cause the community a great deal of trouble since Martha Jefferson is being retained. Frankly, Snuggums needs to disengage himself from Martha Jefferson, as he is too adamantly fighting clear consensus and is making too much work for everybody else. pbp 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a boomerang at all. I wasn't exactly "shouting", either, only stating and emphasizing points. Five-to-one isn't necessarily consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. WP:Notability (people) is against having pages on people solely noted for family connections. Even if consensus was against me, closing such discussions when you were WP:INVOLVED is not at all appropriate and frankly no better than anything I've done regarding the article. See WP:BADNAC for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that BADNAC is about deletion discussions and INVOLVED is about administrative actions, right? Things aren't as stringently enforced when it's a general discussion. Also, you've mentioned the notability guidelines dozens of times, first at the talk page and now here, and it's clear that nobody else agrees with your interpretation of them in Martha Jefferson's case. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean you get to override five editors. pbp 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said I got to override five, only that five-to-one isn't necessarily WP:Consensus, which is not solely determined by votes. My point in citing those pages and their premises is that involved users have obvious biases and therefore should not close discussions when they've already given input as a clear conflict of interest. Best to wait for uninvolved users to come along and make closures even if it takes a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument against a stand alone article based on WP:Notability (people) appears to have been rejected by everyone on the sound basis that in accord with that guideline, there is significant coverage of this woman's life. Thus, the bio supported 5 to 1 appears to be a WP:SNOW. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times

Back in May I nominated Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times for deletion, and it was kept. While I don't have a problem with that, the issue is the category is not removed when the AfD is closed, there was some talk of close AfD scripts doing it, although I don't think that is always the case. I was going through the category using AWB for a while, and removing it from the discussions manually, but I haven't done that since mid October (you can see that it is still in this now closed discussion from 21 October). So my request is that when people are closing AfDs that have been relisted 3+ times, they check to make sure the category is removed, and if not remove it manually. Much thanks, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there a bot that used to do this? I'm sure there was a bot that used to remove Category:Relisted AfD debates from closed AfDs, but it doesn't seem like that happens anymore. Assuming this wasn't deliberately stopped, might be worth cross-posting at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone is interested in taking it on again. Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an AFD closer I simply go through the log and close them so with the greatest of respect I'm not going to flaff about manually removing categories and potentially screwing something else up in the process, If we delete the (IMHO useless) category then we won't have a backlog. –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there was a bot that used to do it, there was talk of getting one to do it, but at least one that I checked yesterday was from late October. Jenks24, I will swing by BOTREQ and check, thank you. Davey2010, I get where you are coming from regarding not wanting to put another step into closing discussions, and I agree that the category is largely useless, which is why I had nominated it for deletion. Originally it was set up to appear in the backlog when 3 or more items were listed, but that meant a perpetual backlog (I have since arbitrarily increased it to 20), as the category also includes every page the discussion was transcluded on (including delsort pages). There is (to my knowledge) no way to suppress the category on transcluded pages as well, which would at least be helpful. As a bit of background as to how this category came to be, it was created (and added to the Admin Backlog) by Technical 13, he added to the relist script a function that checks to see how many relists the discussion has, and if it was two times, the category was added by the script. The category can be removed using HotCat, so it's not like one has to search for it. More just remembering to do it (or knowing to do it, I am sure that most people don't even know this category exists). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think we can add it to the AFD closing instructions to review the page and if they have hotcat, to remove it. Otherwise, we can have a bot request to make a table of all pages in those categories that include both the Afd closing template and the category if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• This is a great task for a bot. Should be very simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• For those of you interested, a BRFA has been filed. Also, it seems some of the pages within the category are actually listed as a result of the AfD being included, so the backlog isn't as bad as it seems (only 7 pages currently, if I accounted for all possibilities at least).  Hazard SJ  06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ... and it's been approved, so I'll set it up for a daily run (maybe that's overkill?).  Hazard SJ  06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Much thanks. Once a day is probably overkill. Once or twice a week would probably be sufficient. The multiple inclusion of the same discussion is a categorization issue, I don't know the solution to that. Thanks again. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Kelapstick: Shouldn't it be <noinclude>d on the main AfD pages? — Earwig ^talk 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Would that fix the issue with all the delsort and individual day AfDs showing up in the category? I am not familiar with how the <include> tags work. If so that should be added to the relist script(s). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think so. It would prevent the category from showing up in any page that transcludes the AfD, but the category would still be included in the main AfD itself. No script change should be required, as the cat is added by {{relist}} directly. — Earwig ^talk 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. This should work. — Earwig ^talk 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig, I will check back on it once the existing discussions are closed (since {{relist}} is substituted, it won't have any effect on the existing pages). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, <noinclude>...</noinclude> should be the solution. I'm going to update my source code to remove that tag if it's present (via regular expressions), so that we don't have empty tags lying around.  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Relisted AfD debates

It was brought to my attention by Ricky81682 that Category:Relisted AfD debates, which is actually a parent category of Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, also exists, and is pretty crowded. I'd just like to get confirmation that this category should also be removed as well before I file a BRFA for that (there would be a total of 8848 removals initially, so I definitely want to make sure first).  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on if that category is supposed to track active relisted AfDs, or all relisted AfDs. I would think that there would be more than 8800 since 2009 (when the category was created) if it were all relisted AfDs, so it's probably only for the active ones, just the category never gets removed. The CFD discussion suggests that as well (I think). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would care for a list of all AFDs that were relisted. You could get that from following the template or other ways. A list of active AFDs makes sense as a way to see which discussions could use more votes of any type and then 3 times makes even more sense from there. I've manually removed a number and I don't see how anyone would be hindered by that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering it's a subcat of Category:AfD debates, which is "unclosed AfDs", I'd be inclined to believe it should be active relisted AfDs. I suspect it's simply been ignored. Don't see the use of having a category for closed relisted AfDs. — Earwig ^talk 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Experienced LTA clerk needed

There's about a dozen proposed LTA (Long Term Abuse) cases pending approval at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval. If there is any admin who is experienced with working with LTA cases, and could either approve or decline these, it'd really help clear a backlog which is pretty short on numbers (only 12) and pretty long on time (many of these have been awaiting approval for months). Thanks! --Jayron32 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Query new method of adding spam links

In the last couple of days I have come across two users adding spam links in a similar fashion:

• User:Obalabi adds a .gov ref followed by the same link here [68] and [69] etc

• User:Alvb adds a American Academy of Dermatology ref followed by a ref to spam [70]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Albv because it looks highly likely she is engaging in undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a backlog (54 subcategories and 124 pages) at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion if anyone is awake and bored. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 10:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delisting of skyscrapercity

Per the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#skyscrapercity.com and elsewhere, including this noticeboard, as of late last month there were over 1,900 links referring back to the internet forums at SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM. When these links appear in the main article space, they are most-often presented in the form of an embedded reference, meaning that there are upwards of over 1,000 links in Wikipedia articles where an internet discussion board is presented as a cited source.

With the assistance of other editors, this has since been pruned back by approximately 20% but there is still much work left to be done. Removing these links from the affected articles requires identifying the links as well as the arbitrary referenced tags attributed to them. It is my understanding that these links need to be removed from all talk pages as well, as our bots are unable to process talk pages containing links which have been blacklisted.

To facilitate this removal I am requesting the assistance of the community to review and remove these remaining links. Please let me know if there are any other considerations that we should be aware of going forward with this process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• skyscrapercity.com (*|search current)

• The above link will help.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently there is a bot reverting the removal of (some of) these: see diff. - Nabla (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) PS: calling the bot owner: @Anomie: - Nabla (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• No what happened is the bot reinserted the reference into the article! This is because the "ref name='"Opens Today"'" is spammed multiple times in the article, so when that ref was deleted it left lots of orphaned entries. So the bot repaired this by reinserting the reference. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have now removed all references to skyscrapercity.com from that article. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• That bot won't be able to revert them again because I have added the link to the blacklist. This does now mean that talk page archive bots won't be able to archive the specific threads that contain that link until they are removed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not particularly relevant but this will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination) more interesting at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino shooting

... could really use some neutral eyes. Seriously. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted here, the article has already been placed under semi-protection; a wise choice. Given the number of admins. who have either contributed to the article proper, and the talk page, I suspect that there are quite a few eyes on this. I appreciate you bringing this here; but personally, I'm not seeing anything actionable beyond the protection, so I'm not sure there's anything we can, or should, be doing at the moment. Is there anything specific that you're concerned about? — Ched :  ?  11:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding note: Admins. alone (nor this notice board) do not determine content; although admins are free to contribute to it. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)