Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

(Initiated 11 days ago on 11 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Can an admin please close the two TBAN proposals which are present in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

(Initiated 767 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor:

Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an assesment of no consensus, that seems more like an assesment of no assesment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 111 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 109 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 109 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.

—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 80 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 61 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This closure is terrible. There's no explanation on how the consensus was determined. 93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 43 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Does_the_community_still_want_moved_pages_to_be_unreviewed

(Initiated 32 days ago on 21 July 2024)Requesting a formal closure, initiated a while back, last comment 11 days ago. Sohom (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

(Initiated 28 days ago on 25 July 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

(Initiated 4 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship .paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2 of the RFC has been closed. Thanks to ProcrastinatingReader. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done by ProcrastinatingReader and Hobit. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	41	41
TfD	1	3	4
MfD	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	6	50	56
AfD	0	1	1

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 10#What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

(Initiated 100 days ago on 14 May 2024) Requesting formal closure on this archived discussion from three months ago due to a discussion on a sub-page of the main article. There is a claim that since it was never closed by an uninvolved party that it lacks consensus. As I have since been involved in a related discussion, I would not count as uninvolved under the criteria. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 89 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this matter has essentially been ongoing since May 17, 2024, when Musk announced that the URL was officially changed from twitter.com to x.com. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's worse than that. Since Twitter was rebranded to X on July 23, 2023:

Clearly the discussions will continue virtually nonstop until Wikipedia finally kills the bird. A lot of moving parts here, though; that complicates the matter.

Doing... I've put in too many hours on this to stop now, but it will be many more hours before I have a close, if not longer. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 86 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 84 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 74 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024_South_Korean_doctors'_strike#Requested_move_4_August_2024

(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 August 2024) Discussion started 4 August 2024. Last comment 8 August 2024. Except one editor who started edit in July 2024, others support move. Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 11 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

DRV treatment of porn-related content

This thread was severed from a "Harassment from an admin" thread to discuss whether DRV is being unfair on porn-related content -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well now. What's this open can doing here, and why are there worms wriggling around all over the place?

I think the first issue here is that Erpert, Rebecca1990 and other members active in WikiProject Pornography are not getting satisfaction from DRV. That's a major issue from my point of view. DRV is the end of the line: there's no appeal from a DRV. Therefore users have to have confidence that the process is fair. It's essential: this is an editor retention issue.

Now, there are a very small number of users who regularly attend DRV, and Spartaz is at present the main closer, so if you clash with the DRV regulars in general or with Spartaz in particular, there's not much chance of getting any input from others. So for this kind of situation, where it's alleged that the main DRV closer and/or DRV regulars are showing bias, the only fair answer we have is for previously uninvolved editors to review DRV's recent discussions and Spartaz' closes, and decide for themselves to what extent the accusations of bias are well-founded.

This pretty much has to happen. As soon as it's alleged that this small number of users is biased, our formal processes come to a crunching halt: they just don't allow for that possibility. Therefore we're left with the default Wikipedia way, which is for independent, unbiased editors to read, comprehend, think, evaluate, and comment. It's really important that this is happens. Even though I'm a DRV regular and I think we're doing things right and that Erpert's complaint is unfounded, I'd nevertheless encourage anyone reading this discussion please to look closely at DRV's recent decisions and weigh in with their view.

I think the second issue is that DRV takes, and has taken for some time, a very dim view of PORNBIO, and to a lesser extent most other SNGs. We see the GNG as the arbiter of what should be included and will happily overrule SNGs if there's conflict. This is surprising for some editors who have a basic expectation that their WikiProject's favourite SNG will prevail.

In this particular case a further issue is that at least some of us (including me) openly question the reliability/independence of AVN and XBIZ as sources. This questioning is extremely corrosive for WikiProject Pornography, because if AVN and XBIZ aren't reliable/independent sources, then what valid sources do exist for porn articles? If consensus moves in that direction and we do collectively decide to eliminate those sources, then a really high percentage of our pornstar articles are headed for the dustbin.

As a third issue, and this might just be me, I've also wondered whether BLP applies to pornstar articles. For example, is it best to treat that Deuxma article as a BLP? Or is it best treated as an article about a fictional character portrayed by a nameless porn performer? This seems important to me because it helps us decide where the bar for a pornstar article should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About AVN and XBIZ, IMO AVN is pretty more "journalistic" than XBIZ, second I distinguish between the printed magazines and the websites, the websites are actually 85% made of press releases while at least AVN Magazine in its printed form is 85% made of original content including feature length articles, insights, biographical portraits, reviews, interviews, editorials and opinion pieces. XBIZ publishes several magazines, but the ones I checked were very poor of original contents. About BLP Vs. fictional characters, I think it is a mixture of the two things, like for wrestlers or even artists like Lady Gaga, it is an editor's duty to weigh the elements that belong to the one or to the other, eg statements by pornstars who say they are nymphomaniacs, swingers and/or bisexuals should be, in general terms, almost always kept out from the articles. Cavarrone 12:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hugely helpful if we could somehow draw a clear line between parts of AVN and XBIZ that are or are not reliable. Is there an easy way to distinguish press releases that have been (at most) minimally changed from actual articles? Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said above. Short articles published by AVN/XBIZ in the section "company-news" or marked as "company press" are very likely to be press releases. On the other hand, the printed AVN magazine includes some easily identificable "secondary" journalism (reliable is not the correct word, as a primary source is not automatically unreliable), eg. the 6-pages-article used as a source in Fashionistas, the 10 or 12 pages article about female porn published this month, the columns by Clyde DeWitt, the "editorial desk" column or the yearly June special issue named "The Fresh Issue" are exemples of valid journalism. A different question is if they are sufficient for a claim of meeting GNG, but frankly I have no record of discussions in which anyone claimed a subject passing general notability on the sole basis of his/her AVN/XbiZ coverage, we are generally extra-cautious about that. Cavarrone 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're having a real conflict between GNG and SNG (rather than just SNG providing specific guidance or recommendations for how the genre sees itself), that's more signifiant and needs to be resolved first. Otherwise we'll forever be having different DR mechanisms picking whichever one suits each editor's preference. That's no less arbitrary than just scrapping the whole process altogether and relying on individuals to edit-war on each article itself. Or if we generally give deference to "keep" (AfD process requires consensus to delete, vs lack-of-consensus for a del-nom leaves an article existing). Get Wikipedia talk:Notability to put their own house in order. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that, since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD. What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose. As Spartaz noted before being driven into a wikibreak, DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language, but it was reinforcing the AFD consensus, not overturning it. It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group, but from three editors who have joined it relatively recently and dismiss previous discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty obvious that this "trio of editors" consists of Rebecca1990, Guy1890 and me, but if you were paying attention, HW, you would notice that I clearly stated that I am not even a member of WikiProject Pornography. Anyway, you can't use the "dismissing previous discussions" argument because an uninvolved editor (finally!) split this thread. And Equaczion and Guy1890 made a good point a few days ago: about the applicability of WP:PORNBIO apparently working differently in AfD than it does in DRV. Why would the same guideline work differently in different venues? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was not aware of the apparent fact that DRV is not frequented by a large number of editors or closed by a large number of Wikipedia administrators. That could very well explain why "since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD."
    - "What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose." No, that's not what I am saying at all. I've never brought a single article to DRV while on Wikipedia, and, if I've learned anything at all about what happens at DRV, it's that DRV is not a "do-over" of a particular AfD. "DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language"...look, all I have said above is that we need consistent standards. Tell me what the standards (that apply to both AfD & DRV) are for whether or not we can have a pornography-related article on Wikipedia, and I'll try & live by them the best that I can. Don't change the game when we go from AfD to DRV and don't pretend like there aren't some editors out there that have an axe to grind when it comes to pornography-related articles. "It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group"...I've actually noticed that the Pornography Project does not seem to operate in a "team environment". There don't appear to be that many truly active members, and I don't see much cross-colaboration unfortunately. "and dismiss previous discussions"...which, again, you never seem to actually refer to Mr. Wolfowitz. There is unfortunately a lot of, IMHO, unsubstaniated opinion tossed around in AfD & DRV pornography-related discussions (from the delete at pretty much all costs POV) without much else backing them up. Guy1890 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like S Marshall, I'm a regular at DRV. Like him, I usually agree with the decisions there on this subject, and greatly respect Spartaz's closes. I do not necessarily agree with the decisions, but that's when I disagree with the consensus. The reason I and other regulars tend to let him do most of the closes is very simple: he does it best. Consensus at DRV is much more complicated that at AfD , because it involves determining several layers of possibilities: not whether an article should be kept, but whether we should argue the question of whether an article should be kept, and what is likely to happen if we do, and what an article will become in the future. Everyone has a different idea of what considerations to treat as more important: the interpretation of WP guidelines is , after all, whatever we want it to be, and the relationship between them is usually what we want to make it.

If you hang around there or AfD, you'll know that I in general differ from the current consensus about using GNG: I would apply it only when there is no plausible alternative. If we were drifting to use it more , it would be a direction I would deplore, but I don't think we are--it varies with different subjects: It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get. The reason I disagree with relying on it is indicated by the discussion above; the actual decisions in anything but the obvious depend upon the exact interpretation we want to make of the 3 key words "reliable", "substantial", and "independent". For any closely disputed article, I could interpret them in any direction. Which direction I choose depends upon what I think reasonable and in accordance with the purposes of Wikipedia. From what I've seen, even those who claim to take them as precise words and follow the GNG literally decide the hard cases just the way I do, whether or not they realize it. This is specially true of the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs. There is no fixed relationship: In some cases, like WP:PROF, the SNG is explicitly accepted as an alternative. In others, it seems to be accepted as a limitation. In some, it seems to be accepted in practice as the only guideline, though we've usually found some way of wording things to pretend it follows the GNG also.

For Pornobio, the question is what the community wants to do. Ultimately, the consistent trend of decisions at AfD makes the practical rule, and when there is a consistent trend , the general practice at Del Rev is very conservative, as befits an appeal process: we endorse it. What we overturn are decisions we think aberrant or unreasonable. None of the regulars there uses Del Rev to change or defy consensus--even consensus we individually dislike, though we may use the occasion of a dispute there to enter a protest. The reason for the conflict about it is that the community is apparently divided in what it wants to do. As I interpret it, the community is moving consistently towards a narrower interpretation of notability there. If it is, the results will inevitably show it.

And , as with most WP processes, the way to make Del Rev better is for more people to come there, and discussion other issues than the ones they are personally interested in DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only times I ever see porn-related articles at DRV at all is when a user wants to re-create a deleted article and the deleting admin has reservations about it...but then the admin suggests that the matter be taken to DRV (recently, it has happened with Sabrina Deep and Elexis Monroe). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what this boils down to is that a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV, regularly personalize the relevant discussions, continuously press their own relaxed interpretations, which are incompatible with the GNG (the only demonstrated inconsistency raised in the current discussions), and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012. The community is divided and the details of PORNBIO, on points I identified here [1], but the trio of editors pressing these discussions rejects the consensus achieved on other issues, which has been persistently, and pretty consistently, applied at AFD and DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hang on, HW. I'm personally responsible for this particular subsection of AN. (Actually Jreferee created it, but he did so in response to my concern.) What I hope it'll "boil down to" is a sanity-check on DRV's recent porn-related decisions, in which previously uninvolved editors give us a bit of welcome scrutiny. If we're going a bit wrong then they'll set us back on the right track. If we're doing things right, then the problem is with WP:PORNBIO and we'll probably end up with another RFC about it.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HW, I'm not exactly sure what you want here. This is actually the most objective discussion I personally have seen about the situation because as I stated before, uninvolved individuals are making comments. It seems like you have a problem with that, so rather than the "trio of editors" (you really have to stop saying that; this isn't a battle) rejecting consensus, you actually seem to be rejecting outside viewpoints that might disagree with how you personally feel. Also, if the community is divided as you say, that means a consensus hasn't been met, doesn't it? I even clarified in a previous discussion that when a consensus hasn't been made about what to do with an established guideline, the guideline is kept, not deleted. (I welcomed anyone to present evidence of the latter happening and no one did.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV"...where we apparently apply PORNBIO at AfD and basically ignore PORNBIO at DRV. I can understand how this current situation might satisfy those that might like to see less coverage of pornography-related content on Wikipedia, but, as I've stated several times already, I don't see how this status quo is especially fair or reasonable. If PORNBIO is actually the problem & needs to be changed, then so be it.

"which are incompatible with the GNG"...I've already addressed "concerns" of how meeting PORNBIO does somehow "not" meet GNG in this discussion here on September 13th. There's no need to re-hash that here now. I would also say that I basically agree with what was said recently above about GNG: "It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get." If that's really what's going on at DRV with respect to GNG, then that also doesn't seem especially fair or reasonable as well IMO.

"and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012"...which, once agin, you never seem to link to to back up your arguments here (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter). An American President, that I actually voted for, appropriated the phrase "trust, but verify", which I think very much applies here. Guy1890 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion. Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear to you? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion." Physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HW, you really need to just accept the fact that people are being more objective to the situation this time around (you're the only one who doesn't seem to be). If you can't, maybe it would be best if you just recused yourself from the discussion (or even the subject). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, once again, Erpert, you're improperly personalizing the discussion and casting aspersions on an editor who disagrees with you. Why don't you reply to the question I raised: Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not taking the bait. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that there really isn't any "bait" to be taken here, since the vaguely-referenced discussions above (from 1-2 years ago...which I've read through BTW) have virtually nothing to do with the topic of this thread ("DRV treatment of porn-related content"), since those discussions barely mention DRV at all. Consensus is not defined as one person continually making a claim that isn't substantiated by the community as a whole. For instance, various editors continually dismissing PORNBIO as an "invalid" guideline merely by re-stating one's only sole opinion isn't the way that I understand consensus to work here on Wikipedia. In any event, dismissing PORNBIO doesn't negate the basic & inconvenient fact that ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER are extremely similarly-worded to PORNBIO. In fact, one could even argue that those other guidelines are more expansive than PORNBIO's current (which again, I'm not married to) wording. Guy1890 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing I've noticed lately (well, not lately, but other editors are starting to notice too) is that there are some users who seem to want to delete pornography-related articles and WP:PORNBIO, but instead of commenting here like they should (and have been advised to do), they just clog up AfDs about porn and thus push everything off track. More than that, the rationales they have are inaccurate, and I suggest simple methods for them to justify their claims...with no results.

I stated that a "no consenus" result for the validity of PORNBIO (in this case) defaults to "keep" rather than "delete", and it was argued that that meant that the guideline wasn't a guideline after all. I asked for proof of that ever occurring; nothing.
It was argued that consensus showed that MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year isn't a valid award category, and I asked for a link to that consensus; nothing.

Basically, if you're going to argue something, at least be able to prove your claims. And repeating the same unsubstantiated claim several times won't make it true. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO is an odd duck. I ran a couple of RfC's on it a couple years back (to reform it, not delete it). It was clear that practically nobody liked WP:PORNBIO, but because of all the myriad ways to reform it and various subdiscussions over details (or perhaps because the RfC's themselves were poorly formed and run) nothing happened. The result is pretty much as expected: since WP:PORNBIO is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards, it's mostly ignored. That's what happens when you try to make to rules that force the community to do things it doesn't want to rather than codify accepted practice. You can push the community to some extent by crafting and pushing through a rule, but only to some extent. Sorry. What people unhappy with that need to do is instead advance the proposition "We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film, and this would enhance the Wikipedia because ___________", and you fill in the blank with cogent and compelling arguments such that people go "Oh, yeah, of course!" That's where you need to direct your energies, I think, and good luck. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "'We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film". I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. No one that I can tell is asking for any kind of special exception to anything or that every single actor/actress from any genre have an article on Wikipedia. If PORNBIO really "is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards", then why are ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER so similarly-worded? This entire thread is going nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think that with contributions from people who aren't DRV regulars it's finally started to go somewhere. I agree with Herostratus' analysis of PORNBIO and its history.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that needs to be remembered is that there are some areas, such as porn and, by my observation, webcomics, where WP:GNG fails as "traditional media" makes a point of not giving significant coverage, in the former case because of 'morals' and in the latter case because of a 'it's not real media' attitude; in the latter case, this ends up with some of the most significant, and well-known, webcomics getting rung up at AfD (and deleted) for "lack of notability" when the problem is a - deliberate - lack of coverage; I'm quite sure the former applies to entertainers who fall under WP:PORNBIO. Now, that's not to say the gates need to be open willy-nilly, but it does mean that we need to remember it's the General Notability Guideline and not words carved in stone handed down from Mount Ararat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing that needs to be remembered is that it's not simply the GNG brought into play, but fundamental BLP concerns as well. Part and parcel of the underlying dispute is the repeated effort to write BLPs without reliably sourced information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things we need to decide is whether porn performers' articles really are BLPs. I put it to you that they're fictional characters portrayed by performers (and, yes, so is Lady Gaga).—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some performer personas that are purely fictive (see, eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani (model), an uncontroversial case that somehow led Wikipediocracy to single me out for castigation). but most at least purport to mix genuine biographical elements with promotional claptrap, and are, as Jimbo Wales commented a while ago, mostly kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Removal Request

In this thread, I was topic banned on all matters related to the Falkland Islands. This is an area of editing in which I had made a significant and prolific contribution. I am requesting that topic ban is revoked.

The basis of the topic ban proposed by User:Dpmuk was that the constant back and forth between us was making consensus impossible. At the time, I did really defend myself as I was utterly despondent after nearly a year of harassment from User:Gaba p.

As shown here the animosity stemmed from a block as a suspected sock puppet of User:Alex79818. You will please note that one of the factors in unblocking him, was that I gave additional details to User: JamesBWatson. As a result, he was given another chance to edit. Please note that both the original blocking admin and User:JamesBWatson considered the original case for sock puppetry to be compelling.

As a result of this Gaba p continued to follow my edits attacking me personally it was constant and unremitting. He was incapable of commenting on content but was constantly pointing fingers [2], a good example is the archive.

The thread was opened on 13 May. Please note that I agreed to a self-imposed moratorium [3] on April 30, in which I agreed to stop commenting to allow others to comment. An agreement User:Gaba p broke almost immediately [4] wikilawyering to claim it was only on one thread. The only reason I had in fact commented was at the request of User:Dpmuk.

The basis of the topic ban was the allegation of a constant back and forth. As I have noted I had in fact ceased to be active in the talk page for a period of two weeks before this was started. On my talk page [5] User:Dpmuk acknowledged that "my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause".

I ask it to be noted that I remained civil, I discussed content not personalities, I went to WP:ANI to ask that an editor repeatedly warned for incivility and blocked for personal attacks simply be stopped from bullying me. A number of false allegations were made and diffs falsified (I even demonstrated this was the case). By using smoke screen tactics he got away with it repeatedly.

Can I ask that is the message you wished to send was that remaning civil and discussing content, when faced by an editor that was uncivil and commented on editors not content, is a complete waste of time. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As requested ANI threads, [6], [7], [8] (please note and forgive a certain frustration on the last diff).

Attempts to resolve at WP:DR eg [9] (Note who walked away) and [10] This was a bizarre occasion where I was accused of blocking something I never commented on. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I note it hasn't been six months since the topic ban was imposed, which is the general "ask for a review after this time" line. Secondly, I note that this sure looks like a violation of said topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Firstly, a topic-ban cannot remove an editor's right to complain to AN/I for redress, and secondly, the six-months period is effectively imposed on those who wish to show they have understood and appreciated the reason(s) for the TB. If the TB was unfairly / incorrectly given, it should be dealt with immediately. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not a complaint to AN/I for redress - that's an interjecton into a discussion other editors had been involved in on the topic-banned subject, about issues that had arisen after the topic ban was imposed, in which he had not even been mentioned prior to his interjection, and for which the diff he gives that alerted him to a discussion on ANI was for another subject entirely. Although we've sniped a bit in the past at times I like WCM's editing style and honestly thought the initial topic ban was a bit OTT myself, but a topic ban is a topic ban and I'm having a very hard time seeing that as anything other than a violation of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, my comment that you refer to was not about the topic ban but that the two guys I mentioned should be banned from anything to do with WP:MOSNUM relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it, another example is Munro (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft) where User:Michael Glass edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). It also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at WT:MOSNUM with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus.

As I commented above and amplified by reference to my attempts to use WP:DR, I consider the topic ban to be both punitive and unjust. Hence, I am asking for it to be removed. When I had problems in the past I have always acknowledged my faults and have not had a problem with editing restrictions being imposed. In this case it is decidedly punitive, treating me as the victim of a bullying campaign as equally problematic as the perpetrator. This is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following WCM's topic ban I offered to help them in a mentoring role. If WCM is interested, that offer stands. During the discussion of the topic ban I suggested that WCM take a voluntary three month break from Falklands-related topics, a position which did not win any other support. While I don't endorse all of WCM's conduct (especially the edit warring), I think that he or she genuinely means well, so it would be a positive if an arrangement was in place which enabled them to edit Falklands-related topics again - I would suggest that a 0RR or 1RR restriction for six months or so would be particularly helpful. However, I'd be interested in the views of other editors who work on this topic as it's not one which I follow closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I keep hearing the comment it takes two to edit war. Such comments are a rather trite response to something I kept asking and never got a reply to. If you're editing in an area where one editor constantly edit wars to impose their views and you as a good content editor don't revert, then they always win and article quality suffers. If you try WP:DR and WP:ANI and you're constantly told to work with a disruptive editor to get a consensus, with an editor whose idea of consensus is to edit war their views into the article what the hell are you supposed to do? If it were an area of general interest then you do get a number of editors interested who will pitch in but if you're editing a niche area there isn't the wider pool of editors. Then you're left with editor behaviour and I will reiterate I remained civil and focused on content, which was supported by sourcing. You would find it difficult to claim the others involved reciprocated, where their behaviour was uncivil and has remained uncivil and despite repeated warnings to desist no one did a damn thing about it. The lack of action on warnings only emboldened them to escalate their disruptive behaviour and even then I didn't reciprocate.

If you wish to convert this topic ban on me into a 1RR restriction fine, I don't edit war, I was simply placed in an impossible position. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much the problem. Curry Monster's use of the word "win" is un-PC on Wikipedia, but the fact is that that's the way it works in practice. An editor - Gaba - puts their version on. If you revert, they revert back and start abusing you on talk. If you stop reverting, and no consensus is reached for the point on talk (which is unlikely because they're stonewalling and abusing you), the non-consensus material remains on the article regardless - because if you try and bring the article back to consensus after the end of the discussion, they just revert you again, and start accusing you of edit warring. You take it to the boards, and admins won't do anything, which emboldens those who are stonewalling. Or if they do, they punish you (as they did Curry Monster) for not being able to reason with someone who refuses to be reasoned with.

As Curry Monster says, if there were a few dozen regulars, more than one person can deal with it. But when there are (say) three or four, this no longer works. The article just gets worse as the consensus process is subverted. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see Wee Curry Monster is sadly attacking me once again, this time for no apparent reason (not the first time since the topic ban either [11][12]). I won't bother posting long comments about the other side of the story that Wee is obviously leaving out, if some editor/admin wants to hear that the ANIs are a good place to start and they are more than welcome to ask me for anything that needs clarification. That said I'll just make two minor comments: first, when the topic ban was imposed we were told that in order for it to ever be removed we should spend several months outside of the disputed issue editing WP in other areas as a sign of good faith. If anybody cares to look at my contribution history they'll see that I've made quite an effort to start editing on a great number of new topics, which I do to this day whithout a single issue. Wee on the other hand slapped a "Retired" banner on his user page (at least the third time he's announced his retirement from WP) and edited as an IP a couple of Gibraltar articles[13]. It isn't fair that he gets to ask for a removal of the topic ban based entirely on making me look once again as the disruptive user and himself as the victim (which he has been doing for the good part of a year now), something he is forced to resort to since he has absolutely nothing else to show for. Second, The topic ban violation that The Bushranger points to is actually his third one [14][15] as I pointed out at the time.

Before the accusations of WP:HOUNDING begin (or continue actually) I was notified of this post since Wee used my full WP user name which triggers an immediate notification. Wee apparently didn't think it was necessary to post a notice in my talk page about this ANI (something he is required to do, specially since it is is 90% based on me) but he made sure to do so at the talk pages of anybody that he thought could stop by to help him. Had he not resorted to lambasting me as the center of his request I would certainly not be here. Anyway. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[16] This edit was reporting user misconduct of concern to an admin, without violating my topic ban. Please review the full topic and [17] someone having the last word in the usual uncivil manner.

[18] This edit should be read in context with this one [19], where I advised Marshal I would not accede to his suggestion to circumvent my topic ban off-wiki by email. An example of User:Gaba p quoting a diff out context. Please note I don't think, in fact I know, Marshal did not intend anything untoward with that suggestion.

Pls note I edited occasionally as an IP as I did scramble my password and I made sure my edits were identifiable, I reset my password via email and disabled the wikibreak enforcer. I may remain retired as I am still not sure about contributing again. But I want the topic ban lifted as it was and remains unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong 'Oppose I believe that Wee Curry Monster's topic ban should not be lifted. One reason is this foul-mouthed rant. WCM changed this rant - after I called him out over it. However, the fact that he made it in the first place demonstrates the appropriateness of his banning and the desirability for his banning to continue. Michael Glass (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For information, refactored my comment because the language was inappropriate. The tit for tat nature of Michael's opposition, demanding I provide evidence knowing that I can't reply because of this topic ban. His strong oppose should be read in that light. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree to Topic Ban lifting User Gaba p thinks he is clever in what he writes here. He perceives that many administrators are often too busy to go back and look at the entire history of these articles. Gaba p's irrational vendetta against Wee and anyone who disagrees with him stems back to a very old disagreement. When, as an editor on these articles, I agreed with Wee, a sexest and vial remark was put on Gabap's page about me in the form of a question by his alter ego, Langus txt, to the effect that I had some kind of inappropriate relationship with the subject editor whom I have never met nor worked with. I will be happy to provide it for anyone who asks. If he thought to run me off he was disappointed in that it made me all the more determined. Apparently he still does not realize that this kind of talk is no longer tolerated by women or Wikipedia. I should have reported him at the time but did not. Now I am sorry I didn't. He has obviously not learned his lession. There is something very strange about this editor's motivations and I, unlike him, will not specualate except to state that it is my firm belief that he sees Wikipedia as a "game" and anyone who comes between he and his "game playing" is shot down in the most vulgar terms. He will act the "innocent" when he reads this as he has before.

The important fact is that the articles have suffered significantly as a result of the departure of Wee and editors who agree with Wee's unbiased POV on these articles. A short read of the Falkland articles will show they now show a significant Argentine non-neutral POV.Mugginsx (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God Mugginsx please not this again. Every time you make the accustion of "a sexest and vial remark" I am forced to go through the history of my talk page to provide the diff (because you won't) showing how ridiculous it is. Here's the diff with the comment Mugginsx refers to in my talk page. You'll immediately notice two things: 1- it was a completely sensible and reasonable question brought up by the aggressiveness with which Mugginsx both defends WCM and attacks anyone who she see as his "enemy"; 2- the comment was not made by me but by User:Langus-TxT. The fact that it was another editor who made that comment has been pointed out to Mugginsx not only by me but by an admin in a previous ANI but that apparently hasn't stopped her from trying to use it as "evidence" of me being sexist. There's really not much more to say about this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the remark has been amended to make it less offensive. The "relative" question was not originally in there. Nice try though.Mugginsx (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended?? Mugginsx for the love of god I can't believe after all this time editing you still don't know the basics of how WP works. That is a single edit made in a single block. See how before there was nothing and then the comment was made? That is the same comment you referred to and it has been since the moment it was made. If you have any doubts then please go though the history of my talk page and convince yourself that it of course was not refactored ever. Whatever you do please let this be the last time you accuse me of making a sexist remark since the fact that you are wrong has been explained to you over and over again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You changed it to make it seem harmless. Mugginsx (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please explain to Mugginsx that I can not change what's archived in the history of a talk page? She will clearly never believe me for some reason. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She" doesn't know, after five years, how things work here in general, I'm afraid. You may be wasting your breath... Basket _Feudalist 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? another one of your "friends" Or perhaps another alter-ego? You sure can pick them. This is an ANI about whether or not the topic ban should be lifted on Wee. Try to focus.Mugginsx (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Please remember this thread for future reference Mugginsx, because I really wish that this is the last time I have to withstand your ridiculous accusations. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support lifting. The ban was always wrong. Curry Monster has long been an productive editor on Falklands topics, and his knowledge and understanding of the topic have been sorely missed over the past few months.

I said at the time that if we had just banned Gaba and nobody else, the page would have carried on exactly as it has done. Other than an outbreak of the units debate, things have been broadly peaceful. OTOH, if we had just banned another editor (including Curry Monster) and not Gaba, the page would have carried on exactly as it was before, with continual confrontation and no possible progress. No other editor who did not start at Gaba's position was having any more success with reasoning with him than Curry Monster was. It was just that Gaba seemed to have it in for Curry Monster.

I understand Curry Monster's frustration on the current dispute; while the way he put it originally was not the most appropriate. It is certainly frustrating that editors who have done so much damage to the topic - continually bringing up the same points, over and over again, week after week, month after month, year after year - are allowed free reign with no admin willing to do a thing about it, while he, a good content editor with a strong interest in the topic, is topic banned. It is frustrating for me, let alone him. Curry Monster should be allowed to edit on these articles, for the good of the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More attacks on me by Kahastok, who would've guessed. Please note that Kahastok has been topic banned in the past for teaming with Wee Curry Monster in Gibraltar related articles. He'll do and say pretty much anything to have Wee's ban lifted and since Wee has nothing to show for in terms of editing (except for the "Retired" banner announcing his "retirement" from WP for the third time), attacking me is the last resort. This is exacerbated by how things are turning out here, where Kahastok is rapidly losing the firm grip he and Wee use to have in all things units-related regarding the Falklands. Gaba ^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is little more than a personal attack, ironic seeing as mine was based around why Curry Monster should be un-banned, as a good editor who has contributed greatly to Falklands topics over the course of many years. I don't think Gaba should be un-banned because the above - with an additional dose of stonewalling - is pretty typical of his contribution style on Falklands topics. All we'd end up with is paralysis. Kahastok talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support lifting Irrespective of the "political" nnd personality background of which I am well aware, I think the original ban was excessive. I've always tried to be neutral here but editors with great subject(s) knowledge and productivity, such as WCM are sorely missed by the project. I would say that of any bloody good ed. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I have participated actively in discussions that led to the topic ban, and I think that I can confidently say that:

User:Wee Curry Monster has not made a "significant and prolific contribution" in this topic in regards to history and the sovereignty dispute, but rather entered a biased version and then defended it staunchly, aided by a systemic bias that exists on these topics due to language, and resorting to indiscriminate reversals, misrepresentation of sources and straw-man arguments that resulted in the obfuscation of talk pages.

User:Gaba p did not bully him but simply persevered in his opposition to these actions, demanding proper grounding and discussing content all the time.

This behaviour can be seen by carefully examining talk-page archives (e.g., starting here) and you can visit this page for hints on how biased WCM's version is, although I just scratched the surface there. This is a sensible subject, which WP should not falsify. I never felt that banning WCM would solve the root problem, but it will probably make matters worse if his ban is lifted without there being any signs to expect more-productive behaviour. On the contrary, his latest feat was to ignore his ban and intimidate User:MarshalN20 from requesting sources from me in my user space. in what I see as yet another disturbance to an attempt to improve reliability. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a bastion of NPOV from your input. I think kettles calling pots black applies here. Your pro Argentine POV is palpable. Irondome (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His pro-Argentine POV is valuable. Furthermore, Andres has demonstrated to aim for NPOV when editing. The Argentine slant at times does appear, the same which happens to pro-UK POV editors, but it is nothing the community cannot balance. Not only that, but the contribution of quality material and display of academic honesty makes Andres an editor worthy of respect. Regardless, he is entitled to an opinion different from ours with regards to Wee.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that academic personal expression is inviolable. However, how is any POV valuable? In the context of the projects NPOV mission? I am not attacking, merely exploring an idea. Maybe this is the unsaid elephant in the room that needs admitting, by all sides, if we are to go forward. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV is valuable because it provides a context and starting point (much like a hypothesis prior to experimentation). I think Wikipedia is wrong in trying to censor editors (or sources) based on their viewpoints or beliefs. What should be evaluated is the content contributions, which should aim for the five pillars.

Yes, the unsaid elephant you mention is always present (throughout Wikipedia, not just here), but its presence is always silent because its taboo to speak of it. This causes situations where non-neutral editors masquerade as neutral, increasing distrust among contributors and preventing the possibility of balance by forming a false NPOV standard.

Moving forward just requires that editors acknowledge their own bias and stop pretending to have a NPOV. Andres is a fine example, and I consider myself one as well. Of course, using myself as an example is pretty poor since the current incoherent system has punished me with an excessive topic ban on Latin American history. But, if there was a solution to the problem, then it would not exist. Pessimism at its finest, I know, but undeniable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome:, did you read, for example, this review that I'm writing? Why would you disregard that work? Are the sources unreliable, my arguments silly, or what? I see no substance in your criticism and I hope readers will visit the review before buying it.

Of course I have my POV, but I have read a lot on this subject and I'm caring to debate properly and provide the most objective position that I can. What makes you think that WCM or whoever's version is not a POV? I am not criticizing WCM for having a POV, please read more carefully.

It's better to avoid personalization like in "You appear to be" or "Your Argentine POV" and comment on work instead. And let's not fall into a middle-ground fallacy. The fact that I'm opposing a view that I deem biased (occasionally with passion because I'm facing harsh opposition and I'm human) doesn't mean that my position is also very biased. Don't disregard so easily the possibility that it is the published version that is very much biased and I'm simply trying to correct it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support (with some restrictions): There is no good reason for either Wee or Gaba to be topic banned from Falklands-related articles. The problem here is that both of them have clear irreconcilable points of view, and neither of them can properly interact with each other. Moreover, both editors also find it difficult to distance themselves from discussions (in other words, matters become very personal, very easily). As a result, discussions eventually become long, boring, pointless. But, to be fair, most Wikipedians behave that way...and Wee is certainly nowhere near the worst of them. In fact, Wee's knowledge on the subject is (as Irondome states) important, and his editing is (with rare mistakes) rational, well-intentioned, and positive for the project. That said, I recommend that the following restrictions be placed for the sake of stability:

Interaction ban between Wee and Gaba. If they can't behave well with each other, regardless of where they edit, there is no reason they should interact at all. Also, Wee's harassment concerns need to be addressed, and this is one way to do it.
1RR rule in all Falklands-related topics. This suggestion is mainly to diminish the margin of error from the above analysis (assuming I am missing something in the analysis). Plus, it's a good way to protect users from edit-warring accusations.

What would remain an outstanding issue is how to prevent talk page discussions from reaching a WP:TLDR point of no return, but this is an issue which Wikipedia has yet to resolve in a comprehensive manner. Perhaps taking up Nick-D's mentorship offer would not be a bad idea, but another good option is a suggestion for Wee to make better use of other venues (Third opinion, Noticeboards, etc.) and let community consensus work its magic.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with 1/ above. Clarify please, are you saying WCMs accusations of harassment should be officially investigated? 2/ totally support until situation is finally stabalised. In terms of talk page interaction, WCM from his talk page history has clearly requested that he not be the receipient of any messages by G. Both parties should be mentored, or none. Gaba is deeply at fault also, if we are discussing behavioural issues. I think taking up other venues should be for both parties. Or neither. Irondome (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ideally Wee's harassment accusations should be investigated. But, who really wants to spend time on that? I doubt even Wee wants to revisit matters he considers uncomfortable. The point here is that there is a clear interaction problem between Wee and Gaba, and the best solution available is the interaction ban.

Therefore, assuming the lack of a benevolent harassment analysis, the interaction ban is also a good way to address Wee's harassment concerns. It's also a good way to address Gaba's concern about being accused of harassment. Win-win at its finest.

Removing the topic ban for either Wee and Gaba should have, as requirement, both of the restrictions mentioned above. I would also add the mentorship as a requirement, but trust Wee's final decision on it. Of course, additional venues should certainly be for both parties...but I have the irksome feeling that the community banned them because they were tired of their discussions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it did. An acute point. Irondome (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support both and encourage WCM to accept offer of mentorship. NE Ent 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would dearly love the WP:HOUNDing to be investigated, I have had enough. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: I don't think you are summarizing the trouble between Gaba and WCM well. Consider, for example, this discussion. We are still waiting for WCM to point out where in Destefani he believes those statements to be, so that he justifies his reverts. (Hint: they are not there!) As you can read there, the source he does provide states that Port Egmont was founded before other settlements, which we know isn't true as zillions of sources (official & independent) clarify, but WCM believes it to be encyclopedic material anyway. Or take a look at this other discussion. WCM keeps saying that Argentina rejected uti possidetis juris in 1848 and I am left begging for a source. Apparently he offers Metford 1968, so I ask him where in that paper does Metford say that. Again, silence. Hint: Metford doesn't say that! The discussion continues here, where Metford 1968 becomes a magic paper that contains several claims imagined by WCM. I request precision from him but obtain nothing. I could go on and on. Apart from the citation fraud, many straw-man arguments are presented and practically all of the edits I attempted were reverted, often with no justification given. This is not just a matter of irreconcilable opinions. Please examine those talk pages more carefully.

Interaction bans will only serve the permanence of the status quo, which is extremely poor. There is a systemic bias in this subject. If those few who can counteract this bias have their possibilities diminished due to interaction bans, then the systemic bias will become stronger. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dishonesty is quite serious, but Wee (and Gaba) were topic banned for other reasons. If you want to make a case for dishonesty, the matter should be addressed through a RFC/user or maybe even ArbComm. However, my suggestion here is to keep things calm (stop the "war" between Wee and Gaba in a positive manner). Interaction bans are meant to stop users from commenting/interacting with each other, and that does not mean Gaba is not allowed to work in Falkland Islands topics.

It's also important to understand that much of the problem is a result of dispute intensification due to lack of community contributions. Third opinions are often either not asked or ignored, "consensus" is attained with insincere intentions, and dispute resolution is resolved through blocks/bans instead of comprehensive solutions (so, going that route is inherently discouraged).

Ultimately, what other solution is available than this one? Keeping Wee and Gaba topic banned has only stopped discussions, but is that good for the articles? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: I believe the ban was due to their general behaviour, so I wanted to point out that there was more than a confrontation of opinions. I wouldn't say that @Wee Curry Monster: was mischievously dishonest. I can imagine him believing, for example, that Destefani's narration of two British invasions on colonial dominions of Spain during a war, plus its assertive mercantile interests in the region, is support for stating that, according to Argentina, Britain wanted territorial conquest in the emancipated Americas 25 years later. But that is absurd on so many levels! Yet he wants that statement to remain so he disrupted any question that was raised. I would rather classify it as a case of bias-based lack of competence amplified by a systemic bias. That's not good for the articles. As I imagine it, an interaction ban will simply mean that I will have to deal with this nonsense by myself. And now he wants free reign by banning Langus's interaction and mine too? How would the mechanics be if he edits in something that I find questionable or vice versa? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Wee's suggested interaction bans with either you or Langus has any strong justification. The ban simply needs to be between Gaba and Wee. In any case, this is not about giving Wee free reign over the article. The lesson we all have to learn from this situation is that using resources such as Third Opinion, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, etc. should be a standard (rather than an option), and the community must be allowed to freely contribute in such cases (instead of filling up the requests with more of the same arguments and fights).

As bothersome as it may be for some, a good example of the community's effective "invisible hand" is the current dispute over the metric units.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Wee Curry Monster has been contributing greatly to the Falklands topics articles for quite some years now, developing in the process an extensive and deep knowledge of the subject matter, and keeping a fair NPOV balance in his WP activities too. The topic ban was misguided and should be lifted, I believe. As a matter of fact, we now see an effort (the metric/imperial units affair) apparently aimed at placing in a similar situation another important contributor to the Falklands-related articles, Kahastok. That is not beneficial for WP and ought not to be encouraged. Apcbg (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Apcbg: I run the risk of sounding confrontational but I need to say this. Please think of this. @Kahastok: is here saying that he believes that a clause in the 1849 Arana-Southern treaty stipulated that "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas" (England got the Malvinas). This is a gross mistake, but I want to point out something else. If the treaty really said that, it would change everything. The dispute would be settled, full stop. Can someone who is inquisitive and informed on this subject make that mistake? Wouldn't she or he at least bother to look up this all-important clause in the text of the treaty? The treaty can be easily found on the web. To my judgment, Kahastok's frequent vehement arguments on this subject were rather poor, and now this. Would it be too crazy to claim that he has been infringing WP:COMPETENCE and simply opposing the edits of someone who didn't share his opinion? Can we really say that he is "another important contributor"? Just think of it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) I misunderstood what Kahastok meant, please read below. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First point of fact is simply not true. I was quoting a reliable source, which says that there was effectively an eighth clause. That, while the clause may not exist in black and white, it was understood as existing by the parties.

The rest is little more than a personal attack and I see little benefit in responding to it further. Kahastok talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok: a clause in a treaty is a written thing. You're even using the item numbering used by that author as if it were something pertinent to the treaty. What the author you cite actually does is interpret the treaty, and he does so in a singular way. If you wanted to mention this interpretation by an author, you should have spoken of a secondary source instead of affirming 'that there was effectively an eighth clause to the Arana-Southern treaty: "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas"'. That means something completely different and the difference is crucial. WP:COMPETENCE requires entering a personal level, sorry about that, but after months of senseless diatribe it is about time to raise this issue. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And more personal attacks. Need I point out that you are quoting me out of context? Here is the full sentence:

I find it ignores sources that are inconvenient to the Argentine POV - including Argentine sources that have been raised on talk in the past that say (for example) that there was effectively an eighth clause to the Arana-Southern treaty: "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas".

It is clear from the quote that I was citing a source. It is clear from the quote (and particularly the word "effectively") that the source was not claiming that the quote was written into the treaty. That said, the source I have in front of me - an Argentine source (Pereyra) - does actually put exactly those words as the eight clause of the Arana-Southern treaty, with nothing to distinguish it from the others but the bracketed words at the front "no escrita" ("unwritten"). The source I was referring to when I wrote the text above cited Pereyra and noted that the point Pereyra was making was accurate.

When it comes down to it, just as in the RFC at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands, you don't get to discard evidence just because you don't like it, and the ability to cite reliable sources accurately is not a sign of incompetence. Kahastok talk 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok:, Pereyra uses the Spanish word bases (translates as bases or foundations I guess), which unlike clauses does not imply writing. However, I see your point with the usage of effectively and I understand that your original comment doesn't demonstrate that you thought this "clause" was in the treaty. I exaggerated my previous criticism and I apologize. What I meant before is that you should have written that an author (i.e., secondary source) said that Inglaterra blah blah, not that the treaty said that, as I was interpreting from your words. It may be due to my limited English but I still think that there are clearer ways than "there was effectively an eighth clause" to express that. More so considering that I did mention that interpretation in the review that you were lambasting due to this hypothetical omission.

Regarding your last comment, please think of this example. ~~You present Pereyra as reliable (actually you wrote that "reliable sources" said that, although it is only him as far as we know).~~(I made a mistake, please see my next comment. Kahastok mention of an "eighth clause" is taken from Pereyra but he extracts the citation through Pepper & Pascoe. It's them who he considers reliable. They aren't, but that's a different story. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk)) Pereyra, who was not Argentinean but Mexican, was a nationalistic politician and a controversial revisionist. It is not just me saying, he was an influential figure, mentioned in literature. I don't know if you are familiar with Latin-American revisionism, but I am quite sure that you don't want to be seen as someone who calls their work reliable, where every single word is god-spoken truth. Thankfully we are not sharing this conversation with a certain editor that MarshalN20 knows, whose nick begins with L. :)

Just as in the previous conversation you refer, you are cherry picking a singular statement from a dubious source (~~probably indirectly~~ through P&P, who present this whitewashed citation) and then exaggerating it (this time, at least by transforming Pereyra into "~~reliable~~ sources"). As I told you before, this is not how one seeks accuracy. Even the best sources contain subjective interpretations, ambiguous statements and factual errors occasionally. A comprehensive process is necessary, where many sources are read critically and compared. Particularly if we are using controversial, politically-laden material. Anyone who has properly delved into published history with a cold head realizes this. I could analyze Pereyra and this particular issue in length, but I'm afraid that, once again, nobody will seriously read that much and you and some other editors will obfuscate the material with lectures to me on how I'm "discarding evidence" because "I don't like it". Even though I was wrong about believing that you thought the treaty included an "eighth" clause, I honestly don't think that those kinds of remarks constitute competent participation in constructive discussion. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I later realized that, according to your comment, the reliable source is not Pereyra but Pepper and Pascoe, which presents the Mexican as simply a "diplomat and historian" and borrows his statement. Of course I disagree with calling P&P reliable. I gave you hints on this in the past and you ignored them. As you're now ignoring that I did mention Pereyra, though he's hardly worthy of a mention, but still you keep lecturing me for supposedly having omitted that "evidence". The quid of my comment remains, but I'm ammending it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't like edit-warring, particularly when it is ideologically-motivated, but WCM was a productive community member. The one thing I would note is that the articles which formed the subject of previous edit-wars (e.g., Self-determination) have been very quiet since WCM and Gaba were banned from editing Falkland islands-related topics, and that perhaps this quiet should be respected and previously discussed issues need not be re-opened - if you look at what was being argued about, it was normally a fairly minor issue of word-choice anyway. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. I'm sorry to have to vote this way but WCM left me no other choice. His request for lifting the topic ban is based entirely on me having the absolute fault on everything, he takes no responsibility whatsoever for what happened. By supporting the topic ban lift as it is WP is sending the following message:

You don't have to work hard and show good faith to have a ban lifted. Just announce your "retirement" (even if it is the third time you do so), lay low for a while and then WP:CANVASS as many old friends as you can to vote yes on your proposal, making sure to leave out every editor who could possibly raise a concern, including the one your whole request is based on, as Wee did, which in itself is already a serious offense for an established editor. Even for a brand new editor the "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." notice on the top of the page would be pretty hard to miss.
You don't even have to follow the terms of the topic ban. As has been pointed out here by The Bushranger in this thread and here by Lukeno, WCM violated the terms of his topic ban just yesterday. As pointed out by me, that was his third violation: [20][21]

I do take responsibility for my share of the blame and I have been making a real effort to have the topic ban lifted at some point. In my contribution history you'll see that since the topic ban I started editing at least half a dozen new articles, as instructed, to show that I am genuinely interested in contributing to WP. In Wee's history you'll see nothing.

I would understand (and even give) support if this was his first offense. It is not. Leaving aside the topic ban on Gibraltar related articles imposed on Wee a couple of years ago, I am not by far the only editor he's had trouble with: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. How many second chances will an editor be given before he truly admits to have at least some of the guilt and agrees to modify at least a little bit his problematic behaviour?

To make myself absolutely clear: if this request was based on actual merit instead of the other editor (me in this case) being the one to blame for everything, I would vote Support. As it is, I can not. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~And now Wee is asking (off Wiki of course) for me to be blocked. Yet again. But surely I'm the one who's out to get him.~~ Stricken as per James' comment. Note that, as Wee keeps complaining about me not leaving him alone, this request on ANI plus that message shows that the exact opposite is true . Gaba ^(talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above message links to talk page content referring to an email that Wee Curry Monster sent me. I don't know how Gaba p thinks that he knows the content of the email, but I can assure him that he is mistaken. Wee Curry Monster's email does not ask for Gaba p to be blocked. My talk page post refers to the question of a possible block, because that is what I, not Wee Curry Monster, suggested nearly a year and a half ago, when I last had dealings with the issue, not because WCM is asking for it now. It would be as well not to jump to conclusions about the contents of communication that you have not seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask James to comment here but my private comments to him by email did not ask for a block. My email was of a more personal nature, hence email. I do things openly.

Any editor who has edited in a controversial area will attract a fair share of abuse, I am no exception. Once again User:Gaba p attempts to abuse this as evidence I am the editor who is the problem. Its yet another example of abusing diffs to give an appearance of misconduct where none exists. This is one of the smokescreen tactics he has used for a long time.

[30] Kai445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [31] refers to JohnValeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his block for personal attacks and harasment [32]. Occupy Marines was one of a whole series of Occupy articles, most on non-notable subjects where wikipedia was being used for self-promotion of various groups. The encyclopedia content was preserved and moved to Occupy movement in the United States#Veteran participation. Many content editors will recall that these was a problem for a while, where any attempt to bring Occupy articles into line with wikipedia norms led to some quite vicious personal abuse.
[33] Is simply irrelevant, the editor misunderstood I remark I made to User:MarshalN20 (an editor I respect immensely) but what is interesting from that remark is his reference to the fact that I am being discussed off-wiki by a number of editors.
[34] Hudicourt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please check the contribution history, this was an editor actively disruptively recreating deleted material and making some fairly unpleasant uncomments about User:Nick-D see [35]. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The discussion referred to is here Talk:Falklands War/Archive 12#WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Mabuska was aggressive but I did keep my cool and remained civil. Are my comments problematic?

Do I need to continue? Because if investigated with an unjaundiced eye, you'll find I was quite reasonable, remained civil and followed WP:DR. I was once topic banned from editing on Gibraltar, can anyone point to me whining about it? The difference is this stemmed from a period in which I was suffering from problems related to PTSD. I was uncivil at the time, I accepted my edits were problematic for a time but the behaviour that led to the topic ban has not been repeated. Again I repeat, this is another example of User:Gaba p abusing diffs to present a picture that is misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Wee, what that is is a perfect example of you assigning the blame to others all of the time. Another good example of that is you now asking for an interaction ban with Langus and Andrés accusing them of producing "false allegations" (?).

If you had only followed the advice given to us (as I did) and contributed to other articles in WP like any regular editor would, you'd now have something to show for in this request instead of having to resort to once again attack me (and every other editor who dares disagree with you, like Michael, Langus and Andrés). This shows you have no intention whatsoever of modifying your conduct in the least and that my friend is truly a shame. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, Gaba, this isn't/shouldn't be about you. This is about Wee. If you want my opinion, I'm for you being unblocked as well, but only if both you and Wee commit to an end to the arguments or an interaction ban is in place. This thread is turning into an example of why some people supported the ban from editing FI-related articles in the first place. FOARP (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, FOARP. This was supposed to about a proposal to remove Wee Curry Monster's topic ban. Gaba p has been trying to make it about his disliking of everything to do with Wee Curry Monster. Wee Curry Monster says that Gaba p has been harassing him. I looked, and failed to see evidence that this had been happening recently, but Gaba p has now very conveniently provided evidence here, in this discussion. Way back in April 2012, I warned Gaba p that if he continued with his "aggressive and confrontational" approach to other editors, he would be likely to "be blocked ... and stay blocked". Really, if I see a little more of this then I will be likely to decide that the time has come for that to happen. (Note that I say this purely on the basis of what I myself have seen, not because anyone has asked me to block Gaba p.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Did you read the request Wee posted? It's based entirely on trashing me all over the place. Am I not allowed to defend myself? How am I the "aggressive and confrontational" one after all of the accusations he made above? Did you read the part where I said that if this request would have been based on actual merit instead of assigning all the blame to me I could have even considered supporting it? Did you read the part where I said that had he simply not mentioned my name I wouldn't have found out about this and thus not commented? Have you nothing to say about his three violations of his topic ban, his canvassing on this very thread, his refusal to post the appropriate and mandated ANI notice on my talk page, his request based 100% on attacks directed at me...? Seriously, this makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. It looks as if I rubbed you the wrong way at some point and now you are just waiting for an excuse to block me, no matter what. If this was "supposed to about a proposal to remove Wee Curry Monster's topic ban" then how come you say nothing about the fact that he resorted exclusively to throw mud at me to accomplish that? Would you have been so lenient if it was me posting a similar request? Am I wrong to assume you would have considered that "aggressive and confrontational"?

I was not the one who made this about me. In case you haven't noticed Wee made it about me from the very beginning. Gaba ^(talk) 23:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that that post is your defence against a charge of being "aggressive and confrontational" speaks volumes. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gaba, twice in this thread you have made veiled accusations of canvassing or "friends" joining in this debate. Remember this is where we came in when you accused me of being canvassed when I had no previous interaction with either you or Wee before in an ancient FI dispute thread? There you had the grace to aplogise voluntarily when the reality was clear to you. For the record I can state that since WCMs ban I have had no interaction whatsover, and zero communication to this moment. I wish you would stop doing that. I thread stalk, and have tried to work with you all. The subject and talks interested me since I have been on WP. It just doesnt help the atmosphere. Ok. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome from our past interactions I know you are an editor who acts in good faith and I always thanked you for interceding between me and Wee when things started to get out of hands. After Wee called you in back then, he admitted that he had made a mistake and was actually trying to get an admin of a similar user name to close an RfC. He was not trying to canvass you but actually an admin and if I apologized to anybody it must have been you who entered a very heated discussion the wrong way; which was not your fault at all.

When I refer to canvassing I do not mean you Irondome, I'm referring to this: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Not even Wee could deny that he hand-picked those editors he thought would intercede in his favor. You know what makes it 100% certain that this is canvassing? The fact that he did not leave a notice to me, something he is required to do and something he of course already knows. This was done deliberately and I make a point of this because it amazes me how no admin here thinks that this, along with the violation of the topic ban and his request composed in its entirety of attacks towards me and nothing else, is something to be concerned about or even mentioned. Had it been me who did even one of those things, you can be absolutely sure that I would be blocked by now. Gaba ^(talk) 04:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I find WeeCurryMonster's topic-ban highly justified in my experience with this editor. Their claim about me: "Mabuska was aggressive but I did keep my cool and remained civil. Are my comments problematic?" is false and a look at that discussion, related edits, and previous discussions/acts will show this editor is prone to letting their own POV affect certain articles enforcing their personal favoured wording whilst convoluting other editors comments to denigrate that editors arguments. I do not like being dragged into discussions such as this where situations are twisted to imply a different situation for that users own benefit. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If WCM was to have a mentor then maybe they could have their topic-ban lifted, however I'd suggest the same for Gaba as WCM's behaviour incites antagonism with editors they disagree with - why else have they been topic-banned at least twice? Gibraltar and now Falkland Islands - both British dependencies with degrees of controversy. In fact maybe being topic-banned from controversial British dependencies may be a better idea... Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a comment on your opinions on Wee, not on his subject-ban. Like or dislike of an editor shouldn't come into it. FOARP (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make assumptions about whether or not I like or dislike an editor. I have neither feelings for WCM. My opinions above relate to my opposition for them to have their topic-ban lifted. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways any admins will make up their own mind on how they feel about this situation from what they see above, and whilst we may all throw around our supports or opposes in regards to WCM's request, it in all eventuality accounts for diddly-squat as it is up to the admins.Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to my request

May I add the following:

If Nick-D wishes to mentor I will gladly accept.

If you want to impose a 1RR limitation I will accept, it will quickly become apparent that I do not edit war but as I note above was placed in an impossible position of being asked to gain a consensus with an editor who was uncivil and edit warred to impose their views.

I request for the fourth time, an interaction ban. I note that one way bans are frowned upon so will accept a two way ban; I have no need to comment on editors again.

I request that there is consideration to extending the interaction ban to User:Andrés Djordjalian and User:Langus-TxT. I would just like to edit in peace without having to defend myself against their false allegations. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd be pleased to act as WCM's mentor, though I think that sticking to 1RR regardless of whether its mandated as part of this discussion or not would be highly beneficial. In regards to the above discussion, it is a bit concerning that the dispute over the content of these articles has spilled over here. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is way too much linking to ancient and angry out of context fights. Ban all linking from now on. It just makes old crap fester anew. No more linking to prove points by any party. Not just Wee and Gaba. Anyone. Irondome (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that a significant problem that caused the original ban was the wall of text often created on the talk page, something which a 1RR restriction would not stop. If you were willing to support a "one reply per user per topic (unless permission is given by your mentor)" on related talk pages then I would give serious consideration to this request. Obviously such a restriction is a bit ill defined, and would be need to be treated with some common sense, but I can't think of a better way to implement it.
- Regardless of the outcome of the result of this request I think an interaction ban between WCM and Gaba_p is a very good idea. As to the other users mentioned personally I don't think such an interaction ban would, at this stage, be necessary. If the topic ban is lifted I would like to see how things go before we enacted such an interaction ban.
- Finally I note that most of the contributors to this discussion have been involved with the articles in question and that once again we have a wall of text that is probably deterring comments. This is starting to get disruptive. Therefore I suggest that if we have a concrete un-ban proposal a new section be started with that proposal and that it be left to neural users to comment. I would consider any wall of text comments, or multiple replies, by users involved with these articles to be disruptive and possibly worthy of a block. This may be somewhat unusual but neutral editors need to be able to have a conversation about this issue without having to wade through walls of text. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - In answer to Dpmuk, I will gladly limit my replies but I would request that you review the talk pages and simply note for now who is largely responsible for the walls of text; I agree they're unhelpful and personally believe the intention is to deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - See below, I understand now what you're driving at. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support amended proposals 1,2 and 3, oppose 4. (One of the ironies of Wiki-conflict is not only does an editor not have to defend themselves against false allegations, it's often better not to.) NE Ent 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are many fanatics on Wiki who reply to editing that does not entirely agree with their POV with vitriol. There is simply no point in responding to such rhetoric since it simply serves to amplify it and crowd out meaningful discussion. Wee would be well-advised not to bother responding to personal attacks if he thinks he is being attacked. FOARP (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice duly noted. However, may I ask a question. At WP:ANI a large number of false allegations were raised, with diffs used misleadingly to give credence. My experience is that the diffs aren't examined in detail and the allegations taken seriously; how do you respond then? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how's the strategy of engaging in long arguments with your detractors been working out for you lately? FOARP (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me the point has now been truly taken on board, I've not engaged in long boring arguments here as much as I might have in the past. Moreover, I have come to the realisation that at least one of the editors who appeared to take those allegations seriously on the basis of those false diffs was a wind up merchant and a troll. Thank you for your comment, you could say it has just provoked a Damascus moment in me. You are welcome to WP:TROUT me anytime I forget such an important lesson. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for multiple reasons. One: the user claims to be retired, and as such, any restrictions should be irrelevant to them. Two: their participation in the latest ANI was almost certainly a topic ban violation (particularly as they explicitly mentioned the Falkland Islands in one of their posts) and should've resulted in a block. Three: the abusive manner in which they attacked several editors in that thread (a long time after a notification had been placed on their talkpage as well) is indicative that their presence in this topic area is not helpful. Four: The abusive manner in which some of WCM's strongest proponents posting here have acted is actually detrimental to the case: I have no idea what Muggins thought they were doing, and I've already voiced my issues with Kahastok. Five: it hasn't yet been six months, and WCM is yet to demonstrate that they will not be a problem in this area again; regardless of whether they were right or not. Six: WP:CANVASSing actions by WCM. For what it's worth, I also support a two-way interaction ban between Gaba p and WCM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wee is nowhere near the title of congeniality, and that some of the people in favor of his topic ban removal are also not paragons of virtue. However, I ask only where the limit between deterrence and punishment stands in this case? Wee has accepted Nick's mentorship and 1RR on Falklands topics. I trust this is a step in the right direction, because Nick (a remarkable administrator and content contributor) surely understands the responsibility he is placing upon himself, and Wee is most certainly aware that this is pretty much a last chance to prove his trustworthiness. Moreover, the two-way interaction ban is (as most can all agree) another huge leap into a positive direction. Will waiting the full six months really make a difference or produce better results than the ones currently in play? I recommend to let Wee have his chance and, ultimately above all, trust Nick.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and showing the positive way forward in my opinion. I fully agree. Apcbg (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment, you'll see that the issue of six months is only one of many concerns I have. Don't forget, this user is still claiming to be retired, and their retirement was under a cloud in the first place. And they violated their topic ban very recently - and did so deliberately. Why should we willfully reward violations of valid enforcements? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have been following the contributions of User:Andrés Djordjalian after commenting on his RFC at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?. I was left with concerns about his editing and I am seeing similar behaviour here. Reading this discussion, I see evidence supporting User:Wee Curry Monster's claims of cyberbullying.

There are a number of postive comments about his being a prolific contributor and given his agreement to a mentor, 1RR restriction and limiting talk page comments I see no reason not to lift the topic ban. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. From what I remember seeing the last time I looked, his editing in the Falklands area was about as tendentious as that of his opponents and had an equal share in poisoning the atmosphere there. The fact that he still can't recognize anything wrong with his editing is not a good sign. Somebody above said that the area has gone a lot more quiet since he and some of the others on the other side were topic-banned. That means the topic area is better off without them for the time being. I see no reason to unilaterally lift the topic ban on him but not on the editors on the other side of the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who said that the area has generally got quieter. It's true. But it would have been just as quiet with Curry Monster not topic banned. There is no preventative reason for Curry Monster to remain topic banned. The topic area is not better off without him, because it also means that we do not have his knowledge and expertise, which is sorely missed while we go through an agreed process of attaining consensus for a large-scale change in particular to Falkland Islands. Frankly, if you topic banned every editor on Wikipedia from the Falklands it would be much quieter still. Kahastok talk 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

non-arbitrary break

Question asked and answered, hatting so it doesn't confuse the main discussion that has continued below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Question Is WCM banned from editing at the moment? He has been editing Munro | as can be seen from this edit history. It certainly doesn't look good if he has been defying this ban while asking for it to be lifted. Michael Glass (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not. NE Ent 10:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a topic ban from everything related to the Falkland Islands; Munro is not covered by that topic ban. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As long as WCM singles me out for being disruptive, I cannot support the lifting of his topic-related ban. For the record, one of the key features of this so-called disruption has been WCM's unwavering support of the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - a page that is currently under heavy scrutiny. Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, your oppose is entirely retaliatory? Kahastok talk 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, his oppose highlights the fact that WCM cannot edit in this topic area without being combative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have noted the revised proposal for supervision of WCM. However, this rant, just six days ago, (17 September 2013), is evidence that he has not changed. The discussion above pointed out that he can edit elsewhere on Wikipedia. That is enough for now, providing that he removes the misleading notice about not being active on Wikipedia from his talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I do not think you realize it but you have already voted once to Oppose above (Sept. 17th). Since this is just a break and not a new vote, you need to strike through one of your votes. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

genre warring by user Y45ed after returning from block for genre warring

Y45ed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Y45ed was blocked on 3 September 2013 for genre warring. Since returning from that block, this editor has resumed genre warring and adding genres without sources or consensus. This editor has been warned multiple times about this disruptive behaviour, both before and after the original block.

Diffs:

[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] In this instance he reverted a properly sourced genre while claiming "Source doesn't mention thrash metal", though the source states "The origins of thrash metal can be traced down to two songs – ‘Stone Cold Crazy’ by Queen and ‘Symptom of the Universe’ by Black Sabbath."

There are also several instances in which this editor sourced the genre changes with citations that do not actually confirm in any way what is being added or altered.

This is classic genre warrior behaviour. The vast majority of this editor's Wikipedia time is spent altering the genre field of dozens of music infoboxes. Obviously the block didn't get the message across. Perhaps another is necessary. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, for each of those edits i have either cited a source or explained the edit in the Edit Summary. Whoever reads those diffs, please, unlike this user, just use some common sense, and read my descriptions, sources, and, if you need to, previous edits. Don't just assume this unreasonable, ignorant user is right just because he can't seem to stop hogging the moral high-ground. Thank you. Y45ed (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, for "each of those edits" you did not; the first just has a "because I said so" edit summary, the fourth has no edit summary or reference, and the fifth has an edit summary that borders on WP:SYNTH. Also please remember WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first, i don't know why ChakaKong is still crying about, since that problem was solved,, the whole article now redirects to the album it's on. Get over it. The fourth was based on the agreement on the talk page, and the fifth, you could have just given me a friendly notice to inform me that what I did was wrong. Please just read them carefully, and don't automatically go with what ChakaKong says just because he is, as some people may say, "up his own arse". Y45ed (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously just don't get it. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, anything you're going to add to that, or are you just going to leave it as one super-effective, jarring, mysterious line? Y45ed (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply add that you are now also in violation of WP:NPA. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption of bad faith is disturbing, as I did, in fact, "read them carefully", and if you continue with your personal attacks then you will be blocked regardless of the validity or not of your edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChakaKong's "assumption of bad faith" towards me is also pretty disturbing, as my edits do not mean to "hurt the article" or "vandalize" it. All my edits are done purely to help or improve an article, not do damage it in any way. Let me also add that the diff "68" was a misunderstanding by the reverter, who obviously didn't read the source properly. The link i provided takes you to the track listing of On Air - Live at the BBC Volume 2. When you scroll down, you will find text that says "view track details". Click on that, scroll down to "You Can't Do That", and you will find that it calls it a "swaggering R&B workout". That is why i added Rhythm and blues to the song's genres, my source was just not read properly. Y45ed (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubts whatsoever that you are attempting to help the project, not consciously harm it. There is no assumption of bad faith. The issue from the start has been your flagrant disregard for the guidelines and the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. The last time you had your editing privileges suspended you were strongly advised to familiarize yourself with these guidelines during your time away, but you apparently came back with a chip on your shoulder instead. This is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia and your etiquette is lacking. If your goal is to share your opinions about music, start a blog instead. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many indef blocked IPs

I don't know if anyone else is counting but we currently have 20,411 single IP indef blocks and 203 indef blocked IP ranges. I don't think anyone is maintaining most of the as some of these blocks are from 2004. Most indef blocks are with the open proxy rationale but since then the open proxy ips probably changed. I attempted to compile a list using Special:BlockList but was quickly overwhelmed by the amount. I even had to break apart my list as it was too large for the wiki to handle.

http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/global_blocks.txt
http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt
Globaly blocked IPs also blocked on en.wikipedia: http://pastebin.com/HYi2XE0V

We need to verify that these IPs are indeed still open proxies and block them globally rather than locally. I cannot imagine why we would not want to do this as open proxies are a menace to all wikis. The 391 IPs listed on pastebin seem to be already globally blocked and can be unblocked here safely.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

While checking to be sure if they're still needed to be blocked at all should indeed be done, and globally blocking open proxies is probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the point of unblocking the ones already globally blocked is - if they're globally blocked, they can't edit here anyway, so a local unblock is simply checking a box on a list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean that if the global block is ever removed due to the IP no longer being a proxy, that there wouldn't be a trailing block on here. There was an RFC about setting up a periodic review of indef/long term range blocks, and while it didn't explicitly include single IP's with indef blocks, the closign rationale would apply to them just as well. Has anything ever come of that? Monty ₈₄₅ 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have 203 indef range blocks so I don't think so. It is a daunting task to review so many indefs after so much time, perhaps stewards and checkusers from other projects could assist in the review of these IPs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the range blocks aren't even needed. You should start by reviewing those. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say everything older than 5 years can be safely unblocked. If vandalism continues, or if open proxies are detected again, they can be reblocked. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a level of check - perhaps automated to make sure we don't run into problems. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If it can be automated it is obviously the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slowly working through this list for about five years now, with the occasional bit of help from other admins. At least the list has stopped increasing in size. There is a dynamic IP address list somewhere which can be cross-matched, and it would make sense to tidy up any rangeblocked individual indefblocked IPs. A large proportion of the others are still trouble, IMO. I would disagree that all open proxies should be globally blocked. Different wikis have very different OP policies. Such an attempt is doomed to fail. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to this dynamic IP range? Perhaps it can be used to cross reference the blocked IP list through tool server.

Are there incompatibilities between en.wikipedias open proxy policy and the one on meta? If not then I don't quite see the doomsday scenario. Identifying open proxies is a non-trivial task it takes a lot of time and effort to detect them and just as much effort to keep track if IPs are still serving as open proxies or not. Global has proven that it is very efficient in handling this mostly technical task. Handling this globally would allow all language editions to help maintain an up-to-date open proxy list on this mutual problem. It would also be more transparent.

I do not know if this exists but globally blocked open proxies should be readily available to local admins and checkusers during on wiki maintenance. For instance consider the scenario where an IP was previously blocked as an open proxy and that was eventually lifted and later on vandalism comes out of the same IP on a local project such as en.wikipedia. That way an open proxy previously detected on another wiki would help identify its reactivation on a different wiki.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a bit of time to make sure someone hasn't already set up a page to implement the results of that RFC, if not, I'll try to get something setup, where we can hopefully coordinate our efforts. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an IP list in my userspace on meta. I compiled it using the indef block log here on en.wikipedia. I have one page for range blocks and two more for single IP blocks. Feel free to edit it btw. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put together one before seeing that at User:Monty845/Block_Review. Probably needs some refinement. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to handle it on meta. Feel free to update the page I linked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here you are: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Archive_2#Dynamic_IPs. You'd need a fresh RBL lookup or something to get more. You could ask someone like User:RonaldB to have a look, if he's around, as I'm sure he could assist enormously (and seen all the arguments). There are no incompatibilities between en's open proxy policy and the one on meta, just different implementations. On meta for example they are rarely blocked in relation to here, whereas the Chinese type wikis virtually depend on them. Some organisation of those blocked at the request of owner (schools, OTRS and similar), as well as those reviewed would be useful. I would not recommend unblocking without review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All OPs not blocked on meta can be blocked here, sure. But everything else should be handled there. I'll ask User:RonaldB per your request. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain briefly my approach.

On NLWP pre-emptive blocking of open proxies is applied. Rather than just reactive blocking open proxies, this also provides some defense against logged-in trolls.

Source for all blocking (and unblocking) is a large and ever growing database. Maintenance is partially automatic (single IPs), partially manual (ranges).

Various internet lists are the source for single IPs (I learned over time which ones are useful). These are 7/24 checked on open proxy behaviour. Only after a certain grace period my system considers a suspected IP a real open proxy, thus preventing amongst others useless blocking of very dynamic IPs. For unblocking the same principle applies.

Initially my scanner was also checking the exit IP of web proxy URLs. With the advent of cloud technology with hosting providers, that approach turned out to become less effective. Therefore I replaced that by blocking ranges of hosting providers.

As we speak, some 20k individual IPs and some 2750 ranges are blocked on NLWP. Blocking and unblocking of individual IPs is a batch process run every 2 days (average) and involving per run some 500 blocks and same unblocks.

Since I started on NLWP more than 350k blocking (and a bit less unblocking) actions have taken place. The table of individual proxies has a row count of 3.5 million. A lot of that is obviously historic data, but is of huge help to analyse "special cases".

In the course of time I have developed several tools to assist me with the assessment of IP related issues. Amongst these tools is one to make a kind of inventory of the status quo, like I have done years ago for the Germans (they appeared to have a similar problem as noticed here).

Since I started 6 years ago with Wikipedia:Open proxy detection, I considered ENWP the ideal test bench for any improvement on the system, because I never had to wait long for a hit ;-).

For any further queries don't hesitate to poke me on NLWP. - Rgds RonaldB (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do a check on the indef blocked Open Proxy IPs on en.wikipedia with your tool? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've run into this problem myself. I edited for a long time as an IP editor but found I was continually getting blocked. I don't pretend to know how this works but when working from home, I log into the learning platform at school which means I was blocked as a proxy? I know that schools cause you problems with vandalism but have you ever considered contacting them to report it? I know my headmaster would take a very dim view of our pupils bringing the school into disrepute by vandalising wikipedia. You know wikipedia is such a valuable educational resource I do wonder at the merit of blocking schools? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies are always blocked. No questions, no hesitation, no exceptions. Non-proxy school IPs tend to get a fair amount of WP:ROPE before getting blocked but there are cases where the disruption simply becomes unbearable; while I appreciate your good faith in your teachers wanting to curb vandalism you'll have to forgive us if we're a bit jaded because there have been multiple cases in the past of teachers encouraging vandalism or even performing it themselves "to demonstrate/prove how Wikipedia is unreliable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checked a total of 183 of the most recent indef blocks, using the end of this list: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt

Found 45 entries which are also in my database. Did not check whether or not all entries are still actual (would decrease the number), neither checked whether it would have been more effective to block a range.

Of the other 75% the whois has been inspected manually. The vast majority is dynamic, so indef block is meaningless and superfluous. Also found some weird things, such as 3 IPs belonging to WMF or WMDE and 4 /16 ranges in China, which are highly dynamic.

Finally ran a scan on the 75% IPs, trying 16 ports that are most frequently used as open proxy. Result negative.

So the effectiveness of the current practice seems doubtful. – Rgds RonaldB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the IPs that you conclude are open proxies? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is something that is not readily available. After some copy/paste work, my tool shows the IPs in a little window, after which I can instruct the tool to get through the list and mark suspect IPs via a color. Also built-in is a counter. To produce an exportable list requires modification of my tool. What do you want to do with that list of 45. It is just a small sample of a much longer list? - RonaldB (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mark them so that perhaps other IPs can be unblocked. It would also serve as a metric on how well older blocks are holding up. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban, some doubt about edits being allowed

VIOLATED

The original wording of the restriction includes the phrase all namespaces, which includes categories. Laurel Lodged is warned that further violations could result additional sanctions. The Banner is reminded to inform involved editors when filing AN & ANI requests. NE Ent 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are these edits allowed within the topic ban for Laurel Lodged published here: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community? I have some doubt, so I prefer to check. The Banner talk 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really knowing the editor or the circumstances of the ban, my opinion was tentative (Banner asked me on my talk page) but I'm inclined to say the edit certainly violates the spirit of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is under "editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties" and the two edits (the first being [57]) imparts a change that modifies the significance (via categorical listing) of County Limerick which is a different county in Munster. The same edit also did this for County Tipperary which is further east of County Clare and the "epon" cat of "History of County Clare" is by all accounts modifying the historical impact of the Dál gCais on the area; essentially removing them categorically from the geographical area to essentially omit the tribe's control of land in County Limerick as noted at King Brian Boru's page. If not violating the letter, it violates the spirit and lowers the significance of the tribe which by all accounts seems to have had control of land and influence in those counties. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --- she's violating the spirit of her ban KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change from Tipperary to North Tipperary violates the restrictions (as well as being a non-existent category), but moving to the relevant subcategory would be to increase precision, rather than to reduce significance; following the revert by User:The Banner the article became one of only three directly in Category:County Limerick. The explanation of the "eponymous categories" change isn't clear, whether it's being done consistently, and whether consensus exists for changes such as this, as it's a change between two options in WP:EPON. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a "yes, it violates the ban"? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tipperary change[58][59] does. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Firstly, gender check:male. Secondly, I am dismayed that the nominator chose to go down this path rather than engaging in the Dal gCais talk page. At the first opportunity I went to the talk page and explained my position. All I got was gnomic two word responses. Requests for clarification went unanswered. At no point in the "discussion" was the question raised as to whether or not the edits were in violation of the topic ban. Had that been raised, I would have been happy to reply per the third point below. So this is overkill and this is the wrong forum. Thirdly, it is my opinion that the Dal gCais is an important part of the history of the region. While their fortunes ebbed and flowed over the centuries, at their most stable period, their rule extended over most of what would be now known as counties Clare, Limerick and North Tipperary. At no point did they hold sway over South Tipperary which was held by their rivals in Munster, the Eóganachta. So precision demands that a more wide-embracing use of County Tipperary be avoided. It goes without saying that none of these geographic areas existed at the time of the height of Dal gCais power; they were Norman inventions centuries later. Why then the removal of the categories? Simple. They already existed for the articles eponymous category - Category:Dál gCais. Why have double directs? How was this going to improve navigation? Everything that was needed for the Dal gCais article - and more - was contained in its eponymous category. It is sufficient for the article to have no other categories than its parent; everything else is clutter and superfluous. You will note that I did not delete any county category from the parent category. Instead, I increased the category precision from a generic "County Foo" to a precise "History of County Foo". Indeed I added a category - North Tipperary - on the assumption that it too would have the same county naming structure. I was surprised that the county did not have a History sub-cat. It was my intention to create it later but did not want to muddy the waters once the nominator's reversions kicked in. None of the above violates the letter or spirit of the ban.

I recommended that the nominator be asked to cool his/her jets and engage more faithfully in future before taking the sledgehammer to solve the nut situation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but I am not seeing a defense to why you violated your topic ban and on the contrary it sounds like you knowingly violated it instead of discussing it on the talk pages. Something which you are allowed and highly encouraged to do by explicit wording of the editing restriction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, my mistake. The Banner talk 13:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanbir Singh Grewal: ban?

Amanbir Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amanbir Singh Grewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mokshanine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There's been some contentious editing at Runes by a 117 IP who has been signing as amanbir and amanbir grewal on Talk:Runes and on my talk page. The edit summary here especially concerns me. I note that there was an AN/I report of much more serious nationalist bigotry in October 2012 that ended with blocks on an IP in that range who was calling himself Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh was indef-blocked in November 2012, which was followed by an AN/I report of threats by an IP signing Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh Grewal was blocked twice for edit warring in August this year (currently unblocked, so I have asked the IP at Talk:Runes whether they are the same person); that there was an AN/I report that month mentioning IP use associated with the Amanbir Singh Grewal account but not the indef block of the Amanbir Singh account, and referring back to this AN/I report earlier the same month, which refers to User:Mokshanine, who requested a rename from User:Amanbirgrewal. These appear to be the same person, although the edits are in a different area of interest, and with the continuing contentious IP editing, I believe it may be time for an official ban so that the other two accounts can be officially linked an indeffed too and so that IP edits can be reverted on sight. A rangeblock has also been suggested to me, but I understand there would be a lot of collateral damage, so that would amount to another reason to go the revert on sight route. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support siteban and blocking of Amanbir Singh Grewal, Mokshanine/Amanbirgrewal for sockpuppetry. Upon a closer look the area of interest of these accounts is not so different at all. All have a common interest in St. Paul's School, Darjeeling which made up most of Mokshanine's edits. In fact the first edit by Amanbir Singh was the attempt of inserting a photo to that article [60], a task where Mokshanine had apparently given up over continuous copyright issues [61]. Moreover, the 117.x IPs in question and Amanbir Singh share an interest in things related to Norway and the Norse culture, like Norwegian School of Economics, Breivik [62][63], and lately the puported origin of Norse runes by the IP editor who names himself amanbir grewal (see diff posted by Yngvadottir). De728631 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear ethnic attack here, but I'd better not block him myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block who? :) Yes, a range block would be very appropriate here. Sheesh, what not-smartness is on display there. You can have your ban (support) too, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, I blocked another IP, but none of that is going to do any good of course. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, no mention of Cynewulf. No wonder it's not an FA. Get to work, Yngvadottir; no need for sex books here. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced there is a connection between the account holders, though I'm not fully convinced (yet?) they are all the same person. I do support a ban for all potential owners of the accounts. When it comes to IP ranges, if I only look at the first two IP's, 117.226.28.239 and 117.238.251.53, the likely collateral would already be enourmous: it would be 117.224.0.0/12. 117.226.28.239 alone is part of a /14 assignment, which is already crazy collateral. The IP's are owned by Bharat Sanchar Nigam, which is at least one of the largest ISP's in India. Any effective rangeblock would probably mean blocking huge swats of this ISP's userbase. What we're left with is probably remaining vigilant and blocking where we can. I'll take some time to investigate the edits themselves, and see if I can tailor an abusefilter, but I'm not counting on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esvita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just appeared on my talk page signing Amanbir, and has edits on other Wikipedias. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's a 117 IP on the user page of the Swedish Esvita (who is also associated with the name Amanbir Singh Grewal [64]). I'm beginning to think that this is a whole team of editors. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had a run-in with IPs signing off as Amanbir Singh a year ago and made one AN/I post here. It involved massive disruption on the Anders Behring Breivik related pages. The incident included at least one threatening post [65], implications that I knew something about the 2011 Norway attacks, and postings of my real name on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Enough really right there to ban someone were it not for the fact that he was de facto banned already. But if it will help to make it de jure banned, it has my full support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note a blatant threat here from 117.229.205.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at 18:27. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested before I implement consensus at WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

VisualEditor is now opt-in. Further info available here: Special:Permalink/574252698#VisualEditor now opt-in only for all users on English Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Most of you are familiar with the Visual Editor problem. Despite an overwhelming consensus that the tool should be opt-in (see WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC, which had the highest response rate of any Wikipedia RFC that I am aware of ) WMF has insisted on keeping the editor opt-out, and issued a response that basically dismissed the community's concerns at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Default State RFC#Wikimedia response.

WMF cooperation isn't actually required to implement the consensus at the RFC, though. It's fully within any admin's power to replace MediaWiki:common.js with User:Kww/common3.js. That would have the effect of requiring an opt-in to use VE (using the existing preference), and would remove access to VE from IP editors, just as the RFC required. Please don't do so just yet, as it needs another test round due a recent edit.

Before I proceed to implement community consensus, I invite comment and code review.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as a result of Catrope's review, it is apparent that User:Kww/anonpatch.css will need to be applied to common.js as well.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed code has been changed due to review by Catrope, MZMcBride and others. It is still at User:Kww/common3.js. The diff from stock is here. The change from the earlier version is that this actively disables the VE tabs when it needs to as opposed to relying on VE to check its preferences. Review by interested parties is actively solicited.—Kww(talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in 15 minutes or so

The changes will go live at 10 minutes after the hour (roughly 15 minutes from now). Assistance monitoring for any unexpected side effects is appreciated.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live

The changes are live.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, WMF has officially made English Wikipedia opt-in and removed the temporary change.

For the record, I will point out that I have demanded that Jdforrester retract his false accusation that I deployed "known broken code". It did exactly what I intended it to do, and passed all tests.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

No See Phillipe's request [66]. Disrupting users' experience -- increasing load either client side or server side -- to prove a point is childish -- let's key our toys in the pram. WMF is the owner of this website, and they have every legal and moral right to be ~~stupid~~ stupid and hurt the encyclopeida, even if we don't like it. Getting into a pissing contest will not be a positive step, and they could simply revert the edit per wp:office. NE Ent 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not just being stupid, they're hurting the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Amended. Nonetheless I've never believed another's stupidity justified my own. NE Ent 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The technical problems alluded to in Phillipe's request have been corrected, and his foundational premise is flawed: WMF has been approached about this many times, and is the group that is refusing to compromise. I would certainly hope that no one from WMF would abuse WP:OFFICE in a way that did not relate to a legal issue, and we could freely revert such a change.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm a little confused about the load issues. Would this actually increase server or client load more than it currently is with VisualEditor displayed? equazcion ^(talk) 18:12, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      - An earlier version did, and that's the context of Phillipe's comments.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NE Ent: It's difficult to read your comments as more than an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. For example, you mentioned a possible office revert. Which part of that policy specifically would you say is applicable here? Please feel free to quote liberally. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See terms of use and common sense NE Ent 18:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've pointed to a section about how Wikimedia wikis deal with long-term problematic users. It seems pretty clear, at least to me, that you're grasping at straws. You've come pretty close to comparing a long-time admin in good standing with the likes of Grawp. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)The WMF rarely edits Wikipedia directly outside of legal reasons, and if they abused their access to administrator privileges (i.e. editing the common js and css) it would make them a laughingstock in outside media. Heck, this whole thing makes them already look like a laughingstock, so I'm not sure that kind of misuse of WP:OFFICE would be out of the question. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The WMF does, however, regularly make bold and sweeping changes to the site's software, which is their prerogative. Every single week, configuration changes and new code gets deployed. Mucking with content is something WMF only does if it's really forced to. Managing the software is something it does literally every day. Steven Walling • talk 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If WMF allows other projects to opt-in rather than opt-out, as it appears they have, then they have no basis for ignoring consensus here. GregJackP Boomer! 18:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Not once in this whole farrago has the WMF explained why the RFC at de.wiki resulted in VE being switched to opt-in, yet an RFC here with a similar result was completely ignored (and, indeed, met with a response which basically told the community "we know best, and we're going to ignore your concerns"). Coming on the back of the Notifications fiasco, I can only assume that the WMF has lost sight of the fact that the people who actually create the vast majority of quality pages on its website are its regular community, and it needs to take notice of them. Perhaps actually implementing the results of a very clear community RfC will actually achieve that. Not to mention that it will save huge amouts of editor's time which is currently being taken up with fixing pages still being broken by VE pn a regular basis - such as these. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Philippe nor NE Ent are in a position to evaluate the technical aspects of this proposal. Previous versions of the code would have needlessly hit the MediaWiki Web API. The current code being proposed for deployment should be fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that if Philippe, NE Ent, or anyone else has criticisms of the code being proposed for deployment, they are of course strongly encouraged to speak up. Please point to specific problems in the code. Vague and general statements about the code's unsuitability should simply be discarded as attempts to unfairly influence the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right that I'm not competent to evaluate the code myself. Assuredly, I wouldn't then post that it was problematic code unless I was pretty sure of it. I've been assured by our engineering group that the code is still badly flawed. I have requested an analysis of that that I can post, knowing that you'd want specifics (in fact, it wouldn't be fair to say that without specifics), so hold tight - I think they are working on it now. But they assure me that the script as currently written - contrary to MZ's assurances - is not, in fact, fine, and that if implemented, would create an unacceptable load on the servers. If nothing else, please don't proceed with this code until our engineering team can weigh in on it. That's not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of ensuring the basic reliability of the site.
Addendum: it's been suggested that the WMF might use the WP:OFFICE policy as a vehicle to block this. I would personally not support that, and I'm the person most frequently asked to make OFFICE actions. That policy is written specifically to address content issues - it does not address core site maintenance or feature issues. That's not to say that the WMF wouldn't revert the code - I honestly don't know whether or not we would - but we wouldn't dilute the WP:OFFICE policy to do so. That policy is sacrosanct, as far as I'm concerned - we won't misuse it, because that weakens it for future, legitimate uses. So let's just take that off the table right now, okay? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the office policy off of the table.

This is the relevant diff being discussed here. Awaiting any and all feedback. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please bear in mind, Philippe, the issue is not whether it's less efficient than a server-side implementation. Yes, it is, but I believe it to be well within the range of tasks typically done in common.js. If you would perform the task on the server as was requested of you, the efficiency issues would all disappear.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather hear this from the developers, so we at least know who is arguing with MZMcBride over the code... Maybe then MZMcBride can work with whoever doesn't like the code to improve it! The ball is in your court - let the community implement the current code, or work for a better solution that still implements the huge consensus forming here that the other consensus will be implemented somehow. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The code fails the basic software quality of not meeting the functional requirements of the owner (that's WMF, not you or me) of the site. NE Ent 18:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's increasingly clear that you have a very distorted view of how Wikimedia operates. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As opposed to the existing code, which fails the functional requirement of actually improving the encylopedia - as per the results of the RfC. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We've been assured it will not hurt the servers, and it will assuredly help the editors, and avoid further damaging the project, which the WMF appears to have forgotten is why we're here. That plus a clear consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia is run via consensus decisions from its community of users. That's the basis of everything we do, and arguably it's the reason we're all actually here. We're not here to implement traffic increase strategies determined by some committee; if we were, and had known that from the get-go, I doubt many of us would've been interested in getting involved in the first place. A foundation owns the site and made WP:OFFICE to tell us the various rights they nevertheless reserve, and that's fine, but they continue to claim they uphold the original ideal that this encyclopedia is a community-run entity. That's a tough claim for them to vigilantly maintain in practice, especially in the wake of the power this encyclopedia now wields thanks to us. Sadly there's been an evident, gradual trend towards it becoming mere lip service. I think it's our responsibility to make them prove the ideals that keep us here when necessary, or else be forced to change their party line. It's only fair that we should know exactly who we're working for based on something more than empty words. So long as this action doesn't contradict WP:OFFICE and it won't increase load on either side, let's implement the community's well-established consensus. equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's about time someone stood up to the pen-pushers and incompetents in the WMF. Regardless of that fact, community consensus was clear that this is the way forward - I may not see eye-to-eye with Kww on everything, but I respect them for having the guts to stick their neck out on this one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per community consensus. Andreas JN466 19:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please go ahead and implement the RFC result. It is up to the community alone to decide what has to be done.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support implementation of community consensus. The WMF's failure (or refusal) to provide an explanation of why the parallel de-wiki determination cannot be similarly implemented here is at best disquieting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Technical 13 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I believe the message this will effectively send is "go pound sand". Tarc (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NE Ent hit the nail on the head with "Getting into a pissing contest will not be a positive step". Breaking deployed features and pretending you don't need to collaborate with the site's technical leadership is a road to pain and conflict, not consensus and a better editor for all. Furthermore, site JS and CSS were frankly not made to implement this complex and far-reaching of a change, which is why you're probably going to create performance problems like MZMcBride told you. You can try this, but don't say people didn't warn you when bad things happen, like the API breaking and readers getting a screwed-up experience. The VisualEditor team (of which I am not a member) was able to show an ability to compromise and rollback some of the bolder aspects of the VE launch. I encourage us to meet them halfway, as a community. Steven Walling • talk 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the comments above, Steven, you will see that I have addressed the issues that MZMcBride had, and he agrees with that assessment. My first version hit the API unnecessarily hard.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you did, that's good. I still don't see why we need to get in to a fight over this. Today less than 10% of edits an hour come from VisualEditor. The thing is being used by a minority of people in beta mode, as requested by the community. It's not breaking the site en masse and anonymous/new people are mostly using wikitext to edit these days. There is no emergency that requires forcing this issue right now. Steven Walling • talk 00:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, earlier versions of the code were not as performant. The proposed code being discussed here is much better.

SW: The frustration levels are so high on the community's side due to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC and the response to it (found on the talk page).

I think everyone agrees that there aren't easy answers here, but there is obviously something to be said for wiki sovereignty and (overwhelming) community consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That argument smacks of WP:POINT to me. I don't care about making a point to WMF that we are fully "sovereign". This isn't geopolitics. It's about doing what's best for the thousands of editors and millions of readers of Wikipedia. Using an ugly hack to disable VE in local CSS/JS is not what's best, not when it's a optional, beta feature that a relatively tiny number of edits are made with. Steven Walling • talk 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, given that you are a WMF employee, you have a conflict of interest here. It would have been better to declare it, just like Philippe did above. Andreas JN466 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) SW: I don't think anyone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia and I'm not sure it's very helpful to suggest otherwise.

While I might agree with you regarding the scope of VisualEditor (optional, beta feature), hundreds of editors have come together to state (emphatically) that they disagree with the deployment timeline. Honest question: When and how do you think it's appropriate to discount such a community consensus? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:POINT is about doing something just to make a point. This is something that has overwhelming consensus. That's why it's getting put through. If it also makes a point, so be it -- that's not a bad thing, and never is. Any time we follow policies we believe in we're making a point to some degree. equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Andreas: I declare my employment on my userpage and use a separate WMF account when necessary, for the purpose of separating work/volunteering. I was elected as an admin four years before I ever drew a paycheck from WMF, so a post on AN is something I'm pretty well cleared to participate in as a Wikipedian. MZ: I am not here to make constitutional arguments. I want to do what's right in this case. If it was right to disable VE this way, I'd support it. The discussion is to gauge the temperature of the community when it comes to KWW's proposal, not to discuss hypotheticals. Steven Walling • talk 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you shouldn't participate, only that you have a conflict of interest and didn't declare it here. Andreas JN466 01:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the Texas State Board of Nursing says to nurses - it's not possible to separate the knowledge from the person. In essence, once you became employed, you lost your ability to contribute to discussions only as a community member. You cannot separate your foundation employment from yourself. By the way, the TXBN said that in response to a nurse asking if she went on a camping trip for a scouting organization as a parent, would she be required to use her skills. It fits nicely here, in my opinion, as Steven cannot comment here without it being a comment from a Wikimedia Foundation employee, no matter how much he tries to separate the two (volunteer and employee). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I think its pretty dishonest and unfair to state that "Breaking deployed features and pretending you don't need to collaborate with the site's technical leadership is a road to pain and conflict..." when that is exactly what the WMF did and continues to do in relation to the community. The community asked and then begged for the WMF to pull back and regroup after the massive and ogoing failure of VE, the WMF refused so we did an RFC and hundreds of editors concurred to pull back on VE. Again the WMF declined so now, the community is doing what is in its capacity. If you or the WMF doesn't like it, then you should have worked with the community rather than tell us you know better what we need and want. If you want to criticize about working together then you should try looking in the mirror.71.126.152.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, (edit conflict) the issue can always be revisited in a future RFC in six months or a year. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Those (Redacted) should NOT be able to overrule community consensus on this issue! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in this thread alone, I've seen staff referred to as "pen-pushers", "incompetent", and "pricks". In the meantime, I've sat here and taken it. I get that you're frustrated, but civility is one of the five pillars of this website, and it's sorely lacking here. The WMF may have it's flaws, but I don't see any of our staff out here calling people names. I'm appealing to you as a person here - let's keep the discussion civil? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect; If you had LISTENED to us and RESPECTED our decisions on this issue then we would not be using such terms! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why I can not condone the use of "prick" I think it nicely shows the strengt of feeling here. I've long argued that the major problem with this roll out and others has been communication. If you've been reading this thread why haven't you answered what's the difference between en.wiki and de.wiki. I think a lot of the bad will has been caused by the staff seeming not appearing to listen - repeatedly saying "not going to happen" without addressing users concerns or entering into a discussion is one of the worst examples. This thread is another example of that. A valid question of the difference between en.wiki and de.wiki was asked, a WMF person has been watching and yet we have no answer. The WMF is shooting itself in the foot with how it communicates with editors. Dpmuk (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not going to condone the language etc, but at the same time it would be a shame if you didn't also attempt to understand where all this is coming from. People feel slapped in the face by an organization that they perceive to have all the power; this isn't the first time it's happened; and they're slapping back in the only way they can. They don't feel that they're arguing with another individual from the community on equal footing, with whom they work with regularly and need to maintain a civil relationship. Individually you're people who don't deserve to be called names, but as a collective, you've done things that, to us, feel rather uncivil. equazcion ^(talk) 02:46, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I ever called staff any names, I'll stand up right now and apologize, to their faces. Sorry. But at least don't tell us to "compromise" with you when we already had our consensus. You don't like what's happening - well, you caused it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the "pen-pushers" remark, Philippe, and I stand by it 100%. The entire VE project has been about "pen pushing" - you've set a bunch of unrealistic goals, wrapped things up in red tape, whilst not focusing on the core issue; what the community want. Instead, you've made a half-arsed, half-baked hash of a project, which is the result of people who have no idea what they are doing as the project leaders, and are so detached from reality/their customer and client base, that they think they can do whatever they want. If anyone tried pulling the stunts some of the WMF members have, or produced the same godawful code that you lot have, in any programming company... you'd have been fired very, very quickly for sheer incompetence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Steven Walling. I'm willing to compromise. Just do it the way that the community wants you to do it, and everything will be fine. See, we can compromise the same way that the WMF VE group compromises. @ Philippe (WMF). I don't think you do get it. Has anyone talked to Jdforrester, who basically told the community to pound sand? This isn't the first time that WMF has done what it has wanted to do against community consensus. Seeking consensus is in the same pillar as civility, and I don't think that the community lost its way first. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If the WMF isn't going to take our concerns on board, or worse seemingly ignore us (see my comment above), then we need to take things into our own hands. I strongly suggest that any reversion of this change by WMF staff be reverted and the user blocked for ignoring consensus. That is of course unless it's an office action which will open up an entirely new can of worms. Dpmuk (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the revert is an office action then the media will pick it up rather quickly and create yet another PR nightmare for the WMF! And Arbcom will doubtless be dragged in as well! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ArbCom. Unlikely, they have no remit concerning office actions and will defer to WMF. As to the media response, you're are probably correct. The issue isn't very "sexy", but any kind of dissension within Wikipedia is likely to generate press. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Furthermore, we should ban all Foundation staff involved with this bullshit (and Echo, Flow and WP:ACTRIAL) whose ... um... conduct... have done damage to the encyclopedia exceeding that of many banned users. It is clear from this very thread that community patience has been exhausted. MER-C 03:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, to accuse the WMF representatives of being on par with even the lowest-common-denominator banned users is wholly inappropriate. Granted, they're being stubborn and attempting to short-circuit consensus, but they're still ostensibly acting on what they feel is the best interests of the community, as opposed to an outside ideal or their own twisted amusement. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the motive, the disruption is the same. I consider a ban a signal of no confidence in the relevant staff members. However, I find it difficult to believe they are acting WP's best interest when they ignored their own research that VE was making newbies do less productive work. MER-C 08:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption is only because they're employed directly by the Foundation and working on their behalf. Banning them would be unnecessarily punitive, especially since it's a given that they wouldn't be doing as they are doing now if they weren't on WMF payroll. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can't believe that we're actually needing to have this discussion. 1) It's important for the WMF to respect consensus; 2) This piece of software is terrible in its current implementation with usability issues; and 3) The VE, while a good idea in practice, isn't going to work at all, judging by what has transpired. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it goes without saying. I don't support banning the WMF representatives that have most exacerbated the situation (Whatamidoing and Jorm) but I certainly support them (and any of the obstructionist coders) being fired for gross incompetence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I the target of your immature demand for people being fired? I'm not on the VisualEditor team. Please leave me out of this.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your implication that only VE would be supported with Flow certainly exacerbated the situation, Jorm. Note that I did not call out VisualEditor team members (except for any coders participating in the WMF stonewalling) only; I called out the representatives and coders who're causing the situation to escalate and causing the most loss of community trust. Were this any other charity suffering a similar amount of backlash from its volunteers, they'd backtrack faster than you can say "Susan G. Komen" and remove the ones causing the volunteers' distress. The same should happen here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unfortunatly the "you will take your medicine and like it"-esque comments regarding VE have seriously damaged the WMF's credibility with the community. Accepting the community's consensus on this matter instead of continuing to complain about being made to lay in the bed they made would be a good start at repairing that credibility. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If you can apply the RfC consensus, that's just great! Tired of seeing articles damaged, and most of the time seeing that the bug has already been reported weeks ago, but is not even prioritized by WMF, while they say that almost all damaging bugs are already fixed. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 05:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the last VisualEditor updates, I see that they are still planning to deploy VE on 2 dozen more wikis just tomorrow... Their way of saying that they want to compromise ???
Comment: I made a point of not commenting directly in the RFC because, to be honest, I really, really want VisualEditor to be an effective editing interface, and I know there has to be activity in order to identify problems and give the developers the chance to improve them. At this point, however, we're 12 weeks into what the WMF insists on calling "Beta" testing, and multiple core functionalities are still terribly bad, if they exist at all. (Template:Bugzilla is core functionality, not a low priority enhancement.) Meanwhile, hundreds of bugs have been identified, a significant number of which have been fixed only to recur. (Agile development does not mean you skip doing proper regression testing.)
English Wikipedia was the first testing ground for this software, and we reported bugs like there was no tomorrow. We started off with good faith that things would be fixed quickly; however, it became apparent that there were (and still are) major gaps in what VisualEditor can do, and major issues in some of the things that it does unintentionally. Our colleagues on other projects saw how bad this software is, and how far away it is from being fully functional, let alone a suitable alternative to wikitext editing, and RFCs on other projects that showed a clear consensus for "opt-in" to VE were respected by the WMF. There seems to be no reasonable excuse for not respecting English Wikipedia's RFC.
We have done our share of active, daily, intensive testing of this software. It is time for the WMF to respect this community's consensus, and apply the necessary settings from the server side so that VE is opt-in on this project. I note Catrope's post below with respect to Kww's script, and it appears that his code might not do quite what it's intended to do, to the point that it might be taken down for technical reasons. I cannot stress how provocative that would be; even if there is a good technical reason for removing that code, the correct solution is for the WMF to apply the code it already has written and implemented on other projects, from the server side. Risker (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm able to address the technical issued Catrope has brought up, so even if WMF fails to cooperate, we will still be able to move forward.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oppose per NE Ent, and, taking a page from User:MER-C, support bans of the key figures in pushing this idiotic crusade. We all know what's going to happen here: Someone will make the change to common.js, the Foundation will revert, someone will re-revert, and things will get painfully tense until the admins stand down in the face of blocks or desysops (or the blocks/desyops will actually happen, though my guess is people will chicken out first). You have two rights on a wiki: the right to leave and the right to fork. People who have a problem with the Foundation's management of this wiki are welcome to take either course. At least that way we wouldn't have to watch them all masturbate one another in honor of their brave rebellion against The Man. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant think of any precedent that would dictate banning someone who implements an established consensus. It's generally the other way around. equazcion � | 06:28, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  - One has to wonder exactly what substances PinkAmpersand was taking in order to come out with that bunch of rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not what I was under the influence of. It's what I wasn't under the influence of: this mass hysteria of "why do they get to be in charge?" petty anger that has spread from the perennially malcontent to a disturbing number of editors who should know better. Glad to know you care about my health, Luke (the answer to your question, by the way, is a small amount of tobacco and maybe a little bit of caffeine), but I think you should be far more concerned about the health of the editing community. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you've been hiding off-wiki since the VE came in then? The VE is still a steaming pile of dogshit, which is fundamentally flawed (the woeful performance is one obvious sign) and still can't handle the most basic of tasks properly, or at all. The response to the WMF has nothing whatsoever to do with who is in charge of whom; it's a case of "this doesn't work, it won't work any time soon, and you won't listen to one of the clearest consensuses there's ever been" - anyone with any experience in coding should realize just how much of a mess VE is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the WMF made a lot of mistakes with this. They launched without sufficient beta testing, when a few extra months would've hurt no one. However, I think there's been a massive overreaction to what happened (just like the massive overreactions involved in the last dozen "controversies" involving the WMF), and that overreaction troubles me far more than whatever's wrong with the VE. People have this idea that because this is a wiki, that means we all get to be in charge of the business side of things. Any time the WMF acts unilaterally, it's taken as some gross affront to the editors here. Does the WMF have a problem with pushing software too early? Definitely; they should conduct an internal review. Does that problem significantly disrupt my editing experience? No, and I honestly don't believe it does for most people either. WMF screw-ups are a proxy for the latent conflict between the decentralized wiki structure and the centralized business structure, for the unqualified resentment many users seem to feel against the WMF employees.
I report bugs all the time. Some of them are rather serious. Some of them are because of carelessness on the part of various paid programmers. And guess what? I never pull the kinds of stunts that people have pulled throughout this whole shitstorm. As with most shitstorms on Wikipedia, the problem isn't that there's no valid complaint, the problem is that people are complaining in the most obnoxious ways possible. I pray that someday the community will have the sense to forbid the drama-whoring that goes on in these things, to require that discussion of serious issues be polite and measured. If the community doesn't get that sense, I can only hope that the WMF or Jimbo will intervene for our own good. (In something of a catch-22, I'd like to think that Flow will help with this—that the simple act of being able to minimize, instead of scrolling down, will make it easier to ignore unhelpful comments. But that's probably overly optimistic.) — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink - the problem here is not "did the WMF make mistakes". The problem here is do we implement community consensus or not. You are not opposing the code, you are opposing the implementation of community consensus in a way that, frankly, the Foundation has never claimed control over (a local config file). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[67] And, if you ask me, that was a shitstorm where the outrage was far more justifiable than it is here. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it. If you truly abhorred the "drama whoring" you're complaining about, then you'd have stayed a million miles away from any VE debate, and you certainly wouldn't have posted an oppose !vote against a consensus that is already clear. And one dodgy site notice is nothing compared to an editor that literally breaks the encyclopedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, largely per NE Ent. I'll add that I think that implementing this, which will affect all users, would require a great deal of support; it's not possible to assert that everyone who supported the RfC would also support this response. A change so potentially divisive needs a minimum of hundreds of users to support it. Even that would not justify this in my view, for the reasons given by NE Ent, but please don't try this without an overwhelmingly positive response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why would the results of an RfC overwhelmingly supported by one of the largest numbers of editors ever on en.wiki be "divisive"? Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support But give the devs a full working day to spot any server killing bugs. So 2-3am UTC.Geni (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thank you KWW. If the WMF feels that the solution is giving performance problems, then they are encouraged to provide their own solution which gives the same results with less problems. Fram (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has this code been tested anywhere? Like say, test2.wikipedia.org, or in your personal .js? --Rs chen 7754 08:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the RfC were clear: VE should be opt-in, at least until the editing community is satisfied that the major issues have been addressed. It should not fall to Kww to have to implement this consensus using a client-side script. Rather than asking their developers to spend time analyzing Kww's ad hoc solution, the VE team ought to do the honorable thing and implement this consensus themselves, the right way, as they apparently have done on the German Wikipedia. I understand that the VE team thinks the clear consensus of editors here is "wrong", and that they know better than the editing community, but the first thing you learn when you sign up for a project like Wikipedia is that you must respect consensus even if you disagree with it. If they are unwilling to do that, then they have no business being involved with Wikipedia and should find something else to do. 28bytes (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Firstly as this is the norm on German, and Dutch wikipedia so it would remain consistent. Secondly untested Beta software should never be the default. Thirdly It is the wish of 70%+ of active editors. Fourthly en:wiki had no input in the design phase. Fifthly there never has been a place to discuss the merits of the proposed flawed VE, merely to collect instances of where it is broken. Sixthly, it is a colossal waste of time patrolling each entry on your Watchlist to see what VE has broken. 7: While this issue has been live, my productivity has plummetted, I haven created any pages and done single figures of edits on the encyclopedia. 8: Total frustration, having this elephant in the room has stopped meaningful development of alternative visual editors that work.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. — Scott • talk 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned about this action. It seems like it would set up a battleground between the English Wikipedia and the WMF. Have !voters above considered how that would effect the project? This would seem to be directly confrontational, and, as others have noted, could simply lead to the WMF locking admins out of common.js etc. We'd all be right back where we started, except now there's been what amounts to direct confrontation between EN-WP and the WMF. Do !voters believe that's an acceptable situation? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have added a link to this discussion to the talk page of the RFC. Kww has added a warning encouraging users who would only come here to rant/insult/etc to not do so. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No, the battleground was set up by the reply from the WMF to the results of the RfC. The confrontation has been set up by their refusal to take the community input into account without providing good reasons. Yes, they probably have means to make our lives a lot harder, and vice versa. They perhaps have to reconsider whether the small amount of edits with the VisualEditor, and the large amount of corrections and reversals needed after these edits, are really worth such a confrontation. Perhaps it's time that they took a good look at what is happening here and why people are reacting this way, and reconsider whether the forced introduction of clearly buggy software to many other wikipedia language versions should really be their priority now. Note that we aren't the only Wiki-language version with serious doubts about the wisdom of the approach wrt VE. Fram (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised to find myself here, but Support, pending a reasonable period for code review, per Geni. In the past I've been one of the voices calling for community compromise on issues where the WMF has stonewalled, but I'm afraid I can see no good argument for not implementing a very strong community consensus that it is within our means to implement. We have a responsibility to our users to make sure that the new code we deploy doesn't degrade the site's performance and that it does what it says on the tin, but we're not obligated to artificially restrain ourselves from implementing consensus because it would inconvenience the Foundation.
Incidentally, the vociferousness with which the community is coming out on this issue is, I think, the chickens coming home to roost Idiom definition here for the Foundation. If this were the first time that strong community consensus had been overruled, the community would be much more hopeful about and receptive to useful compromise; however, we've seen this played out enough times to know that no compromise of any value is likely to be forthcoming (not from deliberate obstructionism by the WMF so much as because bureaucracy just works like that), and therefore we're more inclined to "That's ok, we can do it without you" than we might otherwise be. Or, to put it another way, the Foundation has veto power in extreme circumstances, and that's as it should be, but the extremity of the circumstances in which they attempt to deploy that power is steadily decreasing, and as The Boy Who Cried Wolf learned, extreme measures employed too often will lose their power for when they're really needed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I commend Kww for the work he has put into this, and the RFC, and related matters such as protective templates, for the benefit of this community. He deserves a huge amount of respect for that. I also Support this implementation, iff the Foundation do not finally look sensibly at this issue and implement the RFC results themselves, properly, and very quickly now, as they have done elsewhere on other language wikipedias.
It is an absolute tragedy that it comes to this - the potential for disruption and confrontation here is immense, and the damage that could be done, and linger, over this issue is terrifying. And for what? A stubborn insistence that "we know better than you", and some bruised egos because what was deployed, and the way it was deployed is hugely sub-par, and to back down and do the right thing now would bruise those egos some more? No, WMF, do the right thing and implement this consensus in the face of the largest groundswell of honest consensus I've ever seen here - because it's right, and deep in your hearts you damn well know it's right, and that by taking that step you would instantly begin to regain the support of a community which is eager to, and can, help you do this properly.
In the absence of that happening very quickly I support the community implementation, and god help us all. Get a clue, WMF guys - we're supposed to be in this together, so act, right now, like we really are. Please. The alternatives are appalling. Begoon ^talk 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the WMF folks are concerned this is not an optimally clean and efficient way of doing it from a technical perspective, they know they have it in their hands to implement something better: just do the same they did on de-wp. Unfortunately, the attitude we are seeing from those responsible on the WMF side indicates there's little hope for something constructive from them. Philippe's whiny display of incompetence and argumentative dishonesty shown in his reaction here [68] is nothing short of nauseating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty dismaying to see, but seems pretty par for the course on how the VE developers seem hell-bent on screwing over this community. If WMF-folk have a better way of doing this, by all means, I would welcome it. Until they decide to stop spitting on this community and actually abide by the overwhelming consensus here, we need to just stop this abomination in any way possible. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/September 19, 2013 - 2 dozen other wikis are apparently getting VE (as pointed out by User:NicoV above). I wouldn't be opposed to letting them know the situation and offering our code fix. equazcion � | 18:18, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support. First of all, looking formally, everything is good: WMF has a right to change the MediaWiki that is being run on the servers, the community and administrators have a right to change pages in MediaWiki namespace. Also, while the RFC might not have been formally binding for the WMF, it is "more binding" to the administrators. Second, as to what is going to happen - I would guess that, most likely, WMF will not really do anything significant. The previous actions could easily happen "by inertia", but for such revert (or anything more drastic) that might be less likely to be enough... After all, what formal reason can they supply..? Another objection is that such action is confrontational. Well, it is. We shouldn't be acting like this with our friends. But at the moment WMF are not acting as our friends (friendship is not defined as a relationship where one side often does or says something that another side finds to be insulting) and I do not see a reason to pretend that they are our friends. Though, of course, it does not mean that we cannot collaborate and negotiate - even real enemies in real wars often did negotiate (otherwise we would have no peace treaties to write about). And thus the call to ban the representatives of WMF is a bad idea - yes, too many of them are not going to get the title of "great communicator" any time soon, but are they going to communicate better when banned..? Anyway, we should not be too harsh in criticising the instances when representatives of WMF at least show some efforts to communicate politely and respectfully (like in [69])... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from IP, crossposted from talkpage. I tried to post my comments to the discussion but it seems IP's aren't welcome on this noticeboard so I'm posting here instead. Feel free to post it to the discussion or leave it here. The mere fact that the WMF is choosing to implement the VE application to a couple dozen more wiki's this month only shows they aren't listening. There are literally hundreds of bugs that need to be fixed. It still doesn't work at all with any version of internet explorer and multiple Wiki's are on the verge of a revolt. There is absolutely no possible good that can come out of continuing this implementation before a large group of the problems are fixed. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Crossposted by ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the plans for rollout of VE on other wikis were planned over a month ago and discussions have been occurring on VilagePump, etc. those wikis before the ANI. Informed by enwiki discussions such as this one, there has been discussion on reversing, delaying, or canceling on rollout on other wikis to the point of confusion amongst the staff as to the rollout date/plans which happens whenever you reverse something that people have been working on for a while. Furthermore, things are complicated by the fact that some of those wikis have specifically asked for VisualEditor to be enabled there. Anything beyond what is being done (perhaps a bit schizophrenically) begins to make a claim that Enwiki should dictate what goes on in these other wikis, which I'm sure nobody wants.

You have a point as there are just over 800 reported bugs on VisualEditor of which under 30 should be considered before delaying release. These bugs should inform decision-making as to rollout, and should be discussed, but not in the way it has been framed as a go-no go-rollback. For reference, the bug numbers for MediaWiki and MediaWiki extensions are (over the 5000 limit) reported bugs of which 512 are major or critical. I'm sure you're not advocating the WMF put Wikipedia in read-only mode until the five hundred critical and major bugs in MediaWiki are fixed.

VisualEditor doesn't work in Internet Explorer, but it's also not enabled for them. Since the wikitext editing works and is enabled on (nearly) all browsers, I wonder the Harrison Bergeron justification of punishing everyone because Microsoft can't implement decent support of a web standard. Besides, from the comments, it seems some of you would consider the disabling of a feature a feature. :-)
I hope my comment doesn't sound condescending because that isn't the intention. Your comments evoked a lot of thinking on my part and I spent some time looking up the justification for some of the decisions (or in the case of rollout to other wikis on Sept 24 or 30th or later, the lack of me to find knowledge of the current decision). - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tychay, Hi, and thank you for your post. I have major concerns when you speak about bug counts and comparing them to MW bugs:
First, I've been around here a long time and even with the number of open bugs for MW, I don't see them damaging articles, which is very far from what I can say about VE. So, comparing number of bugs is meaningless in my opinion.

Second, your count of VE bugs that should be considered before delaying the release (30 according to you) is way underestimated because many, many VE bugs haven't been prioritized or given a criticity, including many that are damaging articles on a regular basis.
--NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: You make some good points. I'm not comparing bug counts, I'm advocating against the use of bug counts in decision-making because it leads to an unworkable state that nobody wants via reducto ad absurdum.

I would disagree on the qualitative point of "very far away." for various reasons
A number of unresolved bugs in mediawiki have drastically harmed logged-in performance and editor experience has suffered drastically vis-a-vis reader performance to the point that it may have significantly contributed to editor decline.

Because I, a rare editor at best, have been burned by a number of mediawiki bugs in parser (some I noticed are actually corrected in parsoid/VE), that has forced me to do re-edits — I'm sure you've run into stuff that should work, but don't, gone in and fixed them in preview or on re-edit — the difference here is rendered output by the current parser-based wikitext transform is the canonical and thus forces you to implement workarounds, while parsoid is not, so that "broken" behavior is okay, but not a fair standard

the major bugs left uncategorized applies to my MediaWiki example above. Fourth

While there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of breakages due to VisualEditor, the research shows that it is "manageable."

I use the word in the last point in quotes because the research doesn't really say that: it looks at reversions and other factors and show that the quantity of reverts/blocks generated possibly by VE bugs during the period of the research were overwhelmed by regular wikitext vandalization rates. I think it's important to be specific because we want to use the data when available to inform decision-making, but not be driven by it. (In other words, just because the data doesn't reveal the VE bugs as harmful, doesn't mean that the significance of VE bugs can be dismissed.) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting but, ultimately, useless conversational digression. en.wp had an RFC on this. It was massively supported to make VE opt-in. You guys had a chance to head it off by making some adjustments there and you decided not to. Why not pull back for 6 months and deploy when VE isn't broken? AnswerTheQuestion (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from VE developer

Comment

Hi everyone, I'm a developer on the VisualEditor team at WMF. Since people have been making various claims about what the proposed Common.js code does and doesn't do, I figured I'd review and analyze it. Here's what this code will do, as far as I can tell:

If the user is not logged in (anonymous) or is logged in but has never made an edit (edit count is zero), then the script will attempt to disable VisualEditor on the current page.
If the user is logged in but has never made an edit, and the “disable VE” preference isn't already set, then the script will set it (asynchronously, by calling the API).

Re 1, note that previous versions of this code checked whether the user was autoconfirmed (only disabling VE if the user wasn't autoconfirmed), whereas this version checks the user's edit count (only disabling VE if the user has no edits). It's not clear to me why this change was made or where it was discussed (same for the original decision to go with autoconfirmed-ness as a criterion), but I haven't been paying very close attention to this, so I might have missed it.

Re 2, note that there is was a typo in the current version of the code that ~~results~~ resulted in the script always setting the "disable VE" preference, even if it's already set. This is the "hammering the servers" issue that Philippe was talking about.

A larger issue related to #1 above is that while the script attempts to disable VE on the current page, it will not succeed. It tries to disable VE by overwriting what MediaWiki's JavaScript believes the user's preferences to be, but VisualEditor checks the user's preferences early on in the page load to decide whether it should enable itself, long before this script has a chance to run and change that state. For logged-in users, that's mostly fine, because the script does an API call setting the “disable VE” preference, which means VE will be disabled for real on all subsequent page views, just not the first one. If the user's first page view is not a VE-editable page, they won't even notice. However, for anonymous users, the script won't set a preference (because anonymous users don't have preferences), and so it will fail to disable VE on any page view. It's possible that lingering caching issues will cause the script to work more or less by accident on some rarely-edited pages for anonymous users, but as far as I can tell it will fail to disable VE for anonymous users in all but a few if not actually all cases.

(The paragraph above assumes that ResourceLoader (the JavaScript loading framework in MediaWiki) works correctly. Right now there is a bug in ResourceLoader (with a fix under review) that causes the VE code to load after the Common.js code, and so right now disabling VE on the current page view works for logged-in users. It still doesn't work for anonymous users, though, because caching issues have made the preferences store for anons so unreliable that VE doesn't trust it.)

A larger issue related to #2 is that if a user who has zero edits attempts to opt into VE by going into their preferences and unsetting the “disable VE” preference, the script will set it right back as soon as it gets a chance (which is when the user views any page that's not the preferences page or the login page). So a user who has no edits but tries to opt into VE can edit their preferences all they want, but those changes won't stick because the script will fight them.

Once the user does have an edit count of 1 or higher, VE doesn't magically turn back on again. The script will stop trying to disable VE (both on the current page and in the user's preferences), but VE doesn't get reenabled and the user doesn't get any indication that they are now able to opt into VE. The only thing that changes is that if they go into their preferences and opt into VE, the script won't fight that anymore.

This produces the following, quite counterintuitive (and probably unintended) situation:

Anonymous users will see VE exactly the way they do now, except possibly on some pages (due to the caching mentioned above).
Logged-in users who have never edited will not see VE and will be actively blocked from using VE if they try. Adding ?veaction=edit to the URL won't work, and unsetting the “disable VE” preference won't stick.
Logged-in users whose first edit was before this script was deployed will have exactly the same experience as they do now, an opt-out experience: they will see VE unless they explictly opted out.
Logged-in users whose first edit was after this script was deployed will have an opt-in experience: they will not see VE unless they explicitly opt in. Really they have to un-opt-out by unchecking the “disable VE for me” box, if they can figure how to get there.

The most concerning consequences, in my opinion, are:

Certain classes of users have an opt-in experience while others have an opt-out experience, and there's no easily apparent reason why.
There is no realistic path for new users to discover and enable VE.
The fact that anonymous users are offered a feature that's hidden from some but not all logged-in users causes obvious issues (start editing as an anon with VE, create an account, where did that editor go?), but it seems the intention was to also hide VE for them.
If VE is hidden for anonymous users and editors whose edit count is zero (and opting in is actively suppressed for them), then it is by definition impossible to make one's first edit with VE. It is an explicit design goal of VisualEditor that it should be usable by people who have no experience with wiki markup. If users have to make an edit in wiki markup before they can use VisualEditor, then by definition no one in that target group (which isn't our only target group, but is an important one) can use VE on enwiki.

So, in conclusion, I think the outcome achieved by the code as written) is weird and undesirable, and probably not what was intended. Apart from the typo (which was fixed after I wrote this but before I was able to post it) there are no big technical issues that would block this from going live, but I think people might object to the current version's strange behavior. Generally, though, I don't think this is the right approach to disabling/hiding VE. There are other approaches, such as using CSS and dynamically setting classes to hide the VE edit tab, that would be lower-impact on a technical level and have simpler, more predictable behavior.

Even more generally, and going beyond the technical aspect, I think it would be nice if we could make it at least not impossible for anons and new editors to use VE, while still respecting the RFC consensus, particularly the part about how "editors should make explicit choice to become beta testers". My coworkers at WMF are working on a proposal that I think could accomplish that. It's not quite done yet (I mean, it's Sunday night here in San Francisco; that's why this response is relatively late), but I hope they'll be able to propose something in the next couple of days. --Catrope (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour with new users is as good as it can get (unless you just truly made the editor opt-in like the community has requested). It is an explicit goal of that patch that VE is not presented to inexperienced editors which means that by definition, it is not possible to make one's first edit with VE.

I believe that adding

/* Hide VisualEditor for anons and new users */
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' ) == null ) {
    appendCSS('li#ca-ve-edit, \
               .mw-editsection .mw-editsection-divider, \
               .mw-editsection .mw-editsection-visualeditor \
               { display: none; }');
}

to common.js will address the issue for anonymous editors and avoid the race condition. I was trying not to patch both files, but it's a simple fix to get around the race condition.

Please bear in mind that the goal is to prevent anonymous and new editors from using VE. The only people that should be using VE are experienced editors that are able to verify their edits, correct those that have gone awry, and issue intelligent reports about it.—Kww(talk) 06:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catrope, I think you know perfectly well what the appropriate solution would be here: It is for the WMF to enable the same code on English Wikipedia that it has enabled on German and Dutch Wikipedias. It is not as though we haven't already given you 12 weeks of very intense data. It's not like we aren't trying our best to review the 7000 VE edits a day because we *know* they're significantly more likely to have messed something up somewhere on the page; at least with source edits, we only need to look at the edit while doing recent changes patrol. We've done our share. I know that you and many others have been working very hard to fix the problems the community has identified (or at least some of them, since there's quite a bit of dispute between the community and senior VE leaders on what is core functionality, what is a bug, and what is an enhancement) — I don't want to take away from that. It's time for the WMF to respect this community's participation to date, and allow us the same respect as our peers on other projects. I hope you and your colleagues will advocate for that within your own organization. Risker (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Risker. Additionally, the WMF has this bad habit of wanting to "work with the community" after the fact and that needs to stop. You can't just decide to work with us when it seems your going to lose an argument and then go ahead and do whatever you want anyway. You had ample opportunity to work with us for the last several months and months before that in the design and development phases when we weren't consulted at all. Honestly, the time for democracy has ended. You can either chose to implement the correct solution that has been asked for by the community and has been implemented in other wiki's or we can do it ourselves in the method that is available to us. If the WMF had listened to the community in the beginning and hda done a thoughtful release this wouldn't have happened but because you wanted to rush it, you lost the faith and support of the community. Now you have to earn that trust back and so does the VE app. That always takes longer than just doing things right the first time. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Risker here. Especially the bit about us having done our share: I have taken the time to report several issues to the VE feedback page, only to learn that in most cases those were already known problems, some of them known for months. Those of us who supported "opt-in" for VE are not elitists who demand everyone learn wikitext to edit; I would love for an intelligent, fully functional visual editor to be in place to make life easier for newbies and old hands alike. I want Wikipedia to be easy to edit, because familiarity with wikitext and familiarity with an article's subject manner are two unrelated areas of knowledge, and we shouldn't require the former to benefit from the latter. What I and other "opt-in, please" supporters want is for the developers to fix the known issues – or at least the big known issues – before resuming the beta test. We're not Luddites who fear Change and Progress; we just want software that works and doesn't damage the encyclopedia or require a coterie of "cleanup artists" tidying up after the VE edits. I don't think that's unreasonable. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, yes, of course the most appropriate solution would be for WMF to implement something server-side. On technical grounds that would be much preferable to any sort of JS/CSS hack. All I care about as a VE developer is that the solution we end up with isn't ugly from a technical perspective, and I would like for it to not make it completely impossible for important groups that we're targeting to use VE. I think there are many ways to achieve that. Hopefully one can be agreed on. But I'm going to limit my involvement in this discussion to technical matters (and expressing the wish that a nonzero number of people in important target groups have the opportunity to use the software I help build, but I've said that enough times now), and otherwise focus on VE development. --Catrope (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a dispute over timing, not goals, Catrope. There will come a time when exposing new editors to VE is both prudent and necessary. That's sometime after it has basic functions like cut-and-paste between windows, tables, a complete template-editing system, support for all of our current templates regardless of how they intermix styles and content, a stable user interface, and no backlog of uncategorized and unevaluated bug reports. To me, that is the most frustrating part of this whole problem: you are working on something that could be quite useful in the future and there is probably a large pent-up demand for, but the deployment rush is souring things. It's hard to reconcile the concepts that WMF is listening to our concerns but is releasing the code to 25 more wikis anyway. Regardless, any comment you might have on the current contents of User:Kww/common3.js is greatly appreciated. I'm certain that neither of us actually wants to break Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry, but you need to give up on target groups and spend a couple thousand man-hours fixing all the things that are horribly wrong with the VE. Hearing you talk about making sure that you get enough people to use this POS tool so that you have some sort of data is just insulting to those of us who have to clean up after the innumberable messes this thing leaves across this project. Just to let you know, I automatically revert all visual editor contributions to any page I watchlist because invariably, that thing has broken every piece of functioning code on the page. I know I'm talking to a brick wall here - if the last several months haven't convinced everyone that the WMF doesn't give a shit about this community, nothing will - but you need to know that, in response, we don't give a shit whether you get a single edit from any of your target groups because every last one of those edits is a plague on this community, and helping you in any way is a direct threat to this community. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, people: we don't need this. We're in a bind here, where the community goals and the WMF goals are at loggerheads. We need to work out an answer, but this kind of vitriol doesn't help. You can express the concept that the tool isn't ready for deployment outside of a controlled test environment without this kind of insult added on.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The developers aren't the ones causing the problems here. It's not their fault their code was thrown at enwiki before it was anywhere near ready. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well being nice and holding RfCs about this cluster%$&* of a situation sure hasn't worked, so maybe letting one of those people know that parts of this community view them as a plague that needs to be wiped from the face of this project will do some good. Just remember that these people have taken the record of the scorched earth left across English Wikipedia, and somehow seen fit to impose this unholy piece of dessicated excrement on another two dozen projects this week. That's what we are dealing with. The WMF developers are actively hostile to the wellbeing of this project. Until they understand just how badly they have screwed up, and make serious amends to this community, starting with withdrawing VE until it actually doesn't ruin everything it touches, the only acceptable response is to fight them whenever, wherever, and however we can. So if Catrope has a chance of reading this and somehow manages to do the right thing and let others at WMF know that they have royally &%*$ed up, then I'm not going to pull a single punch other than censoring some of my choicest anglo-saxon verbiage, as is my habit. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to place my future with this project on the line to do something about this problem. Believe me, I don't find it helpful to have an environment where my detractors will say that I did so out of anger, spite, and hate.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never quite understood how people seem to think that adding personal insults to "I think you did X wrong" is going to make people MORE inclined to listen to them. It doesn't and it won't, Vanisaac. If anything, it's going to make people more inclined to discount your opinion, because you sound like you're responding to VE and the devs based on emotion rather than logic. It's not helpful to either the conversation or the formation of consensus, but it does manage to disrupt the discussion disproportionately and I'm pretty sure most or all of the people here wish you weren't doing it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kww. We can stay civil and polite, even if we're so many thinking that VE's deployment hasn't been handled correctly, and that VE is still in no way stable and trustworthy enough to be put in the hands of complete beginners. I hope WMF will at least act to put back VE in opt-in mode for the moment, but otherwise I strongly support Kww's work for implementing the overwhelming RfC consensus. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an autoconfirmed user

Edit filter 550 is already logging the addition of "nowiki" tags. How about changing it to block and log? Would it be possible to have it block only when the Visual Editor is used, but allow "nowiki" tags to be added with the text-based editor? Would it be possible to direct authors to the ~~log~~diff of the attempted edit, so they could make another attempt or ask for help, without losing their work? —rybec 06:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, but have not been able to find way to block them without also blocking valid nowiki tags (and there are times when VE really does need to insert them).—Kww(talk) 06:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could just block only the empty nowiki tags (or the ones containing nothing but spaces, or whatever the VE glitch puts in there). I'm assuming the empty ones aren't ever required legitimately. I'm not sure how much good it would do, but just musing. equazcion � | 06:54, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Um, no those empty nowiki tags are actually needed. That's why VE adds them... Legoktm (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not actually needed in many cases. Looking at the log for the last 30 minutes I see this (VE makes part of the linked term unlinked, which is almost certainly not what the editor wanted) and this (which is a known "WONTFIX" issue with VE failing to handle double brackets properly.) There are plenty more like that in the log. In neither case is VE actually implementing what the editor clearly wanted. 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE is implementing what the user typed. The user linked "riot" but left the "ed" part unlinked. Had they linked the whole word, there would be a piped link there, instead of VE using a nowiki to prevent the link trail. Regarding the nowikification of double brackets, the whole point of VE is so that we don't have to use wikitext. The way VE has been designed is that you either use the source editor and use wikitext, or use the VE editor and insert links in the VE-way, via the toolbar. Legoktm (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, I know how it happened. I'm just saying that's almost certainly not what the editor(s) intended. Because VE is not intelligent enough to turn [[link]] into link, someone will now have to clean that up. In this case – and many others – the presence of the <nowiki> is a hint that the edit is broken. Whether we choose to blame the editor, VE, or a combination of both, is sort of beside the point. 28bytes (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking good-faith edits is the last thing we want to use the AF for Legoktm (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Unfortunately, we haven't previously had to cope with editing software that breaks articles even when the user has done (as far as they are concerned) absolutely nothing wrong. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:John

Apparently he associates my comments with fecal matter just because he didn't like them, he has also closed this section without apologizing for calling another editor's actions "retarded" in such a way that it made more than one person think he was calling the editor retarded.

"That seems pretty retarded. This is a "content dispute"? Seriously? --John (talk) 3:24 am, Today (UTC−5)" - relevant quote from his talkpage.

He furthermore, when questioned by multiple users, took one (mine) message off of his page, and responded to the other with "Get over yourself", and saying that "[retarded] just means 'stupid'". He also told an editor that they are "deeply, deeply confused".

Can someone have a word with him about improving his civility a little bit before someone actually gets driven off the project because of it (especially new users)? "retarded" is not appropriate in any context other than mental disability itself, and even then it's not generally appropriate, much less when talking about another contributor.

Oh, I've been requested to not post on John's talkpage, so if someone else could notify I'd really appreciate it. I'll be notifying the others in a second. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Done NE Ent 18:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NE Ent. I try to respect peoples' wishes for me to stay off of talkpages. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. posted on my UT page as a result of me posting on noticeboards, and as he is likely following my posts (he responded to a post I made which did not mention him by name at all with I didn't happen upon your posts; every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system which, frankly, is an extraordinary claim, indeed,deleted as I had confused my noticeboard posts with the post on Bbb23's user talk page

I am not going to follow this section. Cheers, and best of luck to anyone following this. Collect (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of rights and wrongs, "every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system" is correct, as long as he has the "mention" box checked. Mogism (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The problem is that the post did not mention him by name at all. ESP notification?~~ Collect (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, and the notification system duly notified me. --John (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

John is clearly correct that not only was he mentioned, but his username was linked, guaranteeing an echo notification. I suggest we let that part of it rest, it is hardly the most problematic aspect of the actions under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa -- I had not mentioned him by name in any noticeboard posts, but I was concerned about the implicit threat made by him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blown up at another user once or twice in my day and said some intemperate things that I probably shouldn't have. But I have never blocked a user I was involved in a content dispute with. And that is what is really problematic here. Not just the word "retarded" (as unacceptable as that obviously is) but the unwillingness to see this for what it is. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED and should not have issued that block.

The only hope I see for this thread having any effect is if John sees that the community, not just me, see it as such. I don't want or expect an apology or for John to grovel at my feet or anything like that, but an acknowledgement that he did in fact violate expected norms of administrative restraint as well as civility would be nice. The user he blocked was not vandalizing the article, this was an argument over the appropriateness of a source. An argument that up until he issued the block was confined entirely to reverts and edit summaries. That is just not how we do things, and anyone who has been here more than a week knows that so I would certainly expect an admin to know better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did just recently issued a 31 block a user I had been involved in a dispute with, User:Greengrounds, but that was to really over the top commentaries on others, and I don't think that there necessarily is a similar case here. This probably could be seen to qualify as a misuse of administrative tools, which is another serious concern. I know at least as well as anyone else around here how thinly active admins are spread through the ground of the project here, but this sort of thing is really beyond the level of acceptability. Like Beeblebrox, I don't expect any grovelling or even an apology to the editor involved, but I do believe that it might well be reasonable to at least hope that John realizes that there were other and better ways of dealing with this. I personally think and hope that this isn't considered grounds for anything drastic, and will refrain from any somewhat jokey options like talking about trout whacking. I think every admin, who has gone through a few years generally of good behavior and demonstrably earned the trust of the community, is entitled to at least one error before any action is taken, if maybe only one. And if this is the first such action, I also hope that it is the last. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't call him retarded, Bbb23. I called his action retarded, which it was. It just means "stupid", get over yourself. --John (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)" Oh dear. There are multiple issues within that one edit alone. Personal attacks, and an apparent lack of empathy/understanding of what a "retard" is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment), I've only once had an interaction with John, and although I wish the situation would have been handled differently, I don't have any issue with them and think that this conversation is slightly silly (not saying anyone here is silly, well... other than myself, but the conversation itself is silly). Technical 13 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John is being disruptive at various places on Wikipedia these days, as recently documented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs) and elsewhere. Nothing silly about it. What's silly is that he continues to get away with such disruption. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I'm concerned, this report on him at this noticeboard should have remained. He barely considers anyone's views but his own, and is clearly going to keep on acting in the disruptive/inappropriate ways he's been acting...the Wikipedia community be damned. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking. I think it would be useful if John just retracts the R word and apologises for its usage. It looks better on the record and aplogies are usually a sign of strength, not weakness. Which makes me Superman considering the number of times I have apologised on here. Then all can move on. It may be the Real-Life stress thing, or many factors. Flyer lets not go on the offensive here. You offer fellow eds a "Golden Bridge" no matter what their position in the community. Cornering someone is usually seriously counterproductive. Irondome (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:Assume good faith is largely, if not entirely, empty with regard to John...for reasons that should be obvious. And if they are not, I certainly don't know what to state to that. Wanting John to not continue to get away with his disruptive/inappropriate behavior and to have a better understanding of why that behavior is disruptive/inappropriate, or to at least admit that it is if he knows that it's such, is not about "cornering [him]." He barely sees any fault with his aforementioned behavior, even though various other editors see it...and no matter how many times it is pointed out to him. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I can clearly understand the frustration of Flyer22, and to some degree sympathize with it, I think that the frustration is over an entirely different matter, and I would regret having this thread turning into a case of people piling on with various and sundry complaints. I don't know John enough to know his individual social milieu, and it is certainly possible that in some social setting the "R" word does not have the same degree of bite that it might in others. Also, honestly, so far as I can tell, the complaints are about comments John has left on his own user talk page, and I think that there is rather a longstanding consensus to allow possibly purple language on such. Honestly, the content of this discussion seems to be becoming rather more drahmatic than the comments which instigated them. If criticising and individual over how he comments on his own user talk page is the greatest concern people have here, honestly, I suggest that they take a look at all the other open threads on the various noticeboards, which are almost all more pressing than these incivilities. If the conducted continues in a grossly unacceptable manner, a User RfC is certainly an option, but I think the discussion here is rather degenerating and losing focus to the point that it is becoming at best nonproductive. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user John Carter. I think his comments are totally apt and that the thread should be ended. A consensus appears to be that User John should apologise and chill out for a bit. End of.Irondome (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, I always appreciate your comments. However, my frustration with John has to do with every disruptive/inappropriate edit I've seen from him these days. Anyone trying to make my frustration with him simply about the BLP dispute that recently happened between the two of us (me and him) is mistaken; my frustration started there and has continued in the days since. It is not difficult to see why, given the various editors who have commented similarly on John's aforementioned behavior at that time and since then. Nor is it about dramatizing a situation, which should be obvious. After all, before the report was removed (shown in the diff-link I provided above), he was recently reported here by an administrator who somewhat shares his views on BLP matters...but believes that he has been going about those views in the wrong way. I cannot help but think that if John were not an administrator, he would not continue to be given the free passes he has been given on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, You may well be right that he has been getting a bit of a free pass lately. I don't know. But the BLP concern, honestly, seems to be under discussion elsewhere. And I wasn't necessarily describing your additions as "drahmatic", but the tone of the discussion in general seems to be drifting off base. I do note, with some reservations, that John does not on his user page describe himself as an admin open to recall. That being the case, I think of the two choices which really would possibly address this matter, a User RfC and ArbCom, considering the matters he is being criticized over are not necessarily topically related so much as temporally related, that if there are serious concerns regarding his conduct in a broad area, that maybe ArbCom might be the best way to go. Personally, I remember once arguing against an admin being seriously criticized for telling someone to "go to hell" (in some foreign language, I forget which). With reservations, I must add, although it arguably isn't so much an attack as a speculation upon the likely future destination of one's soul, depending on religious affiliation of course. If there are concerns of that serious level, though, I tend to think that a simple discussion like this, which at this point doesn't contain all the relevant evidence of recent misconduct, might not be the best place for such discussion. Starting a separate thread or sub-thread regarding his broader recent dubious conduct would be reasonable, as would, possibly, an RfC/U and/or ArbCom. But adding material on another matter to this thread makes the nature of the thread itself more drahmatic, intentionally or not, and that can make it easier for John, or anyone else facing a similar "pile-on," to write off the concerns related to the central discussion of this thread. I don't myself know if RfC/U or ArbCom are necessarily better choices, not knowing all the particulars, but it might make sense to let this thread just deal with the issue it was apparently started to address. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very wise words. The John matters aren't at ArbCom level yet, though. Hopefully, they don't get to that point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to simply hope John dials it down a bit but if a more formal discussion is required RFC/U would be preferable to ArbCom. NE Ent 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

While I can't say that I regularly interact with him, John is a good guy. Charmlet: Perhaps you could take a break from project-space and instead focus exclusively on article-space? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't my thing :) But why can't we wait for User:John to comment before you all bash him? I don't want anything to happen to him, other than what someone suggested - he acknowledge that he was in the wrong with the tone/wordage of some of his comments. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per MZ. John is a good guy. I don't think there's any need to extract an acknowledgment, though one would be welcome. I'm sure he'll take on board what's been said here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the instant case here having to do with reliability of sources and have thus refrained until now from commenting on this matter. In the light of the above discussion, however, I have decided to do so now because of the similarities they describe with an unsettling interaction I had with this user/admin in the past ten days. I believe this may now be useful for others to consider in evaluating this user's patterns of behavior toward both editing and dealing with other WP contributors. My case had to do with the use of the words "however", "just", "actually" and "virtually" in the article Charles Lindbergh (which in a posting he misspelled as "Lindburgh"), an article that I have been helping to develop and expand with others for more than five years (almost 1,000 edits). On September 11 and 12, User:John unilaterally deleted all these words from the article (and in some cases substituted words for them that made no sense), did so only with an amorphous, uninformative edit summary "ce", and when asked why claimed as his grounds that the use of these and any similar words on WP is prohibited as a matter of WP policy because they constitute "worthless padding" (no, I'm not kidding). I pointed out to him here that these words have specific meanings that show relationships to other persons, events, chronology, etc, and that his removing or changing them materially changed the clear and intended meaning of the text. (I later asked him to cite any specific policies or guidelines that support his contention that these words are banned from WP, but that request was met with silence.)

As I had never seen this user make any edits to the Lindbergh article in the five years that I have been working on it as the entry's most active contributor by far, I also pointed out that the language he was altering had been in place for years and observed that he was "apparently not aware that all these various issues have been discussed, worked out, and agreed upon over the years among this article's most active editors." I advised him that the changes he was making also "go against that long established consensus", and that I would therefore ask him "to respect that and not reintroduce these issues in the name of 'style' over 'substance'."

User:John's response to that observation about his non-activity/unfamiliarity with the article was to claim that ''Hmm, I've been editing this article since 2006" which surprised me as I had never seem him edit the article or, for that matter, had ever even heard of him before. It also didn't take me long to determine that his claim about his "experience" editing the article to be completely false and misleading. A review of the entire history of the Lindbergh entry going back to its creation on September 9, 2002‎ reveals that prior to John's mass deletions made on September 11 and 12, just two edits (out of more than 6,000) to it had ever been made to it by this user—one (removing several wikilinks) on June 2, 2006 and the other (an RVV) on September 6, 2006. This represented just 0.032% of the total activity on the Lindbergh article—and none in more than seven years. This certainly did not comport with the spirit or implication of his statement that "I've been editing this article since 2006" nor did it in any way serve to support that he could possibly be familiar with the history of development of the article. He also again unilaterally removed the "offending" words and "advised" me that I should "resist the temptation to revert others' copyedits."

I responded to this with a long and detailed explanation (giving many specific examples) of why the usages of the words he objected to were appropriate, essential to properly communicate the precise meaning intended, did not constitute POV or "editorializing", did not violate well-established editing practices, and were not inconsistent with the article's neutrality. I then again asked him to accept the long standing consensus achieved about the use of language in this article (with which he had no demonstrated history of either following or editing), and to respect how it has been developed over the years by myself and many other editors. His "response" this time was to ignore all the points that I made in my posting and instead accuse me of being "out of line with the rest of the project and indeed the worldwide community of good writers of English." He followed this up with saying "Why not request some other opinions?"

In my detailed reply I again pointed out that "getting other opinions" had been "a continuous part of the ongoing process of developing this article" over the five years I have been working on it, that "plenty of opinions had been offered and discussed from time to time as issues arose and when necessary compromises and/or consensus reached on the language used in this article", and that "in all that time nobody had ever expressed that they had any problems with the usage or style" of the language and/or words that seemed to be bothering him. I also pointed out that if he had ever been a contributor to (or follower of) this article (which he clearly had not been) he would have already known that.

In addition I also pointed out to User:John that "there are no "Editors in Chief" on WP, and that being an Admin comes with no special rights to unilaterally enforce one's personal views on the rest of us just plain editors, and that actually the function of an admin is quite the opposite." Instead, I observed, that "When the community entrusts a user with sysop tools it does so with the expectation that he or she will assume good faith on the behalf of other contributors, will act objectively and with neutrality, will honor the consensus of the community even if they may personally disagree with it, and never to use (or even threaten to use) his or her sysop tools in a dispute in which the admin is personally an involved party."

His written response to this was to ignore all the points I made and instead tell me that I should master "the difficult niceties of writing clear, encyclopedic, English prose." (As an aside on my writing ability, I have been a professional writer for more then 45 years, have written many hundreds of published articles on a variety of subjects, and am also the author or author/editor of seven published non-fiction books four of which are on the history of railroads in North America.)

In my final posting in the thread with John (which he had started), I expressed my concern and uneasiness with his approach to making blanket, unilateral deletions and other changes in the Lindbergh and other similar articles as well as how he deals with their contributors as being inconsistent with what is expected by the community of an admin. In addition I advised him that I also found troubling his apparent pattern of abjectly refusing to accept—and his attempts to unilaterally revert—long settled community consensus if he personally disagreed with it, his condescending and dismissive attitude toward fellow volunteer editors and apparent failure to assume good faith on the behalf of other contributors with whom he disagrees, his failure to act objectively and with neutrality in such cases, and his penchant for making implied or actual threat(s) to employ his sysop tools in disputes in which you are also an involved party.

I have no personal emnity for, nor any previous history of interactions with, User:John on WP. The sum total of my contact with him consists exclusively of his edits to the Lindbergh entry and the thread discussed here that he opened on my talk page on September 12 and which was closed five days later on September 17. Centpacrr (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the silliest AN thread in a long time. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Epipelagic, no discussion of misbehavior or failure for follow the policies and guidelines of the Project, or to respect and accept the consensus of the community, on the part of an Admin is ever "silly", and especially one that has already drawn comments supporting these concerns from almost a dozen users in little more than 24 hours. Centpacrr (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Epipelagic, comments like yours are neither helpful nor welcome, so cut it out. If you want to chime in that you personally think there's no real case or problem here, that's OK, although either some refutation (brief and cogent to the extent possible) of the points made, or else counterpoints or new data, would be a lot more helpful. We're trying to get work done here.

As to case in question, it looks knotty because the man's been here awhile and has, I assume, been doing yeoman work generally. I'd like to get a sense of his overall contributions. There's maybe an Ed Poor-type vibe here (for those of you with long memories) or perhaps the man is just tired or dissatisfied, which God knows would be understandable. At any rate, I'd request the admin corps to keep eyes on the overall situation as it develops. Hopefully this will just be a bump in the road (and we all have those!) for the editor in question. Herostratus (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Herostratus, John has been making a lot of wholesale deletions of content that have prompted discussions at the BLP Noticeboard and the RS Noticeboard. It might be appropriate to issue a "cease and desist" request until the issues surrounding these mass deletions is concluded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK. I didn't know there was such as thing a "cease and desist" order but yes OK that seems to be in order here. Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is most certainly silly. Some might even call it retarded. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm astounded that you would make what you apparently think is a joke in the context of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. No levity allowed, I suppose! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was opened as an incivility complaint. It has devolved into a discussion of multiple issues (BLP sources and involved). Although I know there's a tendency on these boards to explore other conduct than that which initiated the topic and there is some linkage between these topics, I would like to see John apologize for the comment and explore any other issues in separate topics. And, yes, I believe he should apologize for using the word "retarded", regardless of whether it was aimed at a particular editor or not. I don't think any formal sanctions are called for.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the original issue raised may have been a single use of the word "retarded", a variety of users have brought up a number other more pervasive and serious issues of concern relating to what appears to be long standing ongoing patterns of misconduct and/or disruptive behavior that I think deserve to and should be addressed here and now as opposed to just "kicking the can down the road". Centpacrr (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors drawing John's barbs this week I see no use forcing an apology from him. He's been editing today so is probably aware of the status of this thread. Apologies to Centpacrr but I do suggest we "kick this can down the road" with the hopes that the BLP issues drawing John's passion are settled by the community and he can dial his remarks back a bit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested that these issues be handled here is that the patterns of the user's disruptive behavior appear to be considerably more pervasive and go far beyond some isolated BLP deletions and sourcing issues and therefore should be addressed in their totality in one place. Centpacrr (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have good reason to be annoyed with his behaviour at Charles Lindbergh. And he has been uncharacteristically intemperate elsewhere. But, having watched John's behaviour here for many years - we've never interacted directly, I think - I'm confident that this little review is all that's required at this point. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John did not direct the word retarded towards any editor, but towards a silly claim that when he removed content inappropriately sourced to tabloids he was involved in a content dispute. The other crime John is accused of is improving the standard of English in articles. This is a frivolous and disappointing thread, which includes gratuitous drama mongering by some people who should know better. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any sanctions are necessary, and I agree that "retarded" was directed toward a statement, not toward an editor. Nevertheless, that word (just like "retard") is hurtful to many people. Basically, it uses a medical diagnosis (which in itself is not without controversy when phrased like this) as a hyperbolic simile, saying "this statement is so stupid, it's retarded". Whether directed toward a person or a statement, it can be seen as using a group of (real) people as a benchmark of stupidity. This is painful to a lot of people. Sure, not everyone who has loved ones who struggle with mental challenges on a daily basis will be offended, but some will. Admittedly, the "euphemism treadmill" isn't always logical (we can say "idiotic" or "moronic", and it's politically correct, though still offensive :-), but why offend uninvolved people for no good reason? So, why not just not use those words in the future. I'm positive John didn't mean to be offensive in that way, and I don't think an apology is necessary, but let's just not use that word. Shouldn't be that difficult. --Sluzzelin talk 01:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake I'd like to point out a few things. I did not open this thread and I am not asking for sanctions or frankly any other admin action. However I stand by my unblock 100% and reject any suggesting that repeatedly reverting another user who was not vandalizing does not constitute involvement in a content dispute. Admins are not granted the authority to control the content of articles by blocking those they disagree with. Whether the other user was in the right or not is irrelevant. If John felt admin action was needed he should have asked for an uninvolved admin to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't altogether disagree with your unblock. John has got a bit testy lately, and maybe needs to recharge. But the baying for blood going on here testifies more to a dysfunctional community than something wrong with John. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted this - All I wanted was an apology and an acknowledgement that he was in the wrong with his comments. Instead, he has blown off the substance of this AN thread, which makes me think that frankly, he does need a break from Wikipedia. Whether or not this needs to be an enforced break should be determined. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of all this is that John said "flush" while removing a comment he didn't like, and his calling a comment "retarded". I don't think I would use the word "retarded", but when I was growing up it was not the words of words, and I think John and I are the same age. If there is more, start an RfC/U. If you want to rap him on the knuckles for using the R-word, well, that's been done enough by now. FWIW, I would not have made the block he made, and I think it was an error. But all this for one flush and one word? That's not what AN is for. Somebody please close this. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the use of the word "retarded" was the reason this thread was started, a variety of other related issues have since been raised in it by a number of other editors so that is no longer only about "one word" but also about considering evidence of patterns of disruptive editing and improper use of sysop tools by an admin. Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like I said, start an RfC/U if you like. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, their using "flush" was part of this? Geez, next thing you know somebody will be rung up over the round file. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need to fix a move

User:Jujhar.pannu has moved content from Amrit Sanskar to Amrit Sanchar by cut and paste. Due to that, the history and all the talk page content is left behind. Can an admin delete Amrit Sanchar and move Amrit Sanskar properly to Amrit Sanchar. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Monty ₈₄₅ 04:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have blocked User:ChetArthurNow

For 24 hours for trying to edit war in referenced content. Have edited the article before thus if other wish to change the block feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good block, preventing damage to the article. Plenty of warnings were issued. Everything checks out ok in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC) You might like to try posting at the edit warring notice board next time, where quick blocks are usually issued for cases as clear-cut as this. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-melon invoking IAR inappropriately

The initiator of this thread has been advised of good paths to follow; no need for a pile-on. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy-melon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Happy-melon (talk · contribs) has closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1 as delete despite the lack of consensus to delete, the fact that these redirects meet the requirements of the WP:RFD#KEEP reasons, and the fact that these redirects are all immune to deletion as they are PNR redirects. I wish to discuss this here, and the redirects which are now breaking multiple templates and userscripts and project should be restored during this discussion to prevent widespread disruption. Technical 13 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He left a rationale for his deletion that was rather detailed; my only comment is that "Creates problems that need to be cleaned up" is usually not a reason to keep something in a deletion discussion, nor is it a reason to overturn a deletion. This seems like a run-of-the mill deletion review request, and really belongs at WP:DRV and not here. There is absolutely no misconduct here, merely an administrator acting within their discretion in closing a closely divided discussion, and then an objection to that closure. DRV is the correct venue for this, not here. --Jayron32 13:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Disclosure: delete !voter. H-M did not invoke IAR in his close. He did not mention it at all, contrary to the title of this thread.

I'd also like to point out that WP:DRV would be the correct venue for this, not that I think it'll go anywhere. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that Happy-melon (talk · contribs) should have his actions as an administrator reviewed. WP:DRV is not the appropriate place for that. Even the nominator of the Pseudo-Namespace (which shouldn't have been nominated at WP:RfD in the first place due to its immunity to it, which was ignored) declared that there was no consensus in the discussion and because of that it should have been closed as such. Which Happy-melon blatantly and maliciously (okay, maybe not maliciously, but I'm upset and have a right to be) ignored. I'm going to take the rest of the day off to practice CALM and I hope to see some reasonable discussion here when I return. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you politely ask Happy-melon for an explanation? I don't see a diff in your original post. When a user's first action is to complain in a public forum without even attempting to speak with the other editor, that's a red flag that somebody might be a trouble-maker, rather than a problem-solver. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are contesting a deletion, Technical 13, do it at DRV. If that results in overturning the deletion, and during that discussion it emerges that the closing admin may have acted improperly, then bring it here. Do not try and use this noticeboard as a shortcut to getting your way in a deletion issue.
By the way, you don't have "a right to be upset". Trying to paint yourself as a victim will not win you any sympathy. Also, I certainly do not appreciate the unsubtle implications of the comment "I hope to see some reasonable discussion here when I return", and I would counsel you not to take that tone here. — Scott • talk 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion?

RfC closed - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is an ongoing RfC going on at Talk:CSD:#RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion? that anyone visiting this page may be interested in. Technical 13 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Technical 13 has created this at Talk:CSD:, the talk page of the now deleted CSD: redirect. Is this eligible for G4/G8 (the rfc, if it really needs to continue, could be moved somewhere else)?
Dogmaticeclectic has independently nominated the page for G8, I have nominated the now recreated CSD: for G4. Admins reviewing these CSDs should note the other recreated pages, if they choose to delete, see contribs
Technical 13 has now reverted my CSD tag, despite being the creator of the page. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These pages are part of a WP:Pseudo-namespace and are immune to deletion and tagging as such until the RfC which these users are trying to cover up in an attempt to prevent the outlined process of WP:RfC which says discussions should take place on the talk page of the topic in question. Please remove these invalid tags, they are disruptive and not becoming of someone that is suppose to be here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've warned this user for violating WP:AGF; it's the second time I've done so in this specific dispute. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lordy T13, so "your" redirects were deleted as the result of a valid deletion discussion, were they? Here's an idea - stop running around being pointy everywhere you can, starting silly RFCs on invalid talk pages, and asking for watchlist notices, and file a review request if you disagree with the closure, like what us normal, unimportant mortals would do. Or would that not generate enough "look at me" drama? Sheesh... Begoon ^talk 17:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the RFC page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace. I removed the CSD tag following the move, since the criteria no longer applies -- I know this is normally a no-no, but I IAR'd in the interest of restoring a little sanity to this situation. The article space redirects should probably be deleted now and all advertised links changed. equazcion � | 17:49, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

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

Missal

Please delete old interwiki in the article Missal. It is protected for me. Thanks Šárka Praha (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see 15 interwiki links at Missal. Which one is the "old" one? Beeblebrox (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done as a non-admin, since the page was only semi-protected (though I'm not quite sure why it's protected in the first place). For future reference, you can request edits on a page's talk page, or, in the unlikely event that the talk page is protected too, at WP:RFED.

@Beeblebrox: Xe was referring to the "oldschool" interwiki links that were previously on the page; 7 were on Wikidata, and 2 were links to redirects to foreign-language versions of Roman Missal. Sorry for any confusion I caused in the delay between fulfilling the request and posting here. Something came up right after I removed the links. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barack "Magic Nigga" Obama

When I google "Barack Magic Nigga Obama", the second result is User:Bonkers The Clown. Is that appropriate for a user page? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt it. I did see the reference on his page, it's down at "Favorite people". Might need to be changed to a more appropriate reference, per BLP. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Bonkers about this. I suppose a simple solution would be to add the NOINDEX magic tag (WP:NOINDEX)? Although as KoshVorlon points out this may be something we'd want to remove for BLP reasons. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've {{NOINDEX}}ed it pending discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed. No need to use that term except if it were the title of a notable work of fiction or scholarship (i.e. something chosen by others). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to have an unhealthy obsesion with the N-word, see User talk:Bonkers The Clown#Niggers in the White House and the article(s) related to that discussion, as well as talk page posts such as this and this. This editor seems more and more to be nothing more than a sophisticated troll. Giant Snowman 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah - I couldn't help but notice that too... I usually balk at that sub bridge denizen term when applied to an editor supposedly in good standing, but recent "events" lead me to believe it's time to explain to "Bonkers", unambiguously, that he needs to stop doing that. Kind of right now... Begoon ^talk 16:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly removed it. Per our userpage guideline, very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing should not be included in the user namespace. And if that is debatable, it certainly falls under WP:BLP, as calling someone a "magic nigga" is contentious and inappropriate. If this editor wants to stick around, he has to learn where and where not to use this word. In context is one thing, calling a notable individual on their user page it falls short of that by a mile. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - kudos for doing what none of us did, and removing it instead of talking about it. Endorse that move, and thanks. Begoon ^talk 17:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the content in question predates Bonkers's self-imposed n-word moratorium. If it didn't I'd be pushing for the race-issues topic ban that Maunus suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggers in the White House. This isn't the first time this has been an issue either... IIRC, once upon a time Bonkers had a swastika in his signature. But I'd like to AGF and believe that he simply forgot about his use of the word on his userpage when he agreed to the moratorium. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since his last two article-space edits were this and this, both earlier today, I don't think he got the memo about any "moratorium". Mogism (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries are somewhat troubling, if only because he explicitly and categorically said he wouldn't use that word any more, and it would have been fairly easy to avoid in that context. The edits themselves, however, are entirely gnomish, and in fairness he never said he wouldn't edit n-word-related articles. If he goes back to tossing it around in conversation with other users, don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to jump on the sanctioning bandwagon, but I don't see this as rising to that level. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those edit summaries are perfect examples of his trolling. I suggest a topic ban for Bonkers from using the word "nigger" or similar in any context whatsoever. Giant Snowman 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support that. Amazing that someone can see them, in context of everything else, as just "somewhat troubling". We need to be clear that this is not acceptable, and, despite my qualms about the term, I'm with GS here - it's trolling. If it's not, it's incompetence to edit in this language. Whichever, it needs to stop, now. Begoon ^talk 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - and make it entirely clear to Bonkers that any further trolling behaviour will result in an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna go the topic-ban route, personally I'd want something a bit broader and a bit more nuanced. Something like Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any phrases or imagery that can reasonably be construed as racially insensitive, in any context whatsoever, except for in the course of contributing to the main namespace, and then if and only if it is unambiguously relevant and appropriate (e.g., an image of a Nazi uniform in an article on a Nazi military unit). In more complex cases, any uninvolved administrator may impose any sanctions necessary on Bonkers The Clown within the topic area of racially sensitive matters (broadly construed), up to and including a ban from the area as a whole (though only as a last resort). Personally, I think it would be better to wait a little bit longer and apply a broad sanction (if necessary) than to apply a narrow sanction right now. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Racially insensitive" is a useless term since different cultures and different individuals see different things as insensitive with a long list of "insensitive" things that may not be fully known to any given individual, a list that is ever-growing without some sort of regular update to all the hapless citizenry who might find themselves faced with someone who is clued in on all the recent changes to the Guide to Living a Politically Correct Lifestyle Unoffensive to All Recognized Victim Groups^TM.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. You ever read Fahrenheit 451? Anyways, I was serious when I said "something like" that, though; that was just a rough draft. If we were to implement such a sanction, we could easily modify it to specify which racial groups we're talking about, or take any number of other approaches. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has made an actual case for any restriction. People are just reacting like "Shit! Someone said nigger! Get that ni- . . . uhhh . . . guy!"--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those edit summaries are poking at it a bit, but if someone looking for an article with the word "nigger" in it is actually shocked that someone used the word "nigger" when editing the article then that person needs to get a clue. His user page preceded all this hubub so it isn't really sufficient. Bonkers likes him some abrasive humor and that, obviously, is abrasive to some people. Unless someone can point to an egregious action on his part since his pledge, then I think this type of action is unnecessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Without Pink Ampersand's exception. I don't want this person touching anything to do with race or nazism, period. When he was called out on having a swastika in his signature he said, "Heck, why is everyone so fussed up over swastikas? They embody peace, not Holocaust or anything-Nazi."[70] He claims to be all naive about wearing a swastika while greeting newbies here and calling people niggers. His excuse is he's Singaporean so doesn't understand these weird Western ways (but when invited to a meet-up in Singapore, declined). I've met lots of Singaporeans - lots of people from all over the world - with not a tenth of his English skills, and they all know you don't call people niggers and the Swastika is offensive to Westerners (at the very least). In fact, he says in the above link he knew the swastika would upset people. He's trolling in the most offensive way possible and should be shown the door.[71][72] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, are you supporting GS's proposal, my suggestion (minus the mainspace exemption), or a new proposal of your own? Because GS's proposal only actually prohibits him from saying the N-word "or similar"; it sounds like you're talking about something broader than that. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In descending order of preference: a permanent site ban; if not that then a permanent ban on discussing or editing anything race-related, broadly construed; if not that then a permanent ban on using the word "nigger" or any racial epithet in any space here; if not that, this place is in worse shape than I thought. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Anthonyhcole Googling "Barack Magic Nigga Obama"? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I saw it on the user page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Anything Bonkers seems to edit includes the word nigger which isn't very healthy, Plus anyone with common sense would know the swastika's offensive, - .... IMO He's trolling... -Davey2010Talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support GS's proposal, although I would reword it to "use of any word, phrase or image which could reasonably be expected to cause offence". There are 3 million (or thereabouts) articles on Wikipedia, and I'm sure avoiding the tiny subset in which it's actually necessary to use racial slurs would cause no hardship. I concur that this looks like trolling, since it's beyond coincidence that he would just happen to come across Niggers in the White House, Nigger (2002 book) and No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs. I agree with Anthonyhcole above that his claim not to understand why this is causing offence isn't plausible. Singapore is an English-speaking country with high standards of education (and one in which you can barely walk half a mile without finding some memorial or other to its occupation in WW2), and it's not plausible that any Singaporean over the age of 10 wouldn't know that the word "nigger" and the swastika are offensive. Mogism (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that he created two of the three articles you just mentioned, right? Of course you don't, as that would require a bit of research on your part. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's okay. I have learnt that the typical American is fat and lazy. Not my words, don't chastise me for that. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban, but caution user. The edit summaries are pushing the boundaries, but they do actually describe the edit, and they were good edits. In the same way that Niggers in the White House is a good article (not in the technical sense, but it was featured on DYK, is likely to survive AfD, and has already produced a couple of spin-offs articles). I don't think we can fault Bonkers simply for editing pages that have the word "nigger" in them. I think the moratorium was self-imposed in good faith - Bonkers seemed to be saying he would refrain from using the word on talk pages. If all we are going on is the fact that he's been - like, writing articles, then I don't think that's enough for a topic ban. St Anselm (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on the fact that he added a swastika to his name, knowing it would upset people, and then addressed people at The Teahouse and The Reference Desk as well as user and article talk pages, and he called African Americans "niggers"[73], and I don't believe for a second he didn't know what he was doing. If I'm wrong, and it was ignorance or insensitivity, then he displays a degree of ignorance and insensitivity on issues around race that disqualifies him from working in that area, per WP:COMPETENCE. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just Google'd that phrase and Bonkers is further down on the page. Interesting that #1 is Wikipediocracy which picked up the conversation from this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban Bonkers is trolling and playing the "cultural differences" card when called out on it. There is no cultural difference that makes overt racism like what was on his userpage ok. He knows what he is doing and he needs to stop. Now. Frankly, if there weren't already so much discussion of a topic ban here I would have just indef blocked him until he agreed to cut it out immediately and permanently. There is no place for racist trolling here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. Clearly lacking the degree of competence required to contribute in the area of race and ethnicity. Or trolling.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know that this guy is almost certainly ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs), right? He's clearly trolling, in the pure sense of the word: he's being intentionally provocative. Given the community's general inability to ignore trolling, the next best response here is a block. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the name. The timing's a bit different. CoM BTC. But, whatever. He doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudgingly support topic ban. Though being from Singapore might explain his initial ignorance about the Nazi swastika and the n-word (I've met numerous Indonesians who put a swastika on their motorcycle, for instance, and in Indonesian "negro" is still the most commonly used term for a person of African descent), it fails to explain why Bonkers has avoided provoking people once he learned it was provocative and likely to get him blocked. He does some decent work outside race areas, so no need for a site ban. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advocate total ban. At the moment this sophisticated former user troll is playing WP like a fiddle. Irondome (talk)
Support total ban. We've topic banned people before, and it was about as effective as wearing shorts in the snow. Someone who knowing uses a sign that could really offend people and uses words like that should be eliminated from this site. 173.58.95.171 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as absolutely fucking ridiculous. While Bonkers was absolutely disruptive during the early stages of the recent AfD, it's utterly absurd to call those two edits "trolling". The edits in question were not only to articles that involve that word, but both edits concern the word itself. It's not unreasonable, therefore, that the word would appear in his edit summaries. (Bonkers has also recently edited many topics unrelated to that word.) I'm not suggesting for one second we "suffer his malfeasance much longer", as John Cline perfectly put it. He should rightfully be on a very short leash. But to topic-ban based on those two edits is bullshit. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support either a topic ban or an outright user ban. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly would this "topic ban" cover? I don't support outright bans on Editors that come out of the blue without even a warning notice.
- Well, this thread would prevent any blueness, I suppose. I hope Bonkers is going to come by and explain a few things. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm more than happy for my original topic ban proposal to be extended as wide as deemeed necessary. Giant Snowman 08:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. Absolutely no excuses whatsoever for using this sort of language. Regardless of any "trolling" intent or not, any usage of such language is so wildly inappropriate that I find it extraordinary that people are defending it at all! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by yours truly This is hillarious, a bunch of admins and whatnot debating over one word. That edit regarding "Magic Nigga" was made, what, over a year ago? (Reiterate: A year ago; before any of the "White House" nonsense) And that was in reference to a rather popular song perhaps all ya politically correct souls have never listened to before. Since the swastika was mentioned, let me tell you: To all the ignorant little souls out there, the swastika used to be a symbol of peace a long time ago. Enlightened men of the Buddha-faith carried it like a badge of honour, until a German/Austrian man with a moustache perverted its meaning. Add: More than a few million Buddhist/Hindu temples today still have the sign in its grounds. But no, no, I'm wrong, it's simply a Nazi sign, and I'm a Nazi blah blah. Woe is me. Oh, you aren't discussing about my non-nigger edits, are you? You just like to nitpick on my choice of vocabulary, eh? What me ignorant... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good ol' bunch o' people, made me realise that we really do need to conform to the politically correct society. It's no use going against them. I'll just wait till y'all middle-aged guys kick the bucket and we Gen Ys take over. You'll see change. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In case I wasn't so clear, I just meant that I would not use "nigger" in talk pages. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) Incompetence to edit in this language? Pfft, yeah I'd suppose Greek suits me more. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bonkers, read the swastika article. Note the difference between the Nazi one and traditional Hindu one (and also note how often the traditional symbol is misunderstood as the Nazi symbol). Even if you mean well, there's not going to be much but drama coming from that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The swastika in my old signature was never slanted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What is "The swastika in my old signature was never slanted" supposed to mean? This is the Nazi swastika. Note the distinct lack of slanting.94.196.155.7 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Opened up the link. Bonkers had this swastika in his signature: 卐. There is no way to say that is a Nazi swastika or not. It's not red, it's not black on red, it's not tilted, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per StAnselm. His use of the word nigger is discontenting, but most of his edits are good and a lot of the time he's using "nigger" in an acceptable sense. Give him a warning and be done with it. — Richard BB 09:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oppose, per Devil's Advocate and Joefromrandb. That BTC likes to be shocking is plain. But it is also plain that people here can't make the distinction between writing about racist slurs versus actually insulting people using racist slurs. The swastika-in-username thing is irrelevant since he doesn't have it anymore (AFAIK). When he will be actually acting racist, we can discuss it again. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)" He's a racist, or a troll, or a racist troll. Or he is so ignorant and stupid regarding race and racism that he's not fit to edit articles on those topics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Have you seen the title of that article? The context is obvious. Look, I understand the way he throws the N-word around can make some people squirm, but it's just because of the reflex reaction to the word, not because of its actual usage. Again, he clearly wants to be controversial, and I'd rather he didn't (I understand, I've the same childish temptation sometimes -but I try to keep it out of here). But it doesn't deserve crying outrage. Give him rope. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers is a good editor, but lacks the maturity to deal with sensitive situations. I was inclined to oppose a topic ban, waiting for Bonkers to give a response, but having done so, I can see he has no understanding of the other person's point of view, is not taking anything seriously. and does not indicate that he won't use racial epithets again. I would strongly advise Bonkers to drop the rhetoric immediately otherwise he might find the only place he can write it is in unblock requests. I'll further remind him of what happened to his friend Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) can easily happen to him too, and I do not particularly want Bonkers to dig his own grave. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll let the more mature 'pedians do their squabbling then. I'll keep quiet and watch what unfolds. Sorry man, I don't know if it's this place or my house, but something stinks. I have to go. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (12 month?) topic ban - the reason we give topic bans is to channel editors away from areas that they are likely to not benefit themselves or others. Per User:Ritchie333, verbatim. This is for the User's own benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I declare that I am not racist. Do I look malicious to you? I have many black friends. Period. You guys really don't appreciate thrills in life. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't look malicious to me; you look like a troll and every single one of your recent edits is just confirming that opinion. You should be indeffed, not just topic banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Bonkers, not a single one of your posts here at AN has filled me with any confidence. Saying "I'm not racist, I have black friends" is the oldest trick in the book. The more you post, the more inclined I am to support an indef. Giant Snowman 10:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Indeffing him seems to be a gratuitous overreaction. — Richard BB 10:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to post more, but my hormone-fuelled pseudo-ire told me to do otherwise. The heavens will weep in agony and the earth will crumble to cookie dust if I really am indeffed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll cope. Giant Snowman 10:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best piece of advice I can give you Bonkers is to 1) not restore what was on your userpage and 2) work on other areas of the encyclopedia where you are not using racial epithets productively for a while, to convince the community that you are here in good faith. If you don't, you're not looking at a very bright future here. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am not going to, anyways. Have you seen what I've been doing for the past two years or so? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to oppose, because I don't see any evidence in Bonkers's edits of a racist or neo-Nazi agenda. He's just a bit of a jerk who likes to be provocative, and who evidently thinks that US-based PC pieties are rather absurd and insular. There are several active editors here (who shall remain nameless) who clearly have a pro-Nazi and racist agenda, but who have learned to play by the rules while adding material designed to "demonstrate" the validity of racial hierarchies and downplay Nazi atrocities. Bonker's just isn't one of them. He edits mainly in the area of pop culture. He's obviously fascinated by US racial stereotypes as part of that, and has created several competent articles on those topics. Unfortunately has a rather adolescent desire to provoke, which is pretty tiresome. But like a lot of kids who seek attention by acting up, he's best ignored. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate for us to let ignorant, provocative jerks edit this encyclopedia at all - especially not one who calls African Americans niggers and wears a swastika. Did you see what he and his friend User:Arctic Kangaroo did at AfC? I'm not sure this is a kid, actually. Have you met him Crisco? And if he is a kid, we're not daycare. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking Crisco, why is this inset under my comment? His preoccupations with Barbie-doll girls and naughty words are somewhat suggestive. He castigates "middle aged" editors, and self-identifies as an anarchic yoof. He may be 96 years old for all I know, but he sure acts like a teenager wannabe. I'm not sure why his biological age is relevant. In any case, my position is that his actual edits are not racist and there is no evidence in his edit history that he is pursuing a racist agenda. Sid Vicious wore a swastika. He wasn't a Nazi; he was a punk. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G13

There are just under 50,000 submissions to AFC which qualify as G13 (submissions that have been declined or abandoned for a period of time no less than six months.)

Some admins take the position

That these can be deleted without yet another layer of scrutiny. (All have been reviewed, although the competence of the reviewer may be uneven. All has gone without a single edit for at least six months).
Others feel that each one should be examined individually, and would prefer a lower throttle on transfer to the CSD backlog, while some feel that the throttle should be slower to give reviewers a chance to look at the inventory again. See DGG discussion at my talk page.

I've taken a middle approach (though to be fair, closer to the first than the second):

I reviewed the code of the bot, to convince myself that it is unlikely to identify items in error
I do spot checks to make sure that the articles have indeed, been unedited for over six months (no errors yet found)
I glance at the content just in case something looks like it deserves more review. E.g. L. S. Ettre,Gus_Wilson's_Model_Garage

That said, I have little doubt that some editor will find something in the pile of dross that with some polishing, could remain as an article. The question in my mind, is one of resources. Given finite resources, how much should be diverted to reviewing these submissions one more time?

If anyone is scratching their head wondering why this is an issue, I've handled several thousand over the past couple weeks, so the CSD backlog is rarely large. I've stopped, pending feedback on this issue.

One option is for those interested in doing one more review to set up a process to review them before they hit the queue. That would allow non-admin reviewers to help out (once deleted, only an admine can do a post-deletion review). That would be the option I think would work best (while still being a waste of talent). If that is unworkable, then we need to recruit more admins to do the individual reviews, as the volume is large enough that we will either have a permanent backlog at CSD or a growing backlog of submissions in limbo.

Or perhaps someone will come up with a better idea.

@DGG, Anne Delong, Hasteur, RHaworth, and Kudpung: You many be interested. SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(In case someone wonder why this is posted here, rather than at the AFC page, it affects all admins who review the admin dashboard, many of whom might not follow the AfC talk page)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the bot operator I'd like to observe a few things.

The community endorsed the creation of the speedy criterion on April 6th of this year. [74]
There have been several clarifying discussions about how the CSD criterion should be applied. [75], [76]
A long and convuluted consensus building exercise was conducted at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 in which a plan for how to go about tapping the editor who created a page on the shoulder and let them know that their creation had become eligible for G13

The bot's tasks were approved with the following provisos

The bot will not nominate for deletion any page that is not eligible for G13.
The bot will give the creator of a AfC draft at least 30 days from when the draft became eligible to remedy the issue (even with a single character change to the page).
The bot will nominate articles up to a approximated limit of 50 articles in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions.

After the bot went through notifying creators of stale drafts, the bot remained silent while waiting for the 30 day timer to expire. Once the bot started nominating, editors who had participated in the consensus building exercises and had been politely declined raised the same issues again and attempted to get the bot's code to be changed to an even lower threshold. The threshold that was being asked for was so low that it would not keep up with the new inbound AfC submissions that are being added every day.

For these reasons I express my dismay in the administrators who are raising the objection refusing to do work that the community has on multiple occasions endorsed. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, this written before the last two posts)I feel that it is worth giving these one more glance before a bot decides their fate. For example, I found an article about an audio book in which one of science fiction's most celebrated authors was narrating his iconic stories, which had been declined because it didn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) (perfectly true...). Hasteur has set up a very easy way to delay deletion of an article-in-waiting that even one editor thinks is worth fixing up. There are even a number of editors that are interested in checking them. The problem is in coordinating our efforts. The bot nominates by date; If we had a page somewhere where we could have a list of dates, and interested editors could check all of the ones in a certain date range and then sign their name beside that date range, the others would feel that their efforts were more worthwhile, and sections wouldn't be missed. It really shouldn't be left on the shoulders of a few admins to deal with 50,000 old submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Hasteur's reply, I just want to add that I am in favour of the bot nominating the old drafts for deletion, and I am in favour of the admins deleting them. I think it's up to those community members who want to save the drafts to organize themselves to remove any useful material from the path of this process. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check them, and kept up just fine until the bot started working. I found I could do about 10 days per week, but those were smaller groups than at present. . I'm going to try again, Starting in Jan 2012--the way I will do it is to look simply for people in my spheres of interest (researchers & authors) & anything really obvious., which is less extensive than I did before, where I looked for any rescueable article. This is why I opposed the bot as planned, but i was led to de-emphasise my opposition by the promise of it doing no more than 50 a day. 50 a day + people going manually from the oldest, I can keep up with. I can not keep up with the way the bot does it now, which is to add another 50 as soon as someone of the admins who deletes mostly without checking removes them, which typically takes them about 5 minutes-10 if they make any effort at all to look at the articles, not just the dates. No one (or two or three) human being can keep up ahead of something moving that fast. Since it takes at least 50 minutes to check 50 articles and make the necessary edits to keep them from deletion, we need 10 people at least, and that's more than we have.. Unless the bot slows down, you're asking too much of volunteer humans. A bot marking for deletion should never work faster than people can check it. If every admin who deletes would check, there of course would be no problem, but the other deleting admins are divided between those who think checking is totally unnecessary, and those who don't think they have time to do it. I think that an abdication of admin responsibility--no admin should be doing any form of deletion process who does not check to a reasonable extent everything they delete.

If there were an emergency, that's one thing--but even in an emergency we still want to delete the right articles, And there is no emergency. If we clear up the backlog in another 6 months we're doing fine, and can keep up after that. I don';t think the new ones should overwhelm us, because if the patrollers patrol right the first time, it all gets much easier. So once Kudpung's efforts have removed the unprepared patrollers, and we have a chance to educate the others, we'll be OK. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the bot working as it does now; we are finally getting somewhere in removing this backlog. The amount of truly problematic AfC articles justifies the deletion of potential articles that had been dormant for years before G13 was decided upon; in most "potential" cases, these ones are on a subject with potential, but with an article attempt where next to nothing can be reused anyway. It really isn't worth waiting for. Fram (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any consensus to overturn the prior consensus, I'm going to return to deletions. I hope others will join Anne in the task of vetting those headed for the queue.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion about early advancement option

I'm unsure as to why Sphilbrick left me out of the ping and notification of the discussion here as CSD:G13 development and processing has been one of my main contributions here on wiki, and I appreciate the notification that I got from Anne. That being said, and after watching this discussion develop on various talk pages and discussions, I think I may have come up with a potential compromise that may assist in resolving this so that "the poor bot operator" doesn't have to continuously modify the bot's thresholds and limits in an attempt to make everyone happy (we all know how easy it is to make everyone happy). What if... the bot had a little recoding that would make the bot do what it was originally approved to do with a button/link accessible on the bot's userpage that would allow any admin that saw an empty queue and wanted to get the next batch of nominations early to have the bot run a cycle? Technical 13 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we don't want to let any random user to trigger a glob of nominations, but at the same time, having to detach the process so that we don't have a constantly running background process slapping around the servers repeatedly. Here's what I'm thinking of:

A fully protected page with instructions on how to trigger the bot. A monitoring process will wake up every 5~10 minutes and see if the page has been edited since the last "firing date". If the last edit date of the page has changed, it spins up the nominating bot and the nom bot goes on it's merry little way. The monitoring process writes the updated edit time to it's check file and terminates.

We gain the benefit of a detached system that the admins can advance more nominations as they're ready and moves the throttle on nominations from a procedural time based firing to one that admins have to know where to look for. If we do go this route, I really think we need to increase the maximum number of nominations the bot is allowed to push to something more (say 100~150 pages). Hasteur (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, because the admins will have the ability to queue up more nominations on demand, I don't see any reason to increase the base threshold when they aren't specifically asking for more. Unless of course I've misunderstood you, which is entirely possible due to my human nature. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a page to keep track of which G13 submissions I've already checked. It's at User:Anne Delong/G13 Rescue squad. If anyone else wants to use this page to indicate which sections they've checked, please feel free to take ownership of a section or mark on off as done. If it proves useful, I'll move it to project space. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13 I'm trying to push a compromise where both sides get something they want and both sides give up a little of what they originally had. I guess I misinterperted your suggestion in that I thought you said "Remove the 1 time an hour trigger that will nominate enough to get up to 50 nominations. Add a trigger so that admins will advance nominations at their whim (including not advancing any nominations)". If what you were suggesting was giving admins a way to advance nominations early (i.e. They finish the current batch of nominations in 15 minutes and want more NOW) then I have no objection to wiring that in, but right now, we need to push nominations in front of the admins as much as possible. Perhaps once we're down to 9000 total G13 eligible pages then we can go to a Admin triggered method, but not while we still leave ourselve open to being an abused web host. Hasteur (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, I was indeed suggesting to add a "Gimme moar NOW!" button in addition to the 50/hour (max 50 in category) currently nomination schedule. This way the bot is going nice and slow as it seems the majority of people want (including me), unless there is a bored admin that wants to sit there for an hour or two and has run out of nominations to say, yeah, give me more please. I think this "more now please" option should still refuse to add more to the category above the 50 limit, but if the admin has really cleared out the queue, it shouldn't be an issue. Technical 13 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wire the logic tonight to have this option. Of note: If an admin triggers the "moar now" and the category is already over 50, the bot is not going to do any nominations because 50 - 50 is less than 1. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick Trigger page is at User:HasteurBot/KickoffNom but I have left the code that checks the page turned off until the page is protected so only admins can give it the nudge. Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur I tried, nothing seemed to happen. Did I do something wrong, or did I jump the gun?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the interlock disabled to prevent random users from hitting the button. Stand by Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick Ok, just engaged the lockout circuits. Trigger page is checked every 5 minutes, so there is a balance between requests and being patient. Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban

Hello all. I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, a new request for formal mediation by User:ChrisGualtieri. This is the dispute between him, User:Ryulong, and User:Lucia Black about how we cover the anime series Ghost in the Shell. Specifically, it is about whether we should have an article on the series as a whole, or whether that content should be merged into other related articles. As many readers of this board are probably aware, Lucia Black is topic-banned from "all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed", and is also subject to an interaction ban with ChrisGualtieri. Both sanctions are due to expire on November 1. As a prospective mediator of this case, I would like to see Lucia's topic and interaction bans amended to allow her to take part in the mediation.

I have been in touch with Lucia via email, and she is receptive to the idea of mediation. Ryulong has also agreed to take part, so the only obstacle now to the mediation proceeding is Lucia's sanctions. I don't think it would be very useful to leave Lucia out of any mediation proceedings, as any conclusion reached would fall apart when she was allowed back to the topic area in November. And if she participates, we may well be able to work out a resolution that satisfies everyone. So I see many positives and not many negatives from amending her bans. Would others here be willing to agree to this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should remind everyone that Lucia is also topic-banned from WP:ANI. Given that this isn't (quite) ANI, and that this wasn't her starting a thread about somebody, but me starting a thread about her, I think it would be only fair to allow her to comment here if she wants. Let's go easy on the block button if she posts here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd support such a thing, but she really hasn't been doing very well on this interaction ban so far. About a month in, she appealed to have it removed already, largely on the grounds that it was "unjust" or something, and clearly breaking it here too. I'd like to see other's thoughts I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards