Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 85 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 56 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler#Splitting proposal - Sep. 2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	26	0	26
TfD	0	0	10	0	10
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	35	0	35
AfD	0	0	7	0	7

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 159 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 193 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Larnoch_Road_murders#Requested_move_2_October_2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 2 October 2024) Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

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

---

Would someone please indefinitely semi-protect the articles listed in this WP:COIN thread? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• After looking at the log, I went ahead and indef SP'ed it. The other articles should be taken to RFPP if needed, but that one was obviously the leading target for this round of SPA POV/COI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Possibly dangerous external link

Not sure if this is an appropriate place for such notice. If not, please move it to a better place.

Page Music education for young children, reference 5. from www.brighthubeducation.com – when I shift+click it to open in a new window, my MSIE 11 hangs up for a moment and then it says it closed the page to protect my computer... Can anyone check, please, if the page is actually dangerous? If so, probably the link should be removed? --CiaPan (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was feeling adventurous so I loaded it in Chrome and Firefox, no warnings. I will say the page looks completely different in the browsers, even the colors are radically different, plus Firefox showed two huge ads (I have adblock plus installed in Chrome). Whatever malware testing service MS is using, they are either extra smart and catching something Chrome and Firefox can't, or more likely it is a configuration or other error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's likely misbehavior by one of the third-party ad/tracking networks they use. Ghostery blocks a bunch of them and I had no issues loading the page. However the source does not back up the content cited and I don't see why Germany is specifically mentioned in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Other odd things:

• If you send it a GET / HTTP/1.0 it returns HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden but if you sent it a GET / HTTP/1.1 it returns HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
• If you disable javascript it sends you to http://www.brighthubeducation.com/distil_r_blocked.html
• It sends you different content depending on what browser you claim to be in the user agent string.

I don't think they are serving any malware, but I do think they are trying to be overly clever with browser sniffing, and that Wikipedia should not link to this URL for the simple reason that we don't know what the person clicking on the link will get. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a report should be filed at WP:SBL then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you do that, please? I don't feel fluent enough in English, in Wikipedia policies and in technical details of browser-HTTP-server communication to prepare a good report. --CiaPan (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban from reference desks

It is with sad heart that I propose to topic ban User:Sagittarian Milky Way from the reference desks. At the worst, he's trolling. At the best, he's phenomenally unhelpful, and totally uninterested in helping with the primary function of the Ref Desks, which is to provide users who have questions with either Wikipedia articles and/or external references to help them find the answers to questions they may have. Sagittarian Milky Way seems to be primarily interested in using it as a chat room, and more troublingly, with putting forth an offensive personal agenda. Recent diffs from recent days include BLP-level violations pondering the sexual attractiveness of female U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Religious bigotry, a long Personal political rant, etc. That's just from the past 24-48 hours. It has to stop. The ref desks are not supposed to be the "comment section" from HuffPost. It's supposed to be a place where users can get links to further reading on topics that they don't understand, full stop. I hate to have to do something like this, but I am having a hard time finding much redeeming contributions from Sagittarian Milky Way on the ref desks, the above links are not comprehensive, but rather merely a sampling of his recent contributions. For that reason I formally propose a full ban from the Ref Desks for Sagittarian Milky Way. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user is always on the edge, usually asking the sort of science questions you'd get from a smart pre-teen. The inappropriateness shown at Humanities as mentioned by Jayron is all-too often over the edge. But even good questions usually devolve into nonsense and show a lack of true interest in the topic. I decided deliberately after this post which I put over an hour into answering that I would not answer him again on any question. Since then I have noticed several of his posts and not been surprised by their disruptive nature. I have changed my vote back from "final warning" I see he's been talked to about this behavior and the response below evinces no conscientiousness of the issue. At the least a block is a good idea, and a topic ban is fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I guess I don't have much to defend besides that I wasn't trolling. Trolling is intentional. You people really don't believe that one could live to teenagerhood in New York City before seeing an animal mate in real life outside a zoo? I hadn't okay. I'm not judging it unreasonable if some people wanted to do that, not that was I sure they existed or not and don't mind either way. I didn't make anything up, especially not to troll. People on the Ref Desk and other parts of non-article space not hidden their political views all the time, some left of most of the US, some right of US center. Have they gotten banned for it? I do appear to have violated WP:BLP. Removed. I haven't erased anything on my talk page, Medeis. Oh, and the Magic School Bus was where I learned many years ago the very simple thing of which color is absorbed by what if you're still wondering why I said that. That cultural reference might not be understood by other generations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • That ANI question was only hypothetical, honest. I worry about low probability terrible things that could happen to me often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • And then you were all acting like that really happened. Sheesh, that never happened (but I guess that was an unanswerable question for the desk in any form anyway). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Pedantically, I wasn't actually pondering Justices' sexual attractiveness either, as I was thinking about whether I liked or might like their younger faces before and after I saw them and I already knew their recent sexual attractiveness levels. Also I didn't look up their 20th century pictures just now to have (offensive) examples, that pondering happened 6 years ago and I was just recounting it. Clearly I need to be more conscientious before saving. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SMW, I'd recommmed you read WP:Competence is required. I have changed my vote back to ban in the face of your response. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Contributions highly suggest trolling. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although I don't think he's a troll exactly. Sometimes people just don't know how to act appropriately on the Internet, whether because of age or brain chemistry or both. I remember being dumb and annoying on the Internet once too. For starters, it would help a lot if he asked himself "does anyone really want to hear about my masturbation habits?" Because the answer is always "no, just no." Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Taking up far too much space with inappropriate content, demonstrating persistent poor judgment = abuse of the RD. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if may opinion may count since im not a regular, but has Jayron already warned SGM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.50 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my evaluation of the situation, "Sagittarian Milky Way" fails to appreciate the potential for intellectual accomplishment in the Reference desks and tries too hard to bring his own version of intellectual accomplishment to the desks. This results in longwinded (for the Reference desks) creative writing such as this. I didn't even read that. I may be missing the next great writer. But it would be somewhat off-target to call this trolling, in my estimation, because the intention is to contribute to/participate in the dialogue taking place. While the Reference desks are not a chat room there are ample examples of asides that we all participate in. I would give "Sagittarian Milky Way" another chance to try to stay more on topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic with that, and was thinking a medium-length block might be better. But then SMW could not be guided towards actual contributions to the project, since he couldn't contribute at all. So I think a topic ban, which he could appeal after, say, six months, by pointing to his contributions to the project makes a lot more sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Trolling, bad judgement, whatever, since it doesn't matter. The end result is that the individual doesn't need to be working the reference desk if that is the kind of participation we can expect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Even though the instruction near the top of each ref desk stating "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" is ignored at times there is a difference between "participating" in a thread and "initiating" it. There are plenty of other places on the interwebs where SMW can turn to for this sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Multiple Socks? This user has long seemed to resemble other trollesque users quite closely. Currently we have a questioon by Justin545 here. This user has been trolling the refdesks and the site for more than half a dozen years, with the same typical subjects. See this 157K edit on "Gravitational Field vs. Electric Force Field. Why?" I suggest an SPI be performed as well, since the topical overlap is quite obvious. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obviously unsuitable for the refdesks, and SMW's comments above make it appear they are unsuitable for Wikipedia—we don't care if a pattern of behavior is intentional trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - SMW is at times off-point, and needs to better learn our community standards. But I do believe his intent is not to disrupt. And if we're going to topic ban ref desk users who don't intend to disrupt but still do disrupt on occasion, then there's several users I'd ban before SMW. A WP:TROUT and a firm suggestion to think twice about posting should suffice. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support; whether this is intentional trolling or genuine stupidity doesn't matter—his continued presence at the reference desks is serving no useful purpose and wasting other people's time. 9% edits to mainspace pretty much says it all. @SemanticMantis, "there are other trolls at the reference desks" is certainly true, but the cleanup has to start somewhere. ‑ iridescent 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My recollection was that SMW has provided good refs and info in the past. But I could be mistaken. Maybe @Sagittarian Milky Way: could provide a list of diffs that show their good, helpful replies. Failing that kind of evidence, the !votes seem to be showing support for topic banning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Search for my name [[1]] which is an oldid with a lot of my posts. I had things to do today which explains why it took so long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per SemanticMantis. Although I agree that SMW's posts are more entertaining than informative and are in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, SMW is by no means the only regular contributor to the reference desks who uses them to express political opinions and personal beliefs, rather than providing sourced answers to questions. If SMW is banned, I think we need to clearly establish which element of his behaviour distinguishes him from the many other contributors who have not been banned for similar reasons. If it's lack of constructive contributions, that's probably OK. If it's his sexual (or, worse, political) opinions that make the difference, that isn't. I wouldn't have any major objections if some other offenders against WP:NOTFORUM were banned from the reference desks, but I don't see why SMW, in particular, is being singled out for sanctions while others are left free to amuse themselves on the desks. Tevildo (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Or we could warn then topic ban the other regular contributors to the reference desks who use them to express political opinions and personal beliefs rather than providing sourced answers to questions. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that - if SWM is to be sanctioned, then others who do the same thing should be sanctioned. The issue will be setting the limits of "the same thing". Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I do "the other thing". Interjecting my opinions and beliefs with the sourced answers, not rather than. That's not to say I can source those opinions and beliefs, so I'm still filling heads with unsourced and unprofessional information, but that's just the gravy, not the meat. We can not give up on the gravy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Tevildo. I was on the fence at first before his/her argument. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support completely uninvolved; I hardly ever even look at the ref desks, but that first diff (and really that whole thread) has me sold here. The ref desks are in effect public-facing positions; not only BLP violations but the level of juvenile sexism in general is not appropriate. The other links and comments suggest that we're getting a mostly-unfiltered view of an immature internal monologue. There's plenty of other places on the internet to do that if you really must. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, not so much because there are other editors who also disrupt the Reference Desk equally, which there are, so much as because I see that no one has admonished or cautioned User:Sagittarian Milky Way on his own talk page that his posts to the Reference Desk have been inappropriate. He hasn't been warned at all. I recommend that this thread be closed as No Consensus in favor of a topic-ban, but with a link on his talk page as a formal warning. The idea that vandals have to be given four escalating warnings before they are blocked is a myth, but the idea of giving a clueless good-faith editor one warning should not just be a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I can find no warning and no diffs of warnings have been provided. Although many of the contributions to the Reference Desk have been problematic, I see no evidence that User:Sagittarian Milky Way is not willing to listen. I agree with Robert McClenon's analysis. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  Really, guys? Read the whole thread in that first diff. We can't ask someone to stay out of a public-facing position because no one warned him that it was an inappropriate place to discuss what makes him horny? Facepalm Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the diffs really show anything rising to the level of a ban, yeah, some of the comments were juvenile, but that's about it, and Opabinia_regalis Like I said, his comment was juvenile, but the reality of wikipedia is: WP:NOTCENSORED KoshVorlon 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I think everyone's heard enough of that anyway, I'm going to keep it to myself. The point was you're going to affect many males too much if everyone goes topless, because humans have hidden estrus. Who knows, maybe me and my father's sex drive is not actually near average (at least for the desk) which makes it sound too exaggerated to not be trolling? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought saying this was futile but it's clearly not now.

Okay, I get it, 1. This is too far with explicitness even if there's a point (satire, showing that an opinion's not from repression or prudishness, etc). 2. Self-coitus mentions aren't just somewhat disturbing. 3. If I'm too lazy to show sources, find more than an iota to add, edit (or even read) long posts till they stop flowing terribly, or analyse until deciding the least miscontruable way to say something, then wait till I'm interested enough in a topic to do those things. 4. If I'm too lazy to analyse exactly where to cut an interesting line that's going too off-topic then default to cut.

If I was warned I would've stopped. The only other time I was brought to AN didn't exactly inspire confidence in the idea that significant numbers of people are objecting (to say the least), that's why I kept on. It's unfortunate that these posts all bunched up around the same time (and that a racist troll was right before the mine), but less bunched up posts like this would not be an ANI and the bunching up is unavoidable per the law of truly large numbers unless I changed and didn't decide to push my luck here. I think if I hadn't pressed the button at the top and even saw the racist question before it was deleted I wouldn't have asked the fundamentalist Q just because of the appearance of bad faith. Otherwise, if I knew someone would get offended (especially unconvincably), I would've thought until I asked "Does anyone have evidence of someone saying people shouldn't go to zoos before a certain age?" Full stop. At least it would just sound like a non-sequitur at worst.

And what's with the sockpuppet oversuspiciousness? Like a guy who's user page is pages of nearly 100% programming is so obviously me (who hasn't made a single question that shows knowledge of any programming language). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. Ssscienccce (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Trying to imagine how Reference Desk is perceived by women and religious minorities, in particular, when such disruptive, non-productive and highly offensive editing is allowed to continue. Let an example be made and enforce same standard of civil Wikipedia behavior on others if problems persist. This disturbing pattern of tolerated behavior is affecting my motivation and ability to contribute to Reference Desk in good conscience. I will not be tarred by association with such. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a religious minority and I can easily tolerate this. For what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

• Based on recent actions, and the general trends here, I'm inclined to let this matter drop, and withdraw my support for a ban. SMW has changed significantly since the discussion started, and has both apologized, changed their behavior considerably, and tried to make amends. I'm inclined to let this go as a "lesson learned the hard way" matter, and per WP:ROPE, let SMW know he's on a short leash from now on... --Jayron32 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support but amend proposal to suspended topic ban There's a sufficient consensus that a topic ban could be levied. Instead, as a show of good faith, the current consensus is suspended for 1 month with a view that further disruption within that period will lead to an automatic enforcement of the topic ban. Should further disruption occur after the 1 month moratorium, a new consensus for a topic ban should be sought so that this consensus won't be viewed as a Sword of Damocles. Blackmane (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Robert McClenon above, who has pointed out that the editor has received no warning, no counsel, and little by way of a complaint. Let us not just jump straight to the gallows, but follow the usual process and give him a chance to make amends and show a willingness to change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Request closure review for RfC at Monsanto Legal Cases

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

---

I request a closure review by any editor with no history or involvement in the issue or the cluster of controversial issues around Monsanto, agrochemicals, and the food industry to please review the closure that was done by an editor at RfC: Should this article mention current lawsuits by U.S. cities against Monsanto? The close that was delivered seems to be strangely oblique to me, neither solidly giving a resolution to the actual concrete question of the RfC, and also peppering in odd aspersions. The reason that i request a closure review is that the editor who did the closure, JzG aka Guy, is definitely involved in the subject area and i had specifically asked for a neutral, uninvolved editor to do the closing. User JzG did the closing despite knowing that he is involved in the subject matter, and also personally with me in the past, in an oppositional manner. I simply wish to see a closure by an uninvolved and fair-minded editor. Others also share my concerns about the neutrality of the closer, as shown in this discussion which also provided multiple links that clearly shows that the closing editor is not at all neutral in regard to the subject matter. I have asked editor JzG / Guy to voluntarily revert his closing to allow another editor to make the closing call, and he did not do so. This is seen at his talk page where other editors also requested the same. Please help. I would appreciate the time and unbiased mind of any totally uninvolved and neutral editor on this question. Please be totally uninvolved with the whole controversy cluster around agrochemicals and the chemical industry in general. Thank you for your consideration. SageRad (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do very much encourage other admins to read the above, assess its implicit assumptions of the OP's zealous belief in his own rectitude and neutrality, and especially what constitutes "fair-minded" and "involved".

SageRad is an anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto activist. I have no significant history of edits in respect of either GMOs or Monsanto. I've spent a lot of time trying to explain to SageRad the fallacious nature of his apparent belief that anybody who is not vehemently anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto, is by definition pro-GMO and pro-Monsanto. He does not want to hear this, or indeed anything else that runs counter to his internal narrative of heroic advocacy of The Truth™, and hence he will not accept an RfC close which only gives him most of what he wants, but falls short of giving carte blanche endorsement for every conceivable anti-Monsanto story he might bring along.

Frankly, I think SageRad is a huge time sink whenever he edits any article related to GMOs or Monsanto. And that is my entirely fair-minded appraisal of the situation. He is not capable of checking his bias at the door (e.g. this edit where he adds to a WP:BLP an accusation of censorship based on the article subject removing SageRad's own comments from his blog - and SageRad edit-warred over this; he has no clue what neutral means in respect of his own agenda). Guy (Help!) 19:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that, Guy. Please note that i did not represent myself as neutral, but i did request someone neutral to review an RfC, which is the purpose of holding an RfC in the first place -- to get outside perspective on a topic, and then have it assessed in as neutral way as possible. I did not close the RfC myself because i am an involved editor, and that would defeat the purpose. Your closing of it also defeated the purpose. Please be accurate when you attribute statements to me, as you were inaccurate above.

Secondly, i am not an ideological anti-Monsanto activist, and i reject that aspersion. I have a long view on the history of Monsanto and harms the company has caused to people and the planet, because that is rooted in the reality of the company. I am for integrity and i wish Wikipedia to represent reality as best arrived at through the good faith dialogue among editors of many different perspectives, to try to work out the best approximation to a neutral point of view as possible. I am very serious about this. Often, my role at an article is to try to balance it out so that it does not read like a brochure in defense of the chemical industry, but that is to counterbalance the bias that is already embodied in a page.

Why do you have objections to my calling out that you are involved this topic, and to ask for a closure review by someone who is not involved? As for your aspersions, i don't find them appropriate or accurate, personally and i think your attacking tone is uncalled for, and further shows the problem of bias that gives me pause that you were the closer of the RfC. SageRad (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You have made the claim of being involved before. I have yet to see anyone other than your fellow anti-GMO activists agree with this claim. Your statement of the case highlights, as usual, your perceptual filters. You have an issue with cognitive dissonance, and you seem to think that anybody who id not your friend is your enemy. That is not the case, and the battleground mentality implicit in your approach is, in my view, a serious problem. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, again. Let me put it very simply. I am involved. You are involved. I was seeking an uninvolved editor. I resent your use of the phrase "your fellow anti-GMO activists" as well, for the insinuations upon my character that it contains. Your assertions of my "perceptual filters" and the rest of your comment here is also full of aspersion. Please cease and desist. I am aware that people have biases of various kinds, and this is precisely why we need outside and neutral eyes. That is why RfC's exist, and that is why i am troubled that you closed the RfC despite being involved, and then refused to undo your closing when asked, and now you are actively arguing against my request to have the closing reviewed. All of these add up to "thou doth protest too much". SageRad (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems absolutely ridiculous! It appears that SageRad is simply calling for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the closure. In response to that, Guy has launched personal attacks and is repeatedly commenting on the editor rather than the edits. Guy, why not take a backward step and let an uninvolved admin look at this. We are all, including admins, accountable for our actions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See the comments of AGK on the RFAR. I am uninvolved. SageRad sees this as "skeptics v. integrity" (explicitly so, again in his statement on the RFAR). That is absolutely emblematic of the problem: skepticism is the default in the scientific method, and the pro-science editors are interested in integrity not supporting an agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if you are uninvolved, you have nothing to worry about by letting another admin look. This is simply like getting a second opinion from a Dr.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

N.B. Skepticism is a quality, an attribute, that i admire. On the other hand, there is a particular ideological group that has co-opted the word and use it currently to promote an agenda that is pro-industry without the skepticism that is implied by their moniker, and actually shut down skeptical inquiry into their claims when it challenges them. The latter sort of self-named "skeptics" are who i must refer to as "skeptoids" to make the distinction. Skepticism is a quality i highly admire, and cultivate within myself in questioning my own assumptions as well as those of others. Gorski and Novella do not define science. Real working scientists define science every day, and generally with integrity, though sometimes with less integrity. I've worked in science and done science, and i've seen how the endeavor works in the real world. I've seen plenty of skeptical inquiry within science, and i've sometimes seen questionable ethics at play was well. Integrity is what i respect, in dialogue, in science, and in life. SageRad (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support close, no need to re-open. BMK (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to offer a reason, justification, any commentary on the issues that i have brought to the table, other than a vote? To engage in the dialogue? SageRad (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The close was an appropriate result of the RfC, that's all that matters. BMK (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad clearly does not have the same view. Why do we not all just sit back and let an indisputably uninvolved admin take a look. There is nothing to hide here - is there?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, let's decide if it's worth the energy to do so at all, instead of simply taking SageRad's view as being gospel, considering that he or she is a partisan requesting the reexamination of an RfC that went against them. We generally don't jump to do that without good reason, and I haven't seen one yet. BMK (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) BMK (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of clarification: The result of the RfC didn't exactly go against me, but it just seemed to be strangely written and partisan in some judgments that it made, with some language that the closing editor never clarified when asked, and not giving a solid statement on the actual question of the RfC itself. It seemed vague and evasive to me. Ultimately, i am simply seeking a process that has integrity, in which another editor who is not involved in the topic would take the time to read the RfC and make a summary of the results from a less biased point of view. It seemed clear to me that the RfC results from uninvolved comments clearly shows consensus in favor of including the content, and i could have closed the RfC myself, but i chose not to, as it seemed appropriate to have an uninvolved person do the closing, and after all of the work of the RfC, i would like everyone involved to have that peace of mind of having a good process. SageRad (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you've made all that clear, and I'm saying that there's no need for re-examination just because you're unhappy with the result. Almost every RfC ends up with someone unhappy with the outcome. You've made your request, and my opinion is that the close is just fine. BMK (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support for Overturn of Close, but .... - This is a difficult and complicated case. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and some of the usual rules of courtrooms do not apply. On the other hand, one that should apply is that it is not enough that justice be done; it is also necessary that the appearance of justice be maintained. There is a history between User:SageRad and User:JzG aka Guy. The history does not reflect well on SageRad, and is self-inflicted by SageRad, but it is important not only that the close have been fair, but that the close appear to have been fair. The history is that Guy is one of several editors who have cautioned SageRad about tendentious and combative editing, and that SageRad has taken all cautions as threats and as bullying, and is unable to accept advice. (User:SageRad also has a history of insisting that on a right of free speech on private web sites including the WMF servers.) Guy acted in good faith in closing, and made a reasonable close, but SageRad, who sees other editors who disagree as bullies and enemies, wants a perfect close, by an absolutely uninvolved editor. Although SageRad is a remarkably combative editor even compared to other anti-GMO editors, many of whom are combative, it would be the path of discretion to dispel any lingering questions of whether the close was WP:INVOLVED. SageRad has made a mess by treating every editor who tries to caution him as an enemy or a bully or a heavy. However, there are three ways that we can deal with the mess. First, leave it as a mess. Leave the close, which was itself reasonable, but which may leave other anti-GMO editors claiming bias. Second, overturn the close and request a completely uninvolved closer, possibly one who hasn't dealt with SageRad. Third, topic-ban SageRad from articles on genetic modification as a disruptive and destructive editor. The community can do the first, or the second, and I think that the second is the course of prudence and greater restraint. The community can also do the third, but I would suggest that, since ArbCom is about to open a case on genetic modification, ArbCom can examine the disruptive track record of SageRad and determine whether a topic-ban is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is a remarkably contentious remark. I appreciate the support, but with friends like this, who needs enemies? You are saying that i am a disruptive and destructive editor? I am seeking integrity and balance in Wikipedia articles. I am seeking to transcend ideological polarization, and to represent reality as it is, as we can best determine it through reliable sources. These comments sound like aspersions, followed by a threat of advocating for a topic ban for me. What did i do? I requested an uninvolved editor to close an RfC. And i insist on freedom of speech. That is what i do. Is that a crime in the New Wikipedia? SageRad (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

An "uninvolved editor" has already closed the RfC, which is why there's no reason to pursue your request. That you don't recognize him as uninvolved is your problem, not ours. BMK (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor is not uninvolved, and shows a pre-existing ideological bias in the topical area. That is not my problem, but a problem of Wikipedia's integrity. It is not only my assessment. This is not about the appearance of justice, but justice itself.

I cannot believe the level of ridiculousness that my simple request to have a clearly uninvolved editor close the RfC, has resulted in this editor who wrote so disrespectfully to me above, to then go right over to the ArbCom case and advocate for a topic ban upon me (in veiled language but as clear as daylight), simply for voicing a serious concern about integrity of the process that is also shared by many others, and for which there is evidence. This is sick and twisted. This is nastiness here. This is partisan gaming on a deeper level, and it is rotting away Wikipedia from the core. There is no longer apparently even a semblance of justice within the system that is supposed to help editors obtains a semblance of justice in the normal content editing. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. The very act of requesting an uninvolved editor should not bring about attacks of this sort, followed by an action to pursue a topic ban. This is ridiculous. It's intimidation. It's "shut up and go home, little lamb, you've lost your way"... the twisting of things in such a way. Wow. SageRad (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I am on neither "side" in the GMO debate that is so polarized. I have seen POV pushing and extreme behavior on both sides ...to the point that many of these involved editors assume the very worst of others and react accordingly. That mentality cannot persist here. Whether or not JzG is involved, this was a good close and it was fair, neutral and policy-based - but JzG, you should know that you are going to catch hell because several of the Arb parties have said you're involved. Even if you think you're not, I think you should know that closing an RfC on these issues is going to escalate the battleground behavior rather than calm things down -- and for that reason judgment would suggest that you stay away from using the bit in this topic area. My two cents. Minor4th 03:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some parties to the Arbitration Request may have said that Guy was involved, but my recollection is that at least one Arb specifically refuted the request to add him as a party, saying that Guy was just doing his job. It seems to me that the opinion of a neutral Arb pulls more weight that the opinions of partisans, so there's really no basis for saying that Guy is "involved", especially when the close was "fair, neutral and policy-based." I wish more Admins would do the right thing more often instead of playing it safe. BMK (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You do have a point. Minor4th 04:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG can be described as involved, even though he has no history editing Monsanto articles, base on: his comment on the recent Arbcom filing, his past block of SageRad, and, not mentioned before, his significant interaction history with Jytdog, who made a number of statements in the rfc opposing inclusion.Dialectric (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Interactions with an editor in an administrative capacity (eg, blocking someone) are not 'involved'. If he was involved he wouldnt have been able to block him. Interactions with another editor are also not 'involved' or even relevant unless there is some suggestion Jzg was canvassed by the other editor in the dispute (which I cannot find any evidence of). Long term editors and admins (when both are very active in the 'dispute' areas of wikipedia - JzG because he is an admin, Jytdog because...well Jytdog) will undoubtedly interact significantly.

The only problematic bit is the arbcom comment. As JzG's comment at arbcom expresses an opinion on the argument itself (he states a stance towards the scientific consensus on GM food) and was made *before* he closed the RFC, there is a credible argument that he would be involved and biased towards one side. However having looked at his close I cant see any indication that any bias he *may* have affected his judgement or his closing rationale. Essentially as per above, the closure was in line with policy and the arguments provided, however he probably should have left it to someone else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can accept this assessment somewhat. I just looked back into JzG's edit history and found that he's not been especially interested in the GMO / agrochemical cluster of topics much in the last few months. However, some of his recent comments on pages like Kevin Folta and Vani Hari as well as his ArbCom statement as you mention, do show that he has a polarized vision that tends to lump people like me into a strong category of "anti-GMO" and that he thinks that people he's classified as such are ignorant of science and essentially fringe elements. I realize that he wrote these comments a few days after the closure of the RfC, but they do still show his essential outlook and to me it reads like bias that would make me uncomfortable submitting to his judgment in this matter. I don't think that he's able to put down his perspective long enough to fairly assess an RfC like this one. The RfC question was simply whether to include some well-sourced lawsuits against Monsanto regarding PCBs. The consensus among outside comments was simply "yes". SageRad (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support review of close Since the user JzG or Guy (same), is involved with a strong POV, and now begins to frame rather neutral editors such as SageRad above as activist (which also hints at the emotional level of involvement). Thus, the user is not the right person to close a related RFC. In particular because in that RFC the user injected his opinion as well. prokaryotes (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - This is a confected attempt to have another bite of the cherry. The close was fair and reasoned. The closer gave reasonable conditions for insertion - coverage in national media - and these conditions have not been met. There is no consensus for insertion and this whole affair has now generated much heated discussion and has spread to several noticeboards and touched ArbCom. Claiming that there is "a reasonable consensus" for insertion in the face of an RfC to the contrary is ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support review of close - I'd very much like to see an uninvolved admin come in and review the text-wall RfC, the close, and all parties involved. I also doubt that is going to happen because of the ArbCom case pending. In the meantime the ongoing standoff at the article continues, where 3 editors and one admin refuse to allow information that directly pertains to the atricle to be included. That's how I see it, anyway. Jusdafax 11:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So what are you saying? You'd like it to be reviewed but you doubt it's going to happen because of the ArbCom case, but you start off a new discussion on your perception of the situation anyway??? And unless you are responding to my comment below, please don't place your comments directly after mine. I placed it below all the !votes for a reason. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:SageRad inserted the material saying that there was "a reasonable consensus". This goes directly against the RfC closure and I see no other authority for the insertion. Perhaps SageRad could leave this topic area alone. There seem to be any number of more experienced editors in this subject area who have more respect for wikipractice. If consensus for insertion ever develops then there will be no need for appeals and discussion and edit-warring; someone will insert the material and it will stick. Because consensus. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i did insert the material. This speaks directly to the need for a clear close on the RfC, because you apparently read the closing to not support the insertion of the content, whereas i read it to support it, though lukewarm and strange in its language. This is a direct consequence of not having a clear answer to the RfC question in the closing, although i do interpret it to support including the comment. The RfC was closed by JzG here with the phrase "Solid consensus for including those with national coverage", which does include the lawsuits in question, which was the exact question of the RfC. More is explained by JzG in this discussion, although still in strangely vague language in my opinion. So, are you really claiming that the closing does not support including the content, and if so, by what reasoning? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)\

The comments of the closing admin: "…those [cases] which are not subject of national level coverage in mainstream sources should not be included…". If you thought there was support for insertion, then why did you lodge a request for review here and stamp around on every noticeboard you could find including WP:RFAR to complain about the closure? --Pete (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Pete/Skyring's very strong diatribing against me, and what i would call abuse of dialogue, is apparent in the latter discussion, including his wheat-pasting of posters mocking me with speechifying people's photos, and his clear mischaracterization of thew situation with this accusation: "We've spent far too long on this RfC which commenced because SageRad couldn't edit war his way to his preferred outcome" and more like this: "What I object to is the behaviour of crusaders who want Wikipedia to reflect their views without question, and when someone questions their behaviour, that someone must be an agent of the Great Evil." .... In this sort of language, Pete/Skyring has taken a simple question about content and brought it to a battleground level. Yes, i advocate for including these lawsuits on the page about lawsuits involving Monsanto. Yes, i have a healthy distrust of Monsanto as a company based on its history. But no, i am not a "crusader" who wants to control Wikipedia. I want to take part in the healthy dialogue among different perspectives, and use Wikipedia's guidelines and mechanisms like an RfC, for instance, to work out differences. How he misrepresents and polarizes. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have to check SageRad's addition in detail. It looks to me as if it meets the criteria of being sourced to news sources of national reputation.

There appears to be a body of thought here that conflates having an opinion with being involved. The two are not the same. My "history" with SageRad consists basically of explaining policy to someone who doesn't want to hear it (see his edits to David Gorski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and comments on the talk page). The close basically supported SageRad, but placed a limit on dumpster-diving to build a case attacking a company against whom he has a strong agenda regardless of his protestations to the contrary.

As has been noted in many RfCs related to heavily polarised topics, it is not possible to close the RfC without making someone unhappy. The vexing thing here is that SageRad actually got what he wanted (material can be included) but clearly wants to be able to interpret that as a mandate to include everything, however insignificant, and the policy-based arguments against inclusion within the RfC make a good case that this should not happen. And that is the meat of his complaint: he did not get a free pass to include every anti-Monsanto factoid wheresoever published. I don't like Monsanto much (read: at all) but we have policies about balance and undue weight.

So, feel free to review the close. Feel free to overturn it and impose a different result. My strong belief is that an "include" result without any caveat regarding significance of sources will be abused, not least because the RfC exists only because that's why the RfC existed in the first place. The mark of POV warriors is determination to get their way. I don't have a "way" to get here, I have no caring if some other admin wants to re-close it, and I have said so from the outset. It's just a pity that SageRad chose to argue for days on the Talk page first before doing what I advised, and when he did do what I advised, he did so in terms that are rude and arrogant. I am rude and arrogant too, but at least I know it and I don't assume that my view of any subject is the only defensible one. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, that is really a strawman there. You are imputing motivations that i do not have. I do not fit your description as "clearly wants to be able to interpret that as a mandate to include everything" -- simply not true. The RfC is for one question on content, whether to include it or not, and that is all it asked. You also insult me, calling me rude and arrogant. I am demanding integrity in simple language. How is that rude and arrogant? For not submitting and obeying others, i become "arrogant". You seem to be so sure that you are always right on all matters, such that when i don't obey you, i am therefore at fault. That's a fallacy of thinking you're always right. I do not think i am always right, but i do have a voice and a right to use it. I don't have a "way" to get here, other than to insist on a process with integrity, and in this case, it was ugly gaming against including the content, so i called an RfC, and i want simple integrity in the process. Please, some civility and respect. SageRad (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing two local sources ("www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local…" and "www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news…") and a couple of bloggy sites. If these cases are significant, without a word given in evidence and no result, then where is the national coverage in MSM? Are we acting as PR agents for lawyers working on speculation now? --Pete (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that we have all of these sources to choose from. If the sourcing i used is not suitable for you, then you could help edit the article and improve it, by adding sourcing that satisfies you from this list, if any do. We could be editing this article together, to improve it, rather than being in a battleground mentality. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support for review of close per Robert McClenon. His post sums up my thinking on the topic. That Guy had made a statement at Arbcom which shows strong opinions on the subject before the close. That the close looks good. But that Guy should never have closed it because of the statement at Arbcom. How things are perceived is sometimes more important than the outcome. That said, its a two edged sword, SageRad should really consider withdrawing this request as the next close may be less to his liking. AlbinoFerret 12:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i was making an attempt to withdraw this request so that we don't have to go on and on, like this, and so i added the content that the RfC was about in the first place, and i was going to come here and say let's just call this whole thing off, but then comes Pete/Skyring reverting the content and claiming that the RfC did not support it, which directly speaks to the need for a clear resolution on the RfC in simple terms without the loaded language. The RfC was for one specific content inclusion and that's all. Strange paradoxical situation. Anyway, as i read the RfC results, every person who came there without pre-involvement supported the inclusion of the material. As i read the closing by JzG/Guy, as vague as it might be, it also supports the inclusion of the material with indirect language. So i added it, and it got reverted, and here we are again. SageRad (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad if thats all that stops you from withdrawing this, then dont stop. Simply source it to national coverage, which appears to be at the top of the RFC (Reuters). This is a review of the close of the RFC, not the events that happened afterwards. AlbinoFerret 13:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then. I withdraw my request for a review of the closure. This does not mean that i think the closure did real justice to the content of the RfC, but it's simply a nolo contendere for the purpose of saving us the trouble when there are other things to worry about in the world. Thank you for your kind advice, Albino Ferret. I'll go over to the article and add it back with national coverage, and hope that we can finally be done with this long saga about adding one sentence to an article. SageRad (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. While it looks like this has been withdrawn, I would highly suggest that people read WP:INVOLVED in terms of admins if anything comes up in the future. Robert McClenon summed things up pretty nicely, although I would argue that statements at ArbCom made as an admin commenting on general behavior also fall under uninvolved. Either way, I'm closing this since the request with withdrawn. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for a block

Since the issue about Hijiri 88 has been ongoing since … ages? I am now officially asking to be blocked from editing en.wikipedia. I am sure as there is a procedure for almost anything here there must be one for that one too. Me not to request this step would actually support Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick. I am sick of quoting diffs but the named user’s activity within the category of Nichiren Buddhism will factually disable me to further contribute to the project without violating the current IBAN – Nichiren Buddhism is my expertise and so far I was able to discuss issues on a sane level – even outside Wikipedia. I acquired this expertise by practising Nichiren Buddhism, being part of a NRM and afterwards seeking NEUTRAL information. My request for a topic ban for Hijirii88 on Nichiren Buddhism was factually declined. Since de.wikipedia works on a slightly different mode I will be able to contribute still with less conflict and focused on the project’s purpose. On a very private note, and why not stating this here, I am professionally unable to deal with, what to my mind are, clear mental issues. Who would have thought that highlighting the little Kenji man’s (Kenji Miyazawa) bibliographical skeletons in the closet would lead to all this. Dealing with Hijrii88 is nerve racking as long one does not agree. Personally I find the complete deletion of sources and refs manipulative as this medium does allow for means to keep them visible to the reader even though one might fail to disagree on the article’s wording … so much for no censoring on Wikipedia. This all turns to a kindergarten level and I do have a job, family etc. and let there be no doubt about it, my participation here was also part of a healing process coming out of a cult. Dealing with the SGi article under current guidelines is futile though. Cheers for nothing and sorry for having waffled on. So please just block me :-) As you guys do not seem to care what information is made public so why should I --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I am not in a position to stop an administrator from blocking the above individual if they so see fit. However, I do think that, if he honestly believes his comments above, which I have no doubt he does, perhaps the better alternative for the project as a whole would be to request that ArbCom review the situation and decide whether there is sufficient support for his allegations and, if they find that there is, they might be able to take some sort of action which would reduce the likelihood of further troubles for all those involved in the future, through whatever form of sanctions ArbCom might choose to impose. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, aside from John Carter's suggestion, my answer is Not at the moment for two reasons. (1) What kind of block? Indefinite or for a specified period of time? Do you want to be able to create another account, or not? Do you want to be autoblocked or not? Do you want to retain talk page access? I'm open to granting a self-block request, but only if I know exactly what you want. (2) Are you sure this is the best choice? Remember that you have the right to vanish: if you wish, you can simply stop editing here, with no block required. This is a good deal simpler, if for no other reason than that if you change your mind, you can pick right up again on editing, with no need to request unblock and no risk of someone contesting your request (believe me, this happens!), let alone no one misreading your block log to say "Catflap's been blocked twice!" So, (3) Tell us that yes, you understand RTV but you still want to be blocked, and specify the block settings, and I'll block you if nobody else responds first, but just remember that it's not a good idea in many situations. Odd to see that I was the one who levied your original block; I don't remember the incident. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, I encourage you to take a wikibreak (a week? a month? longer?) and return to editing when you feel like you can make a positive contribution. It sounds like you are burned out on conflict in your subject area. I know I was absent a few months and came back with a much healthier attitude. But if you insist that you want to be blocked, you can approach admins, like Bishonen who I know are willing to impose a self-requested block if you meet her criteria. But I encourage a bit of time away first, in can help you get a perspective on where editing Wikipedia fits into your life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And just to note, we wouldn't be here if an uninvolved admin had closed the last fracas between these two instead of leaving it for an ineffective do-nothing NAC close. BMK (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Liz; WP:RTV might be the healthiest option here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't going to comment here because this is not a discussion of our IBAN but rather a discussion of Catflap08's supposed decision not to edit Wikipedia anymore, so my posting here might be an IBAN violation. Also, there has been no incident between me and Catflap08 for weeks, so I don't know what brought this on. But since Catflap08 invited me I guess I will. Catflap08 should have been blocked his lack of ability to edit Wikipedia constructively (without engaging in original research and misrepresentation of sources), his complete lack of talk page etiquette (he seems incapable of disputing something without resorting to sarcasm and personal attacks) and his general tendency to take anything personally. I have no idea why he wasn't blocked years ago. I'm frankly sick of the Wikipedia community's inability to deal with the Catflap08 problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for once again displaying your rather pathetic grasp of policies and guidelines. I know few editors of any experience who would mistake a notification for an invitation. I think this may well qualify as another violation of the i-ban on this individual's part, and would welcome the input of @Dennis Brown: or @Drmies: on that. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Hijiri? You are not helping. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for ban violation; this was not a case of "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", to quote WP:BANEX. I welcome input from Dennis Brown or Drmies (or anyone else, for that matter) regarding (1) whether the block were appropriate in the first place, and if so, (2) whether the length were appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As Hijiri had said moments before being blocked, these two hadn't interacted in weeks, and suddenly Catflap feels overwehlmed by Hijiri's presence on Wikipedia? And requests to be blocked as oposed to walking away from the project or vanishing? I would like Catflap to at least explain his thought process in that respect. I also agree with BMK; if admins had been willing to deal with the problem instead of a you'll-get-in-trouble-next-time slap on the wrist this would have been resolved years ago.

Nyttend just wondering, how was Catflap's post here not an IBAN violation? I thought simply mentioning the other editor's username was sanctionable? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is some scope for seeking a review of an IBAN on the admin noticeboards without drawing a block. One could view this as an unusual review of the IBAN. Also, endorse Nyttend's block. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I don't see how you interpreted this as a review of the IBAN. He wasn't requesting for the IBAN to be removed or modified in any way. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said it's an, read "my", unusual interpretation, but let's not quibble over the semantics here as that is entirely another discussion and not really relevant or germane to the point being discussed here. Blackmane (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I endorse John Carter's ArbCom suggestion, basically as per BMK. This has been going on for months, and it's seems too "hot" for any Admin to tackle, so it's probably time this was passed on to ArbCom to see if they can finally take a crack at resolving this once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Block of Hijiri

• Oh FFS, you block Hijiri for responding to an AN where another editor who is in a mutual interaction ban with him posts a self-serving 'Look at me, I am so sad and want to be blocked from wikipedia because of this bad person' post that is *entirely* about Hijiri and blames all of Catflaps woes on Hijiri? Terrible bad block. If anything its deliberate baiting to get someone to violate their IB and should have been responded to with a block as soon as it went up. Disgusting. Did you actually READ what Catflap posted? "Me not to request this step would actually support Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick." There is almost no situation where this comment would be allowed to pass as its a)a personal attack, b)a violation of the interaction ban between them. This block needs to be either overturned or applied to both parties in fairness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cf. "mental issues": Why You May Be Passive-Aggressive, and Not Even Realize It zzz (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I second Only in death. Not only should Catflap's original post have been an IBAN violation in and of itself, this isn't even the first time he's claimed to be "retiring" because of Hijiri (this is the fourth in fact). There is an obvious double standard here. If Hijiri isn't going to be unblocked then Catflap should also be blocked (that's what he wants anyway right?). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Block of Catflap08

I've blocked Catflap08 for a week as well. If Hijiri replying to this section after being pinged and being directly discussed (with things like "Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick.") is sufficient to get a one-week block for an IBAN violation, then it is not really defensible that the original post would not get the same response. Fram (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with off-topic complaints at Talk:Flower of Life over a different article

Can anyone think of a solution to all of the complaining at Talk:Flower of Life? Ever since the deletion of the article about the geometric shape and the move of Flower of Life (manga) into the name because there were no other , the talk page has been inundated by random individuals doing nothing more than complain about the deletion of the other article. I've closed a previous tirade about this a few months with what I though was an apt description of the purpose of talk pages, but that has been completely ignored. I have just closed another line of complaints about the deleted article. I don't want to seam heavy handed, but should future off-topic complaints be summarily deleted? —Farix (t | c) 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RBI time? Collapse the discussion and tell them to move on. That talk page is not DRV and then they can go there and make their case there if they want. Else, temporary protection can be warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I gave a stern but specific warning here at User talk:Odarcan. I hope that knocks some sense to the editors to at least go bother the right people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've added {{Off topic warning}} to the talkpage. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I don't think those coming to the manga's talk page to complain about the deletion on the article about the geometric shape will read such notices. They clearly didn't read the closure of the previous discussion. —Farix (t | c) 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)