Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 9 April 2016 (→‎OTRS seeking applicants: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      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 38 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]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      eraser Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      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]

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

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 48 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]

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

      (Initiated 40 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 38 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]

      Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

      (Initiated 37 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 35 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]

      Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 33 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]

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

      (Initiated 33 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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 31 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]

      Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 0 3 32 35
      TfD 0 0 6 1 7
      MfD 0 0 5 1 6
      FfD 0 0 0 1 1
      RfD 0 0 75 28 103
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      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 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 77 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]

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

      (Initiated 74 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]
      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 72 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 62 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 33 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]

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

      Someone is proposing a community ban

      Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Someone is proposing a community ban

      I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradediatalk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [2].

      Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katietalk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

      He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

      Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradediatalk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:
      • You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
      • You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
      • You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
      • You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
      • You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
      • Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
      • You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradediatalk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.
      User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.
      It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradediatalk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for RevDel/Oversight

      Edit in question is here: [7]. Not sure what is going on here, but this is info that really needs to be removed and quickly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      And as I posted this Wldr took care of the issue, thanks for the REALLY quick turnaround! RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I've oversighted the edit and blocked a few other related accounts doing the same thing. Mike V • Talk 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @RickinBaltimore: For future reference, please don't post sensitive requests like this to a public forum as it will surely attract unwanted attention. Instead, please send them to the oversight team. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that, I'll make sure to do so in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I have copied the warning about this from the ANI editnotice to the AN editnotice. Four such threads in a row is too much. BethNaught (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Reminder for April Fools' Day jokes

      In a few hours, April Fools' Day will be upon us. The day has historically been a day where editors play jokes and pranks on others. Wikipedia:Rules for Fools gives important information for users who might be considering playing a joke. Namely:

      With the exception of the Main Page:

      • All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace. Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism.
      • All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}.

      There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'. However:

      • Editors who revert non-harmful jokes should be assumed to be acting in good faith and should not be sanctioned as such edits may appear to be vandalism. However, editors should generally avoid reverting jokes that comply with the above rules and are made in the spirit of April Fools' Day.
      • Vandalism, including inappropriate joke edits in article space, should be treated in the usual manner as vandalism on other days of the year. A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day.
      • Editors creating a joke AFD page must immediately remove the line "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}". Otherwise a bot will add the deletion notice to the article.
      • Jokes must not be hateful, discriminatory, or intended to make others feel unwelcome.
      • Jokes should be funny.

      Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the reminder - I'm logging out now until April 2! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That's probably the smartest move Boing. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I dunno; I've always looked forward to seeing the hijinks myself. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Wherever would we be without our cadre of old farts, wet blankets, sour-faced misers and head prefects to kill all sense of fun from the world because it doesn't conform to their thin, almost imperceptible sense of humour? You get one day a year to do this, just one yet you get some for whom this is all deadly serious and will have lasting ramifications, that's just en.wiki for you. tutterMouse (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Most AFD pranks are the same old lame uninspired rehashes every year. It's not quite so hilarious to see Jimbo fake blocked or Wikipedia nominated for deletion for the billionth time. It's a fine line between clever and stupid, as they say, and a lot of these jokes fall on the wrong side of that line. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Per consensus from last year, I added a separate section to today's AfD log for joke nominations. If someone feels like it, maybe the other XfDs could do the same thing. Cheers, ansh666 02:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Please, I don't want to be blocked too! I am sorry. I was unaware of Wikipedia's dietary policy. Sorry for the "dietary" crack. And for using the word "crack". Look, I'm sorry all around. I've never posted anything April Foolish before. It just got the better of me. That's it. I'm done. Try the veal...although that may not be the best food.... Stop me! Seriously, I'm done. And I will mitigate with a spate of good ol' fashioned vandal reverting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      There's an AfD tag on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.

      Facepalm Facepalm. Luckily, the tag was deleted. epicgenius @ 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that was just absolutely hilarious. BMK (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      First joker of the day, apparently

      [8] EEng 01:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Harshly talked to and appears to have stopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, from his talk page that guy probably deserves a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE block, but meh. ansh666 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Déjà vu all over again

      I thought I made the rules on this clear eight years ago. Please see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Thought WP:BADAFD was broken

      ...But we now have the gem that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Wales. Someone want to firm up a rationale and run with it? Or are we happy with "Taco"? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      How long should collateral joke pages exist?

      The 4/1 version of Signpost had an article for Trump/Wales 2016. To support it though, they created a number of backdated stories from previous years. e.g. [9] was a deletion request since it's not clear this article title and location is related to 4/1/2016. Do we tolerate the expansion of such articles beyond 4/1 spaces? It has since had the "humor" tag added but I think this is a slippery slope. There are many "humerous" pre-dated titles that can be created. --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The jokes should run for the duration of April 1 only, after that, it's no longer April Fools, so out with the joke. KoshVorlon 14:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep it. Don't break page histories. It's not like a new issue of the Signpost is even out yet, and there's already a push to make the page no longer work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a no-brainer, 12AM April 2  Done. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If an uninvolved admin feels so inclined, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes can probably be speedily closed as snowy, and it probably should be given that it deals with BLP violations. ~ RobTalk 12:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

      Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

      user:Chjoaygame has various misinterpretations of quantum theory, its concepts, formalisms, and notations. He will not break out of them, instead resorting to treatises of the pioneers as the final word. Including pioneering work of Dirac, Feynman, von Neumann, you name them, is a good thing for historical context. Trying to write an article in the same archaic terms they used is not helpful as Ch would have us think. As much as possible, Ch avoids mathematics, including standard terminology, and uses enormous quantities of prose.

      His style of talk page discussion is particularly tiresome, endless nitpicking, thanking, apologizing, citations, quotes, and insinuations when he doesn't get his way, and even accusations that his point (or a point made by a pioneering physicist) has not been resolved. Often wall after wall of text is written. Also, when other editors propose a rewrite, whatever the choice of terminology, however things are phrased, Ch simply must use different words, often obscure, non-standard, or archaic. This is all cloaked in a very politically correct style.

      Examples I have been recently involved with are

      but see also Talk:Quantum mechanics and its archives and edit history. For Talk:Wave function, the fact that four archives this year and three archives last year have been necessary, AND no progress has been made from "WP:AGF" discussions with this editor, is a clear sign the articles will not progress either, and they have not as long as he edits. Everyone just leaves frustrated.

      I have not engaged with this editor as extensively as others, such as user:YohanN7, user:Tsirel, user:Waleswatcher, but enough to convince me that Ch is wasting time. Also, Ch engages with the thermodynamics articles, but I don't follow them much. Many users on this Wikiproject will know I am prone to mistakes, misinterpretations, and even get rude/uptight sometimes. But I do not perpetuate, nor argue on and on and on to have things my way, or the pioneer's way. Get this - even I can find Ch to be mistaken, which says something.

      This is not a personal attack. It is well meant. Ch may well be polite and seem very resourceful, but is overall destructive for the above reasons, at least in the quantum theory articles.

      If this ban fails, then it fails. But it's high time for Ch to desist from editing quantum articles until he changes his view on the subject, maybe even self-experiment in the basic mathematics required for the theory, it leads to a deeper understanding than just reading. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Agree with topic ban. User does not edit to improve articles but to exercise his idiosyncratic views. Extend ban to all physics topics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      • I remember a couple of years ago the user was a part of the gang which was doing damage to the articles on thermodynamics, and refusing to accept the quotes from the undergraduate text I am using in my teaching saying they are "wrong". I just walked away, unwatched all the articles, and never edited any of them ever since. Now I see the same damage to the quantum physics articles, endless rewriting without any point, using 100-years-old terminology. This needs to be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Here.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Bingo: [10]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with topic ban. About his idiosyncratic views: he belongs to a small minority of the so-called "entanglement deniers" (or "Bell theorem denialists", etc). I tried hard to discuss this matter with him, but unsuccessfully; see here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The trigger for this proposal to ban was [11], saying that I do not accept the proposer's airbrushing out Dirac's repeated and clear statement that bras and kets cannot be split into real and pure imaginary parts. No problem for that with wave functions, of course. If Editor Tsirel thinks that bras and kets can be split into real and pure imaginary parts, I will be enlightened. If he thinks my holding fast on the point is a fair trigger for a topic ban, I will also be enlightened.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Talk:Bra-ket notation is certainly not the only trigger for having you banned Chjoaygame. Your rambles, quotes, and insinuations all over the QM talk pages (especially Talk:Wave function) have multiple people frustrated and enough is enough. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      On the entanglement thing. Of course I agree with Schrödinger that entanglement is a fact. So I don't accept that I am an "entanglement denier". I don't accept reasoning that this implies action at a distance. If Bell's theorem is taken to imply that there is action at a distance, I still don't accept action at a distance. The setting of the angle of the polarizer sets the wave function basis, but it doesn't affect the quantum state, which is independent of the wave function basis. The physical thing is the quantum state, not the wave function. So changing the setting of the angle of the polarizer can change the wave function at a distance, but that is not a change of physical fact. Subject to correction, I have an idea that Editor Tsirel doesn't accept action at a distance? Whatever, I don't edit on the Bell thing, so I don't think that is a reason to topic-ban me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      May be some explanation would be in order. It is not the best Wikipedia argument, but in this thread, most of the people voting for topic-ban have some real-life credentials related to quantum physics, whereas Chjoaygame, to the best of my knowledge, has none.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interaction ban, That user keeps doing something negative things to the talk pages. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with topic ban Either a ban or a warning Here is a sample bad edit on the Heat article. The second paragraph (Because...) in this original version contains a useful discussion of how heat is not a state function. A version of this paragraph was inserted over a year ago as per this discussion (I called myself guyvan52 back then). After a few edits by Ch we have this newer revision in which the second paragraph was replaced with historical content (Originally...), and the links to State function and Process function were removed (although I concede that the new link to Thermodynamic process is welcome). The editor has good intentions and is extremely knowledgeable about the history. Perhaps a warning and some coaching would be more appropriate? He needs to understand that the community probably wants articles that explain the physics/mathematics, not so much the history.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "Some coaching", WP:AGF, and general patience has occurred long enough with Editor Chjoaygame. The time when Ch could be collaborated with is long gone. Hence this topic ban. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I said either..or, so a topic ban on quantum would satisfy that request. And it would serve as a warning on Thermo.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I withdraw my suggestion that a warning might be sufficient. After reviewing Talk:Bra–ket notation I realized that the detailed effort to quote from four editions of Diracs book (1930-1958) exposes either a complete lack of understanding, or an inability to control one's emotions in a discussion. A topic ban on quantum mechanics is entirely appropriate.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Or perhaps an interest to try to see the progress of Dirac's thinking on the way to his bra-ket notation? And to show that he didn't change his mind all that much?Chjoaygame (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame seems to have a poor understanding of quantum mechanics (despite high self-confidence) and has caused lots of wasted time and frustration for a lot of people because of that. --Steve (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Not entirely wasted. I have learnt valuable things from my efforts to respond to undoes of my edits. The undoes were thereby valuable. And even another editor learnt a small thing.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame is simply beyond reach for sensible discussion. There's nobody home. This, by itself, is not punishable. Ignorance is not either punishable. But I believe that Chjoaygame's behavior on talk pages is punishable. Behind all politeness, there are usually badly hidden insinuations. He'll never drop an old discussion. He is occasionally hiding behind "good faith" and affects the look of a puppy that someone has kicked ([12]). Follow the link to the actual eidt of the article, and you shall see that Chjoaygame is preaching some sort of religion rather than established science. He knows what he is doing (no "good faith" there). His style of editing when he encounters resistance is the most provocative imaginable. He knows what he is doing in that respect too. The result is that competent editors busy in real life are shying away. I know this for a fact, since I have email contact with more than one around here. Chjoaygame is in my opinion a burden for Wikipedia and is hindering article development. YohanN7 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hold on. We are not into punishment here. We just want to make sure that the development of Wikipedia is not obstructed in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      Editor Xxanthippe makes a fair point. Editor Ymblanter complains above about me that I was a member of an alleged "gang" that over-ruled an edit that he made. His edit was based on one textbook source. He did not try to weigh it against the many other sources that his alleged "gang" relied upon. His edit was over-ruled indeed by several long-standing editors of the page, acting in accord with a long-standing consensus, the result of long debate. But it seems that he now holds it against me that I supported that consensus, by which his edit was rejected. Editor YohanN7 just above says above about me that I am "beyond reach" and that "there is nobody home". This in a context in which one of the two points at issue was later settled mathematically in my favour, after the present topic ban proposal. Was I not home there? If my edit were to be struck down safely, some other reason would have been needed. But instead, a topic ban was proposed. No RfC, no third opinion. Editor Sbyrnes has now, during the topic ban process, appeared to give a third opinion, against my edit on the grounds of non-notability, in favor nevertheless of my mathematics. If Editor Sbyrnes had offered his third opinion earlier, things might have turned out very differently. If other editors had been "home", they might also have given their opinions. Editor Tsirel holds it against me that in user talk-page conversation I did not knuckle under to his belief that there is something "shocking" about Bell's theorem, a topic on which I now do not edit because I know the strength of belief of Bell's theorists. Editor Tsirel branded me with the incriminative term 'denialist'. The point on which I stand is that Bell's theorem cannot be used to establish action at a distance. I think that some Bell's theorists also believe that Bell's theorem does not establish action at a distance, which they word as 'no transmission of information'. I think, subject to correction, that even Editor Tsirel holds that it does not establish action at a distance? He holds that it is "shocking". Is this a sound basis on which to topic-ban me? Editor Xxanthippe just above is of the view that respected editor YohanN7 is talking about punishing me. With a permanent ban. Sudden death, not even an RfC between a BRD (in which I did not offend) and a permanent ban. Editor YohanN7 complains that he is the only editor to weigh in heavily against me; indeed he has not received much support from other editors, who seem to have relied on his respected status to act on their behalves, perhaps as their proxies. He is even calling on private emails as proxy support. Suddenly even Editor Ymblanter takes an interest. My transgression is too much talk on talk pages, and too many citations of candidate reliable sources, and not knuckling under, even when I have mathematical correctness on my side. My dissent is that the approach of these articles is massively overweighted in favour of mathematics not supplied with physical meaning, when the topic is essentially physics. Editor YohanN7 has been left largely alone and unsupported, along with Editor Maschen, to defend the no-physical-meaning over-weighting. This is Wikipedia, not a textbook of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Wikipedia is primarily an ordinary-language general-access encyclopedia. Editor YohanN7 has an axe to grind, that mathematics is the sole language of physics, and that my ordinary-language approach is inappropriate. One can understand his frustration. One may ask, is it best simply to censor dissent with a sudden-death topic ban? I think Editor Xxanthippe has made a fair point.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      To simplify my point, I believe that you are lacking basic knowledge of physics (not just quantum physics) while pretending the opposite and editing the physics articles disruptively, wasting time of other contributors. Therefore you should be forced (by means of a topic ban) to stop editing physics articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Not the place for a content dispute, but here is my short reply. (1) No one says that Bell's theorem establishes action at a distance; rather, that at least one of "three key concepts – locality, realism, freedom" must be abandoned. (2) Maybe "entanglement denier" is not an apt term, but I did not invent it; this is just a label used in discussions (on the Internet, and privately); also "Bell theorem denialist" is (just ask Google). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      In response to Xxanthippe: Now, if we don't say that Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are punishable, how are we going to say that his "future edits and behavior are preemptively punishable"? How the hell are we going to say that? (There you go Chj. A bit of support for you.) No, either you say Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable, hence punishable - or you don't. If you don't, you have to let him go. I am clear: Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable. YohanN7 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Additions to the initial post: I forgot to mention at the top (though it may be well-known and unnecessary) that:
      • "Quantum theory" here includes any article which involves quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, non-relativistic or relativistic.
      • Editor Chjoaygame's interactions are very delocalized, and there is always something new for him to argue about.
        • When caught out on the spot and unable to answer, he evades the situation, and changes the subject with excuses like "no comment", "Argumentum ad verecundiam", "the foregoing thread was disorderly, it would be out of order to reply to it" (see Talk:Wave function/Archive 10 for examples).
        • A talk page thread could start on the topic of the article, say wave functions, then it will soon change to preparations of states, mixed states, species, "quantum analyzers", "ovens" and "anti-ovens", Stern-Gerlach magnets, measurements, Bell inequalities, the list goes on...
      Ch is absolutely refusing to change his behavior, continuing to accuse others of being wrong while he was supposedly correct all the time, trying to convince us the ban is out of sheer spite. It is not a "sudden death" - Ch is not being killed. Something must be done else the QM and QFT articles will be a disaster complete with ovens, anti-ovens, and analyzers. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Chjoaygame does not respect when an editor retracts a comment: [13]. He retracted the retract. I remade it: [14], asking him politely to respect that an editor retracts his post. Chjoaygame cannot respect that either. I am in favor of a ban period, at least for a good while, of this individual. He is apparently trying to make life a living hell for anyone having ever opposed him in the past. It doesn't quite bite on me, and it is also probably not possible to keep him legally from raising mayhem on his own talk page. I can easily sense that others, less used to Chjoaygame, would feel not so at ease having him around. It is not only a matter of knowledgeable editors with plenty of routine. It is a matter of newcomers and fresh students. They can certainly make contributions, and may be very enthusiastic about it, but what if they suddenly face Chjoaygame? It is hardly an inviting environment for article work. YohanN7 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I recall this message from Chjoaygame: this diff "Thank you for your care in this. Sorry to take up your time. This isn't really a problem to ask you about. [...] Please don't spend more time on this; you have other things to do."

      Assuming good faith (for now), I treat this as genuine concern about my precious time. Assuming the good faith also in other cases, I guess that Chjoaygame divides all wiki editors into two classes: experts and non-experts. Experts should concentrate on more important challenges than Wikipedia. Non-experts should not prevent him to improve Wikipedia. Thus, I conclude, he is a very interesting case of "ideal wiki editor": not too busy and enough qualified. He is also ideal editor in his attitude toward sources: he reads great minds (mostly, Dirac), makes them available to everyone, and always provides refs. His deep understanding of the great minds gives him the right to go against the mainstream in quite fundamental matters (such as Bell theorem). But, assuming the good faith, I get a contradiction. His time should be more precious than mine: he should return the (lost in the dark) mainstream back to the light of founding fathers! Well... maybe the solution is this: Wikipedia is, in his opinion, the right instrument for this work. Wow! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      His collaboration mode: "That is why I have chosen my own particular profession, or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world" (Sherlock Holmes). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I followed the discussion between Tsirel and Chjoaygame on Bell's theorem, but was unable to ascertain whether Ch is or is not an "entanglement denier". It seems to me that Ch just likes to redefine terminology (e.g. by replacing the conventional phrase "Quantum pseudotelepathy" with "absence of action at a distance"). My unpleasant experience with Ch on Heat was partly my fault. While three editors were involved, the third editor did not participate very much. Chjoaygame's insistence on doing the lede his way was too much for me and I began to curtail my edits after that. The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists. The issue that caused me to vote for the ban on quantum articles wasn't rude behavior but his insistence that Dirac's bra-kets cannot have real and imaginary parts. That issue suffers from a severe lack of WP:notability (the complex conjugate of a ket could be defined but nobody would want to do it). Statements about notability involve opinions (not facts), and therefore such discussions need to end quickly. His efforts to push such nonstarters on the talk pages makes it difficult to improve articles. Aside: I also moved my Let me digress a bit to my talk page to make it easier to add comments to this discussion--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists." — Yes! I guess, he knows physics better than a typical historian of physics, and knows the history of physics better than a typical physicist. That should be nice, but... I know personally a historian of mathematics that is extremely aggressive toward the current mathematics. I also know one or two others who behave much calmer, but are critical, too. I guess that there is such a phenomenon: someone studies the history of science, and feels competent to correct the present-day science by some return to the past. I guess, this is futile. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Another "problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't" speak "like most (or nearly all) physicists". His way of using language is closer to that of humanities (which is natural for a historian), and quite different from the style of hard science. "Too long; didn't read" is often the reaction of a physicist. Our thoughts may be fuzzy when we think, but our arguments should be sharp when we speak/write. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. What Dirac was saying is that complex vectors are required because real parts or imaginary parts of these vectors don't describe physical objects by themselves (when taken separately). In dim 3, when you only have three real coordinates, you are unable to perform a change of basis, i.e. describe what would see another observer. Because this would require to know the six real coordinates (i.e. the three complex coordinates). I am not sure of what User:Chjoaygame wanted to say, but I think that assertion "three is less than six" is (1) sufficiently short and simple to be read by anyone of whatever background (2) stated in words whose meaning should have not evolved along the centuries. Pldx1 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, Chjoaygame's latest activities in talk:bra-ket notation would never by themselves have provoked this. His current activities there reflect an attack of sanity unusual for him. Presumably, the present ANI makes him tone down a bit. He can't refrain though from trying to create the impression that "he was right all the time". This is still typical. His more honest reflexions on the topic at hand can be found in talk:wave function. There is a 100-fold worse material in talk:wave function, present and archives. It is important to point out that this is not about right or wrong in the hundreds of different issues and (usually) non-issues raised by this individual. It is about Chjoaygame's relentless and provoking pushing of his unique POV. YohanN7 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Final additions Although a couple of days ago I swore off to myself to not contribute anymore here, for the uninvolved I'll just give one more heads up to a better picture of the editor, in case it isn't obvious. See his recent edit history since the start of this ban, as well as User talk:Chjoaygame (especially User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 3). Ch, with some nerve, is taking every opportunity to display other editor's comments (however old) censored to his convenience, displayed on his talk page or an archive, while touting his apparent "correctness" and other people's "errors". Since Ch defers to WP policies when it suits him, there is WP:STICK to consider, and yes WP:TLDR is definitely relevant to Ch.

      Also, along with Xxanthippe and Ymblanter, I agree the ban should extend to all physics articles, shuddering to think what will become of our relativity articles if Ch invades those too as some self-portrayed disciple of Einstein, Lorentz, Schwarzchild, you name them. However, others here may only agree with a topic ban on quantum physics, which should be the minimum that most of us agree on. This is the last of what I will say. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Maschen: a minor correction: A ban isn't what most of us agree on, but what all (but Ch) agree on (apology for dangling participle). Switching the question to a physics ban would require that we start this discussion from the beginning. A ban restricted to quantum would give Ch the opportunity to reform, and an absence of reform would make it easier to get the ban on all physics. @Chjoaygame: Why don't you start a parallel article on the history of quantum mechanics? All the physicists agree that your edits are making the articles harder for physics students to read.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      In response to User:Guy vandegrift, yes, "most/all" of us, whatever, just being neutral in case someone actually comes along to oppose the ban on the grounds I am being "too harsh", "uncivil", "spiteful", they can take their pick.
      I realize the discussion would have to be restarted if the ban extension to all physics articles was required, which is why this happened, followed by this, merely stating a ban on QM+QFT is the minimum which should be done.
      Also, please don't encourage Ch to write his own article(s), "parallel" or not, because C could invade/damage other pages in the process for "innocent" reasons like links, cross-references, citations, even if not it will be almost certainly something to delete eventually anyway. It also contradicts your assertion that a QM topic ban is appropriate because Ch is still technically engaged with editing on WP in the subject. It's not only students that Ch befuddles and annoys, but even knowledgeable non-experts and experts. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Some samples:

      Here, [15] Chj hijacks a thread. An editor asks a question (about position and momentum representations of a state) and Chj goes ballistic about something else (anti-ovens or whatever), presumably supporting Editor Vaughan Pratt.

      Long long ramble cut out...
      ... I think Editor Vaughan Pratt is concerned about this.

      What? VP asks a question, half of which a junior first-timer in a QM course can answer after one week. Chj does not possess this knowledge, instead furiously attacks further after my patient explanation.

      In this one, [16] (scroll up to label "concern", link does not work well), Cjoaygame asserts

      As I read it, this part of the present article flatly contradicts the consensus of Born, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rosenfeld, Kramers, Messiah, Weinberg, and Dirac.

      The referred to parts, listed below for convenience,

      • Wave functions corresponding to a state are not unique. This has been exemplified already with momentum and position space wave functions describing the same abstract state.
      • The abstract states are "abstract" only in that an arbitrary choice necessary for a particular explicit description of it is not given. This is analogous to a vector space without a specified basis.
      • The wave functions of position and momenta, respectively, can be seen as a choice of basis yielding two different, but entirely equivalent, explicit descriptions of the same state.
      • Corresponding to the two examples in the first item, to a particular state there corresponds two wave functions, Ψ(x, Sz) and Ψ(p, Sy), both describing the same state.

      are highly trivial non-controversial facts. For Chj, they are either new or don't fit into his religion. I don't know which, and I don't really care.

      On occasion, Chj starts vetting real scientists, like here (Link works poorly. Scroll up to label "A distinction drawn by Weinberg".).

      Weinberg is at fault in logic here. He is conflating...

      Wow. Just wow.

      I ask of no one to read all of Chj's gibberish. But those who decide on this issue should read at least some. Talk:Wave function/Archive 5 is fairly representative. YohanN7 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed, we must be thankful to YohanN7 for the sample, since it would be a torture "to read all of Chj's gibberish". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      A counter sample, this time of Editor YohanN7 on my talk page:
      But I believe that this statement isn't generally true;
      Roughly speaking, a vapour-containing oven with a hole in its wall emits a beam of atoms in a mixed state.

      If you lower the intensity to one atom at-a-time, these atoms are decidedly in a pure state (wave packages). You might speculate about single atoms in a high-intensity beam being in a mixed state if there is significant interaction between the atoms. Then some of the conditions described in L&L apply, because we would be looking at a subsystem. But it is still not clean cut. The system as a whole can hardly qualify as closed.

      I'd also say that nature does not habitually deliver mixed states when you consider small systems, like a definite isolated collection of particles. Mixed states in those cases only appear when you consider a subsystem. This is exactly the way L&L defines it. I'd guess that in the typical setup in accelerator experiments, the intensities of the beams are low enough that particles in the beams do not interact with other particles in the same beam.

      I think this casts light on the level of physical understanding of my present attacker.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      A content dispute, again... but I feel I have to reply. The quote above is a part of discussion where both parties were somewhat in the dark. "It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some fully specified mixed state." (Chjoaygame, in the same discussion.) No, this is not at all hard. There are many ways to do it. For instance, it is very easy to prepare a thermal state (at a given temperature), described by the Hibbs density matrix; ironically, this is just what the oven prepares! In that discussion, both parties seem to understand that "mixed" should be "correlated with something else", but YohanN7 thinks about correlation with another particle of the same beam (rather than the oven and the environment), and Chjoaygame does not clarify, correlated with what. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Editor Tsirel, for this valuable comment. I posted the counter-sample in order to cast light on the level of physical understanding of my attacker, not to start a content debate. But since you have nearly done that, I may say thank you for picking up my one-word slip in my post on my talk page. Of course, as you rightly observe, I slipped by omitting the word 'arbitrary'. The sentence that I wrote in my talk page that you have copied here ought to have read with that word included: It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. Because I was concerned to make the very same point that you rightly make here, I had already cited the systems emerging from the oven as mixed, an obvious example of mixedness. I was concerned that my interlocutor seemed to utterly deny this. The ordinary definition of a mixed state that I intend is one that is observed to be such that when the analysis(=Dirac's "sorting apparatus" 1958, p. 12)  &  detection devices are exhaustively varied and still no way can be found to make the systems pass with probability one. Perhaps I may add that my main attackers here routinely ridicule me for talking of ovens and sorting apparatus.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, really? Still not so problematic. Having sources for several pure states, it is trivial to combine them (via a classical randomizer) into a source of the corresponding mixed state. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote 'arbitrary'. Your example demands restriction to the case where one has sources for several pure states, indeed mixed, but far from arbitrary.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It is arbitrary as long as these pure states are. The problem of preparing arbitrary pure state is a separate problem (and in some sense, not solvable, but usually assumed to be solvable in elementary textbooks). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote (as corrected by Editor Tsirel): It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. As he points out, it may be hard in practice to prepare an arbitrary pure state, a point I hsve made in the past. I don't agree that this is a separate problem. I had it in mind when I made my statement. And it would be a restriction that one should deal with several pure states, not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, if you don't agree that this is a separate problem, then let it be so. But "not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states" shows clearly, what happens when one thinks physically instead of (rather than in addition to) thinking mathematically (and Feynman wrote about this in "Character of physical law"). Every mixed state (no matter how "tricky") can be decomposed into a (finite or) countable mix of pure states (and approximately - finite, of course). And admits a continuum of non-equivalent such decompositions. (Non-unique decomposition is a well-known fact actively debated in the past). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I am glad to see your thoughts on this point. I was in doubt on the matter. I hardly need say that I defer to your mathematics. I wrote It would be hard in practice to prepare... I am not sure, but I think it would be hard in practice to prepare a countably infinite set of pure states ready to be mixed. Whether the word 'several' covers a countably infinite set is a question that one might ask.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Each and any valuable treatise on Quantum Mechanic Theory is consistent with itself, since this is a requirement for being valuable. But QMT has largely evolved from its beginning, and is already evolving. So that any patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent. An eigenfunction |w> for variable W related to object X has the meaning "suppose that you interact sufficiently with X, to the point of finding w as the measure of variable W, then X will be described by |w>. Before the measure, object X has to be represented by a linear combination of eigenfunctions, the coefficients being related (at least loosely) with the probability of obtaining w as the measure of W. If you are considering two properties, you can, before any measure, represent the same physical object by two linear combinations of eigenfunctions (relative to W1 and W2). But after any measure, other linear combinations have to be used. Moreover, when the two measuring processes don't commute, measuring more and more precisely W1 results in scrambling more and more W2, to the point of obtaining an linear combination that only expresses our total ignorance about w2.
        Another way to tell the same thing. An abstract function describes an object with associated knowledge. When dealing with a physical object, the main question is: what have we paid for this knowledge, i.e. how much we have modified this object in order to acquire this knowledge ? Remark on the present dispute: the Founding Fathers of QMT are known for having be rogue to each other. But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father. Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I like the third phrase and the last phrase of Pldx1 (but his other phrases seem not to belong here):
      "Аny patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent."
      "But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father."
      Anyway, I'd say that both YohanN7 and Chjoaygame are not experts, but Chjoaygame is a passionate and ambitious POV pusher, while YohanN7 is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Editor Tsirel says that I am a passionate and ambitious POV pusher. Yes, I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. My principal interlocutor, I think, is passionate in the opposite direction. He writes for example "Modern ways of presenting physics are better than those of the 1930:s. Mathematics has become the irreversibly final tool and language in expressing physics. You may not like it, but you can't turn the flow of time around." I have to leave it to others to decide if that constitutes Wiki POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      My opinion to it is already voiced above: About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning is very different from replacing mathematical formulas with (unique) POV babbling. I am in favor of the former, not even neutral. I am against the latter. YohanN7 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't recall replacing any mathematical formulas. You are of course free to say I babble and have a (unique) POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Boris: Plain-language information is a valuable part of physics articles. But plain-language misinformation is not! I personally don't know yet whether Chjoaygame is pushing a coherent POV or is merely confused about many basic aspects of quantum mechanics. But anyway, Chjoaygame is not correct when he suggests that his POV is a desire for plain-language descriptions and that this is what people are complaining about. --Steve (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot there. I am obviously not expert in quantum mechanics. I was seriously confused for some long time about the relation between state vectors and wave functions. This was a big confusion on a basic aspect, with troublesome ramifications in the way of walls of text on talk pages. I eventually recognized how to see it correctly, and apologized for my confusion. I don't think I have other basic confusions of remotely the same size. People are complaining about my personality: that I write walls of text on talk pages, that I often use out-of-date sources (e.g. Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bohr), that I don't give up on talk pages until I have been persuaded that I ought do so, that I am not primarily interested in mathematics, and that I post edits boldly. I can see that these personality features do not endear me to people; they add up to the broad reason for the present proposal to topic-ban me. I think I am entitled to have a pretty large say in defining my own POV. At least in my mind it is as I stated just above: I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. To elaborate a little, I believe strongly that if one can't give a good account of a topic in ordinary language, then one doesn't understand it well. I think Wikipedia articles on quantum mechanics are defective in that respect. Here is not the place for me to say more about that. I have posted many attempts to help remedy that defect. Many of those have been duly undone, with more or less protest from me. I don't edit war.
      On another tack, I do not believe in magic, and therefore I avoid editing on Bell's theorem. That I do not believe in magic makes some editors feel I am nuts, but, as I said, after one essay, made within the rules and not objectionably, I know how passionately they think my non-belief is mistaken and consequently I don't edit or talk on Bell's theorem. So I think my unbelief is not a valid reason to do hard things to me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      And by the way, it is a well-accepted position, that generally, a theoretical notion need not admit a definition in empirical terms. When possible (and not too boring), such a definition is desirable. But it may be impossible. Theory as whole is corroborated (or refuted) according to its predictions (and empirical facts). But "building blocks" are not necessarily interpretable empirically. We observe that Chjoaygame tries hard to give empirical interpretation to every theoretical notion, even when it is not reasonable to do at all, or at least, is a too advanced matter for our articles.Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      This comment is high powered, perhaps beyond the present purposes, or, as you say, "by the way". I ask that the formulas be related to physical meaning. That is not to say that every definition must have an empirical meaning. If one says 'this formula has no physical meaning' I count that as relating this formula to physical meaning. Physical meaning is not quite the same thing as empirical meaning. To deal more directly with your comment, Chjoaygame tries hard to interpret theoretical notions that he feels deserve empirical interpretations, but not every theoretical notion. Chjoaygame thinks that physicists vary in how hard and how successfully they pursue that. Sometimes some of them give up too easily. I won't go further on that here and now.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not about replacing formulas (that is, statements) by plain text, nor about their translation into plain text. I am rather about mathematical objects (say, state vectors). The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some Hermitian operator, is mathematically trivial. The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some physically feasible observable is far not trivial. Neither the former, nor the latter, is usually discussed in elementary textbooks. And I do not think they should be discussed (prominently) in our articles. But if you define a pure state as corresponding (you know in which sense) to a possible value of an observable, then inevitably you enter such questions. This is why your trend (in spite of its good faith) may be (or even must be) harmful. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for these valuable thoughts. I think I would be unwise to pursue them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chjoaygame: For the record, I also do not believe that people can do "magic", and when I learned of Bell's theorem circa 1992, my amazement that elementary particles are experimentally observed to display "Quantum pseudo-telepathy" prompted me to contact the local newspaper (after two sleepless nights pondering what I had just learned). The local newspaper ignored me. Like you, I also get "odd" ideas about how to explain physics, but after one or two rejections I drop the subject and post the material in an obscure location (example). If Wikipedia editors who happen to by physicists say a certain insight has no value, you need to believe them. I recall this statement that perhaps you made about Temperature and the one-dimensional manifold. It is marginally appropriate for Wikipedia, at best. But when I went to delete it, I checked the source and finally understood. Just below the freezing point, density decreases with increasing temperature. The fact that temperature is not a function of volume implies that an ad hoc definition of temperature cannot be based on a water thermometer in this range. This could be a useful insight in instructional material for students. You just need to recognize that there are places where such insights do not belong.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Editor YohanN7 doesn't like people interleaving in his posts. He has just undone my interleaving above. So I copy from above to here in green his text in which he ridiculed me. Then I copy my indented interleaved reply.

      On occasion, Chj starts vetting real scientists, like here (Link works poorly. Scroll up to label "A distinction drawn by Weinberg".).

      Weinberg is at fault in logic here. He is conflating...

      Wow. Just wow.

      Editor YohanN7 is ridiculing me for making a valid point in an argument.
      The link takes one to:
      Weinberg writes on page xvi:
      "The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these states with the basis states of definite position."
      Weinberg is at fault in logic here.
      Weinberg's own logic would have seen him write:
      The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these vectors with the basis vectors of definite position.
      The point is material in a discussion of the distinction between (a) a vector that represents a physical state, and (b) the physical state itself.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Enforcing

      Could we please stop this and enforce the topic ban before Chjoaygame contaminates the whole page with their, hmm, non-orthodox views on physics?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Strongly agree with Ymblanter. If there are any admins (or whoever makes ban decisions) reading this, please hurry up and be done with it. Everyone should stop fueling the fire (here and elsewhere) by ceasing to respond to Chjoaygame. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      We need your help!

      ·Hey bored admins, got nothing better to do with your time? Well come on down to RFPP and help clean out some requests! We've got 55 requests just sitting there, waiting to be handled deftly by your keen insight and judgement, you also look great today! Don't wait, start protecting (and declining) today! tutterMouse (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I did a few and then some. Widr (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Mostly  Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      IP-socks with talkpage access

      Someone mind removing the talkpage access of these blocked User:Nolantron IP-socks?

      He also mentions the supposedly-extended rangeblock wasn't actually extended. Someone may want to deal with that, too. User has also been harassing User:Kailey 2001 at least yesterday. (On one of his named accounts, he claims he was just pretending to be the harasser active on Kailey's user talkpage before. No clue if he's honest or lying, don't care either.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Range 24.114.64.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked). Not sure if that is feasible. Fences&Windows 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Organized editing effort

      Organized editing effort from 4chan's /pol/. Found boards.4 *** chan.org/pol/thread/69811494/1st-pol-wikipedia-editathon (view at your own risk; link blacklisted). FYI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Psst, Nick-D... regarding David Irving. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, the edits to the Irving article had that look to it. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      69814951 suggested: Edit /pol/ out of the "Alt Right" page, or at least make it less biased. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Maybe /pol/ is capable of subtlety. clpo13(talk) 23:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Clpo13: Surprisingly (?) the editor who removed it made a good point: the sources don't support its inclusion. There's at least one seasoned wiki editor in that thread on 4chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Merging procedure and tagging

      Tag removed because the target article is a BLP. Seems reasonable, everyone in agreement.--v/r - TP 03:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      A proposal has been made by another editor to merge Short-Fingered Vulgarian to Donald Trump. Per Step 2 of WP:MERGEPROP both articles should be tagged. This is unambiguously stated. No exception is given. User:Floquenbeam removed the tag, without a rationale, in this edit. I am curious what admins and other experienced editors make of this. AusLondonder (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The reason given here seems justified. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The merge notice was removed for a very clear and legitimate reason. I don't think we are so process-bound that we would allow an article created by sock puppet troll to reflect adversely on a BLP subject. As the merge proposer, had I rememebered that merge proposal notices appear at the top of target articles, I would have found a more discreet way of proposing it. - MrX 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with kelapstick and MrX. I'm beginning to have some serious doubts about you, AusLondonder. Now might be the time to adopt a low profile instead of seemingly seeking confrontation and/or drama. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for sticking to the subject and launching a sideways attack on me; @Sitush:. I can't even recall interacting with you in the past. I have literally no idea what you are talking about. AusLondonder (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Judging by this report, you might not have much idea what anyone on Wikipedia is talking about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I've interacted with you, AusLondonder, and I've found you to be a throughly disruptive individual. I'm not surprised you've ended up here. CassiantoTalk 13:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cassianto: We interacted once the other year. Is that what you mean? Talk about holding grudges. Move on with your life. Get involved in content creation AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a report, @Johnuniq:. Congratulations on [redacted] and choosing to mindlessly insult someone. I didn't post it on ANI as a report. It was simply a broader seeking of views from other editors. WP:MERGEPROP should be reworded to include a BLP exemption in this case. On the other hand, @MrX:, I question why you didn't simply nominate the article for deletion. Is the content of short-fingered vulgarian really notable enough to be merged into the Trump article? AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's not escalate to outright namecalling please. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is the name calling of Johnuniq not redacted? AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) In retrospect, I should have G5ed the article the moment I saw it. I guess I was assuming too much good faith.- MrX 02:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Floquenbeam's rationale in the diff offered by Kelapstick is quite clear. You say "no exception is given" in that policy, but BLP is the exception to every policy on Wikipedia. BLP trumps (ha!) other policy concerns, and common sense trumps all of that. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding WP:BLP concerns, I think we are being slightly alarmist here. A whole article of BLP violations exists in Short-Fingered Vulgarian. How on earth is that acceptable but a merge tag not? AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Bear in mind that Donald Trump is visited by 340,000+ times per day. It's a REALLY big deal.- MrX 02:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      A single obscure article on a topic is not quite the same thing as putting those words in a tag at the very top of the Donald Trump article - for months the most seen page on the seventh most popular website in the entire world - as announcement to the entire world. Gamaliel (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not a simple piped link? Such as:
      Seems to assuage both concerns of: A) not having the controversial words appear in the main article, but B) still having a notification of the discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that the discussion is not deserving of the attention it will get — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with that @Salvidrim:. But apparently all past grudge holders come out from the woodwork to scream it's "disruptive" to even try and bring up discussion about the matter. What a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment An admin or other editor should close this. Nothing is being achieved here. I think we all should have better things to do with our time than criticise each other. I think the fact that an editor cannot raise a question about inconsistencies in good faith without accusations of "disruption" is predictable but disappointing. Discussion is not disruption. I suggested amending WP:MERGEPROP to note BLP concerns in merging tags. It is becoming obvious to me most editors cannot put aside their feelings of personal dislike over, say, a disagreement a year ago and respond to a query/proposal without insults and personal criticism. Other editors race to defend the actions of an administrator colleague in the most vigorous way imaginable. Then the editing community wonder why so many people (women, young people, people who dislike being criticised) are turned-off editing. AusLondonder (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot speak for anyone else (and ain't gonna try) but you might consider this; all content on articles requires a consensus of editors. That includes tags, banners etc.. The merge process is not a formal guideline and certainly not a bright line rule. While you centered on step two of the process...you forgot number three of the types of mergers normally found on Wikipedia, controversial merge proposals. Right now the article has been nominated for deletion and placing a merge tag on the top of a BLP article based on a stub of this nature is not a good idea for many reasons. Pushing to keep the tag could, in itself, be disruptive because it looks as if you are not getting the point. For the most comprehensive collection of our merge procedures you can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your sensible and reasonable reply, Mark Miller. I never pretend to know everything so I thank you for your good faith advice. I don't actually see why a merger was ever considered. The article was basically just a sentence about an insult from a magazine. AusLondonder (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      List of Iranian people by net worth and Setad

      Hi,

      Same problem has occurred again (and again for past 2 years) as reported [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277#List_of_Iranian_people_by_net_worth] more recently. Can someone please take action and/or protect this page indefinitely, as I don't want to turn it personal (no "agenda" whatsoever on my side). Thanks. Similar problem for theSetad article with an editor who is making WP:unfounded personal attacks (possibly a sock-puppet of blocked user: Sheildy?). I have edited economy-related article on WP for more than 10 years without a hitch but those 2 seem problematic because it is a list of persons may be?

      Thanks much,

      Duvalier123 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Information from deleted page

      Looks like this request has been resolved. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I am looking for some information for this article that was deleted.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter

      If it can be userfied. I would appreciate it.

      I have already created this article and would appreciate any additional information.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cardoza_Poindexter?redirect=no


      Thank you. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I took a look at the deleted article, which is really just a poorly written stub with three dead external links as references. Your article is about 600 times better than this old stub. I'll put it into your user space if you really want it - it's actually short enough to go into a section on your talk page - but you've got lots more information, better references, and I think you'll be disappointed and kind of embarrassed that this was the best we could do with a biography like this. Katietalk 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, thank you. Yes, I am just on a search. So I will take any new info. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      As they pertain to the same topic and there was evidently no overlapping time spans, I instead did what we usually do and I've histmerged them -- all revisions can now be explored through the Revision History. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Please undo the merge. I only wanted some information from it. That is why I asked for a userfication. I worked hard as the author of this article. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      All your great contributions to this article are evident in its history and your contributions. What else do you need? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure if that is sarcasm, but I am no longer listed as an author. [17] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't worry too much about that :) Your contributions are no less important just because you didn't made the first edit; you're still an author of the article! --Errant (chat!) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I see no harm in undoing the merge, if it matters to BlackAmerican that they're listed as the article creator. They didn't use any of the old version to write their article, so there are no attribution issues. If something matters to someone more than it matters to us, it doesn't mean they're wrong to let it matter to them, and if there's no harm, no reason not to go along. BlackAmerican, I think this should be filed under "be careful what you wish for...". And no, I'm confident Martin wasn't being sarcastic.

      Anybody mind if I unmerge? Or, anyone want to just do it themselves, in case it takes a while for me to get online again? Just to keep an editor happy? @Salvidrim!: in particular, any objection (no good deed goes unpunished)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Instead of unmerging altogether, why not delete it all where it stands and selectively-restore the 2014 revisions? That way both the histories of the deleted 2007 version and the live 2014 versions can be easily found under the same title, and BlackAmerican gets to keep his "creator" credit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That's actually what I was going to do, anything else would seem like *far* too much work. I know, "unmerge" was inaccurate wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
       Done. Thanks, S! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly no sarcasm from me! There is surely no reason to doubt my sincerity when I called your contributions "great"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, can the older version be userfied? or is there someplace I can view them? Thank you. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      You mean you didn't take a look before they were deleted again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      that's the last version. There are a couple of versions that go back years that I wanted to see if possible. thank you in advance. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have now restored all revisions to Charles Cardoza Poindexter again. Please do not complain now that you are not the creator anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Vandalism

      Hi. Please block this account because of doing VandalismModern Sciences (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This is not vandalism, this is severe POV pushing--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Savintomar repeatedly recreating CSDed article

      @Wgolf:: The discussion has been moved here froom WP:ANI.

      User:Savintomar has been repeatedly recreating Savintomar as a page about himself (which in its present form is U5, A7, ... CSD), even after it has been speedy'd many times. He has also been repeatedly uploading a photo of himself to Commons and Wikipedia, which does not give any indication of permission or release on a free licence.

      Also the user appears to have a sock: User:Savin.tomer, and has also been removing speedy templates from the articles created by the master. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Pinging MER-C. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 08:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I've blocked User:Savin.tomer, as it's quite clear they're the same person. I'm not completely convinced this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar -- is this user so desperate to get onto Wikipedia that he'll misspell his own name in order to do so? I salted all variants of Sachin Tomar via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist not too long ago. MER-C 08:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of Iamsachintomar, if a user repeatedly creates a speedy deleted page, and even creates a sockpuppet to continue the work, this should be grounds for blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your inputs. The main reason why I'm raising this up for admin review, is if the user is unable to interpret and understand Wikipedia policy on article creation, copyright and multiple accounts, I believe he should be sanctioned. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @MER-C: @Od Mishehu: Please refer to [18], the personal page of the user (MER-C, remember the photo I tagged and you deleted?). This page may help you to identify who are his socks or not. (I am not outing, reason is because the user had already revealed his homepage in his contribs and also used his own photo, which came out on a Google image search) Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I've protected the page to prevent future article creation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Od Mishehu: fair enough. I've indeffed the other account for not being here to improve Wikipedia. I've also amended the deletion summaries to U5/G12, as it's not particularly clear Savintomar == Sachin Timar. MER-C 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Help required at AfD

      There is a discussion here which an editor has moved the main article to its userpage, can I ask for assistance from an administrator re what to do next? Thanks Nordic Dragon 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I have performed some cleanup and commented there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      User created a WP:FAKEARTICLE so Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vanossaro1567 Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Sysmessage change request

      Hi guys! If everything works as planned the new protection level is comming in about 1-2 hours. so you need to adjust the text of two messages:

      You need to use a switch to display the right things, if the new level is used. But I guess you got already experience in that, because you got the templateditor level. Otherwise you may take a look at the french pages with the new names, they got their new level yesterday. Greetings, Luke081515 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      See also this discussion at the technical village pump. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland

      @Nyttend: seems to have become inactive administering the interaction ban between me and three others. I've had no response to several emails, and the interaction ban seems to have fallen by the wayside. I don't know what's going on, but perhaps the easiest fix would be for another admin to take over supervision of the interaction ban? I hate to have to post this considering the replies it will attract, but I've gotten nowhere with email. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      It's because, frankly, I'm tired of dealing with everyone's petty arguing. I can handle it if you want me to enforce the ban literally. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Petty arguing is the reason these bans happen. It seems like anyone who has no desire to be involved in these kinds of disputes should let someone else administer interaction bans. And anyway it's not fair to you to have to do this indefinitely. Why not let someone else take a turn? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spacecowboy420 went to Anthony Appleyard's talk page and requested that he revert my edits on Dodge Tomahawk. He said he didn't know who made the change, yet he also said he couldn't talk about it because of the interaction ban, indicating he had checked the page history and seen that of course it was me, and he is banned from reverting my edits. I see this as a blatant violation of the interaction ban. Spacecowboy420 is not supposed to follow me around and revert my changes, nor is he supposed to slyly talk around whose edits he is having reverted. This is after several previous violations, such as Spacecowboy420 reverting our previously discussed criteria for List of fastest production motorcycles, removing the street legal requirement. I don't understand how he can do that if he knows that he and I previously couldn't agree on it. He's taking advantage of the ban to make changes and I can't respond. Yet if I overrule his old objections on Dodge Tomahawk, then he is allowed to come along and revert me? How is that possible?

        72bikers did the same thing when he deleted my source Legendary Motorcycles on List of fastest production motorcycles, even though he knows I told him I added the source and checked it myself. He says "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing I can't do anything about it.

        I don't think Nyttend is willing to take action to enforce the interaction ban, because he simply finds it unpleasant to deal with. He also doesn't check his email, for some reason. I think he should have told everyone before he became the ban admin that he never checks his email, and someone who does could have been chosen instead.

        So what's next? Can we please have a new admin for this interaction ban? Is my only other option to go to Arbcom? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Extended confirmed user

      I have just noticed that a permission for users called "Extended confirmed user" and a request board called Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed has appeared. THis started around 23:24 on 5 April. The noticeboard suggests that only alternate accounts of those who have automatically received the permission should be granted this permission. Is there a clear statment of this policy or process? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This from 19 March- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Also this. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Would this also apply to Gamergate controversy? Maybe the edit filter there is sufficient. I just noticed that an editor's status on their user page (which is seen if you have particular scripts) says they are "extendedconfirmed" (no space) instead of "confirmed". Liz Read! Talk! 14:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I think GG was its original intended use, in fact. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is no process or consensus for adding this right manually, this page should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding was that the right would only be manually added for alternate accounts. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      So, just to be clear, admins can apply to this level of protection, either through requests at WP:RPP or they become aware of the need for protection on eligible articles/pages in the WP:ARBPIA area? Does this also apply to caste-related articles? We should also alert admins who regularly check the RPP noticeboard and I've requested that this level of protection be added to Twinkle. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. This level needs Arbcom authority, as described in WP:AC/DS. If you see a need for 500/30 protection on an article that doesn't yet have it, I suggest requesting it at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The article needs to fall in the scope of some Arbcom case. Unclear if adding this protection level to Twinkle is a good idea, or if allowing requests for it at RFPP is wise. RFPP doesn't hand out 1RR restrictions, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      This may be of use in seeing how the rollout was discussed and any links that may help Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at special@Log/rights. Irondome (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom authority includes WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Administrators may unilaterally apply extended protection to articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict topic. RFPP is as good a place to ask for it as any. BethNaught (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (another ec!)
      What about this AE decision where you state that A 500/30 restriction is authorized for use with caste articles under certain restrictions. You tied this new restriction to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions and specified the articles 500/30 applied to at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#India-Pakistan. But, you're right, ArbCom never passed a motion to authorize 500/30 for the India-Pakistan area (or Gamergate) as they did for Palestinian-Israel conflict pages. Hence, my confusion on whether these caste articles could be covered by this new level of protection. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I thought the 500/30 sanction was a result of an AE request for gamergate originally? When did it 'require' arbcom authority? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      It should probably be clarified by ArbCom whether 500/30 is an appropriate discretionary sanction. I could see that going either way. ~ RobTalk 16:36, 6 April 2016 UTC)
      The new protection level is for authorized topics only, as listed at WP:30/500. New pages will be created that will clearly relate to these topics, so users need a way to request this new form of protection (see also WT:RFPP#New options). It is up to the admin to determine if the page qualifies, and if they are unsure, they can defer or ask here at AN. I plan to add support for the level of protection to Twinkle, but it will abundantly clear this is for Arbitration purposes only, and will list out the qualified topics. The text that is posted to RFPP will also clearly denote what that protection is for, so patrolling admins should not be confused.
      The WP:PERM/EC page is more or less purely to assign the right to alternate accounts. We put it there to centralize with other permissions requests — MusikAnimal talk 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope the list of articles is going to be kept somewhere else than Wikipedia:Protection policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That is the list of topics. The list of articles can be found at Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Those topic links are articles, just saying :P. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This might be a useful tool to cut down on some of the vandalism and occasional terrorist POV pushing on some ISIL related pages like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      State of TfD

      Lately, participation at TfD has been extremely low. I've been essentially the only editor closing discussions over the past several weeks. When I'm unable to close discussions (either due to involvement or because the close would be inappropriate for a non-admin), they've sat there for weeks, some for months. When I do close discussions, they often have little input, and I doubt that many of these discussions actually represent a global consensus. Not to mention the backlog at the holding cell, where discussions with consensus as old as 2013 sit waiting to be enacted.

      In short, TfD badly needs more participation in all respects. Non-administrators can help by simply contributing to discussions or by closing discussions, including those with non-contentious and obvious deletion outcomes, as per a past RfC. Administrators are especially needed to close old discussions that non-administrators are unable to. If you're unfamiliar with closing TfD discussions, you can find instructions at WP:TFD/AI, or I'm happy to be of assistance.

      This is not just a request for closure. While the backlog is an issue, I'm most concerned that decisions on templates with thousands of transclusions are often being made by less than five editors. That's extremely unhealthy for the project. Non-administrators can be just as helpful as administrators in fixing that. ~ RobTalk 12:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've started going through and closing some of the more unambiguous discussions, but I lack the time and experience to do much more than help occasionally. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • +++++ Agree with Rob, more participation and more admins needed! I used to do a lot of TfD closes but haven't had the time lately, and there's a growing backlog of discussions that need an admin or at least an uninvolved editor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there perhaps a handy-dandy TfD closing script we can employ?--v/r - TP 05:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • TParis, I have User:Doug/closetfd.js, which I don't use, but I loaded it when I loaded the MfD closer, which is not as automated as the AfD closer, however.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @TParis: There is User:Doug/closetfd.js, but it just adds the closing templates and doesn't actually do the deletions or untag templates being kept. I usually go through one day's log and then use Twinkle's D-batch, which is handy when there are group nominations or many subpages and redirects. Someone was working on a more comprehensive script awhile back but I think got distracted by other things (just in case anyone reading is looking for a project, hint hint.... ;) I had vague intentions of writing one myself but my dislike of tedious repetitive tasks never quite overcame my dislike of all things javascript. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I've used the script before, but personally, I think just opening up WP:TFD/AI in another tab and following the instructions is easier. That's what I do, and it's quite productive. Personal preference, of course, so your mileage may vary. Again, I just want to underscore that I'm happy to answer questions! For those who close discussions, please note the following few pieces of advice, which differ from other deletion processes:

      • Please do not delete templates which still have remaining transclusions! You can check for this by clicking "What links here" and then "Transclusion count". If the transclusions aren't zero (this includes anything in the userspace, etc.), then you can either remove/replace the transclusions as necessary or list the template at WP:TFD/H so another editor can do so. The template should remain until all transclusions are removed and then listed as G6.
      • If you close a discussion as "merge", please list it at WP:TFD/H unless you're very confident you can handle the technical aspects of the merge. If you do decide to carry out a simple merge yourself (such as merging navboxes, which is fairly easy), I recommend using the sandbox to test your edits.
      • If using the TfD script (or closing discussions without it, for that matter), be sure to remove the TfD template from the templates being considered if you close as "keep". The script doesn't do this for you, and it's a common mistake to assume that it does. You should also place {{Old TfD}} on the talk page of the template.

      ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Heads up: No editing for 30 minutes in about two weeks

      This is a quick note to make sure people here have heard about the new dates for the m:Tech/Server switch 2016. The net result is that there will be no editing at any WMF wiki for 15 to 30 minutes, on both Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday 21 April, started at 14:00 UTC (10:00 a.m. EDT). Also, there will be a few things that may be slower to update than usual (e.g., red links persisting for a few minutes after you've created the article); these should resolve whenever the servers catch up.

      I've requested a watchlist note at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details here (an admin will need to make that happen, but there's no rush right now), and suggested it to several other larger communities. There will also be MassMessages to the usual Village Pumps for about 600 wikis, and a CentralNotice (sitenotice banner) shortly beforehand. The project was described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/Technology report.

      I request that you share this news with other sister projects, projects in other languages, and editors that you interact with regularly. If you have questions or suggestions for more ways to reach people, then please {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Is this going to be a vandalism problem? It might be wise to not give too exact of times. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I heavily agree with this. It would be ideal for you to give a window of an hour or so and start it at some random time within that window. ~ RobTalk 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't expect the time to be exact (it's triggered by humans, not by a script), but they ran a test of this a couple of weeks ago, and there were no reports about vandalism then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't set up mass warnings about the exact time it was going to occur two weeks ago, though. I don't want to WP:BEANS this (and hopefully am not) but if it's going to be widely advertised, with a near-exact startup time, it really opens us up to danger. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but, easily solved; Whatamidoing, please make sure the humans pressing the button take a coffee break of random length between completing their final checks and halting editing. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      notification

      Please give notification to user for this comment which is a clear personl attcakWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      World Cup 2010, the link provided pertaining the Announcement of Establishment of Iranian Biofuel Society (IBS) in the Official Newspaper of Iran was a very valid reference."آگهی تاسیس: وبگاه روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران".. This could be also verified by any Farsi speaking Wikipedia Editors. کاربر:تهراني ها,(User page on Farsi Wikipedia), who originally created this page on Farsi Wikipedia "روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران". could be contacted to verify the authenticity of this claim (and the above-mentioned Link). You were also informed of similar pages on English Wikipedia about Iranian Academic Societies under the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (Iran), i.e., Linguistics Society of Iran. User: Hamid Hassani who has made more than 14,000 contributions to English Wikipedia and has also edited this page once could be contacted to verify this. It is unfortunate that although your profile at World Cup 2010, indicates that you know Farsi near Native level and therefore, you could have easily investigated the references provided and could have tried to improve the page on the Wikipedia accordingly, instead you ignored the explanations and references provided on the Talk page and posted a note implying that "None of the References introduced by this user is valid". Given the fact mentioned about your profile, i.e., level of proficiency in Farsi, this might have misled the other Editors who are not Farsi speakers. Anyway, please bear in mind that we all strive to improve English Wikipedia and that nothing is personal here. Wikipedia Editors regardless of their years of presence and number of contributions are advised to try to verify the references provided very carefully before trying to nominate pages for speedy deletion. They are also advised to try to talk to each other on the Talk page of articles with an aim to strengthen the editorial community. Meisam tab (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Article needs deleting and salting

      Can someone delete and salt this article [19]? I linked a prior deletion discussion to the request template and you'll see it has repeatedly been recreated under various names by a determines sockmaster over the years. A couple other variations of the name are already salted. GigglesnortHotel (talk)£ —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Already deleted, I have added the salt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for Wikipedia:Standard offer

      Nope. Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Wackslas has requested permission to invoke Wikipedia's second chance quasi-rule. Their account was blocked on 29 Oct 2015; making this request a few weeks early but I'm bringing it forward to discuss. For those with UTRS access, the ticket number is UTRS appeal #15556. Wackslas was blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry. They've acknowledge what they've done is wrong and have committed to not socking anymore. They'd like to participate by editing music related articles. I make no judgement on the merits of this request, I'm only facilitating it.--v/r - TP 04:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Based on that, he should obviously stay blocked. ~ RobTalk 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
       Checkuser note: Just confirming that Wackslas2 = Wackslas. No imposters here. Mike V • Talk 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      How has the English Wikipedia usually dealt with G7 annihilation requests?

      Could someone please point me to a policy or discussion on cases where a single user wants to retire and asks the administrators to delete all the articles that they have ever created (using the speedy deletion criterion G7)? We are discussing this on the Finnish Wikipedia, and I'm sure you guys have received several requests of this kind and have an established policy how to deal with such requests. --Pxos (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Pxos: No such thing, Users DO NOT own articles they create. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      G7 only applies in cases where the requesting editor is the only party to make substantive edits to the page, and even then, can be denied because editors don't WP:OWN the pages. In your example, I presume many of the retiring editor's started pages were subsequently edited by other users. I would also question the good faith nature of such a request, since pretty much the only logical reason to request that everything be deleted is that you are going off in a huff. So if I was met with such a request here, my response would be "that ain't gonna happen, bub". Resolute 16:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There's some (very, very old) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion). —Cryptic 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      English Wikipedia would handle that by saying "Thank you for your contributions, we'll cherish them. Caio."--v/r - TP 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Green tickYSupport Renaming our 'delete' to 'annihilate' . — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder if that would get more people to run for RfAs! ansh666 06:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      In case anyone wonders, deleting an article in Finnish Wikipedia is simply called "removing" since the Finnish language does not actually have an exact word for "deletion". As the angry user has already requested that "an eternal block" be imposed upon him and that every single article, where he is the sole contributor, be removed from Wikipedia, I thought the word "annihilate" would be suitable for the occasion. --Pxos (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      G7 is often used when people realise a problem, and want to avoid embarrassment of some other deletion reason. But in the case of an angry user trying to raze everything they did, the material would likely be kept, and so the G7 should be declined if there was any value in the articles. For user pages you can accept the delete nomination though. If some articles do get deleted, by different admins not aware of the situation, then it should be OK to restore them again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      A recent AN/I close

      Requesting review of the closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System (which has since been archived here) per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Limiting my comment to that neutral statement at this time, though I'll answer questions if pinged.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Endorse close @Godsy: Why are you challenging the close of an ANI discussion that was started on 28 March 2016 and where none of your proposals have got anywhere near consensus? The ANI discussion has established that some people support (almost) all material being retained in user space and some don't—there is no prospect of more than that being achieved at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse close I am pretty sure that the community has made progress since then in that they have started an RFC on the topic. I see very little value in revisiting an old drama thread. You have not even presented a basis for reviewing it, which part don't you like? HighInBC 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse close The first question you need to ask is 'Would another party have closed it with a different result?'. It is highly unlikely anyone would in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnuniq and HighInBC:"Godsy is just going to keep opening alternate proposals until they exhaust the community's patience (learn to drop the stick)" is the part I took issue with. If the close had simply stated that there was no consensus, and linked the relevant RfC, it would have been reasonable (and would have pushed IAR far enough). My issue was with an involved administrator who directly disagreed with me in the last subsection and was involved in the actual page move matter to an extent leaving commentary regarding me in the close. If it had been a neutral third party making those statements, while it would have still been inaccurate, I could have dealt with it (perhaps some self reflection would have been due). I didn't bring this to AN/I. I did open a couple subsections and provided evidence that the user who did start the thread regarding my actions engaged in canvassing and personal attacks, and I opened one alternative proposal for sanctions against said user as the thread completely boomeranged against them (my actions are barely discussed by anyone except the one who opened the thread). I had no intention of suggesting any more proposals (The closer didn't even say it seems that I would keep doing that, they stated what I would do). I understand the whole thing is convoluted, but; It doesn't seems like the closer properly read all the sections, or else they couldn't set aside their own bias. The close shouldn't stand. The closer is free to express their opinion about me, but given the circumstances, in the text of the close is not the place. If the part I quote above of the close is stricken, I'll withdraw my objection.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse close - Whoever closes it the outcome's gonna be the same and as noted above your proposals haven't got anywhere, I would strongly suggest you drop what ever stick you have with LP and just move on. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse close. Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of consensus and a pragmatic close of a discussion that wasn't going to achieve anything more. I can't see anyone else closing it significantly differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overturn close. I am completely uninvolved, was unaware of all of this, generally don't participate here, and am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here (if not, mark this as a Comment instead). But I read all of the now-archived Godsy Disruption thread and I do think Godsy is right: the personally-directed language in the close was wrong, and it was especially wrong that an involved editor closed it that way (note maybe only involved editors would speak that way). Godsy was bashed by automatic edit summary in every edit to the entire meanly-named discussion. And it is mean and inappropriate to bash them in all other ways during the proceeding. To me the underlying actions of Legacy-whoever seem bad, it seems to me that Godsy was right about that being gaming that should not be allowed. It's not clear to me that the underlying actions by Godsy's to return pages to userspace were "wrong", as I am not sure if realistically those could have been proposed and addressed as a batch anywhere. All the actions that are manufacturing work by others--such as creating fake AFDs where real editors are to waste time judging quality of drafts that no one really supports--seem awful. About the proceeding, by my reading, Godsy made one proposal that was a stretch, the last one which proposed sanctions, and they were taken to task for doing that as a highly involved party. Okay fine they got some grief there. It is hypocritical to dictate that only uninvolved editors should propose anything serious of one type, then as an involved editor perform something else serious in a mean way (closing the discussion with a mean, unjustified personally-addressed statement). And, to all of you, why deny giving some respect to Godsy, who seems multiple times victimized in this, by not acknowledging the closing's wording was mean and unnecessary. Neither Godsy nor I are seeking continued discussion there, what's sought is just a revised close by someone else. Now that it has been archived some might assert nothing can be done, but obviously here one could get semi-agreement on an alternate close wording and then go and edit the archived thread (with link to this discussion). I hope this is helpful. --doncram 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're entitled to that opinion, but in mine, Godsy instigated at every turn. And yes, editors get a !vote here. In fact, editors can close issues here as well. If you want to reclose that topic from your perspective, be my guest. My point is, nothing is going to happen, let's move on.--v/r - TP 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Doncram: Re "...am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here". Yep, it's community consensus that counts, and we're all supposed to be equal in that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Reedley International School

      Reedley International School reads like an advertisment. Just letting you admins know about this. --86.177.178.49 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      It sure does, even though some of the worst fluff was removed in 2011.[20] It's too old for me to feel comfortable speedying it, but I've prodded. Domo arrigato, Mr IP. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      This is the second IP on an administrator's noticeboard in a week not to get blocked. I think we might have a serious issue going on here. Anon's can't just come to an administrator's board without the overarching threat of blockage - that's unheard of!--v/r - TP 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Said the guy who only comes around when the expiration date on his admin tools is approaching. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hehe, was it that obvious?--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Banned editor continues to WP:EVADE

      Notice: Banned editor continues to evade with pointless posts at WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities & Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I'm sorta tired of dealing with this individual these last few weeks. So good luck. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      RfA Nom Reviews

      About a year ago I put out a message offering to review potential candidates for an RfA nom. I had about a dozen responses and I provided a detailed and thoroughly researched response to each and every one. I'm once again offering to conduct a review for anyone interested. Feel free to email me using the link to the left of my user page.--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      In the meanwhile, we also got this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      OTRS seeking applicants

      Hello! Have you ever thought about expanding the way you assist the Wikimedia movement? Did you know there are several off-wiki ways to do so? I am posting this information in efforts to get more people on our Volunteer response team. Currently, we're in the process of working on some heavy backlogs on info-en queues, as well as others. As an info-en volunteer, you will handle tickets from readers, editors, veteran users and others. Some emails are quick and easy - such as typos or simple minor corrections. Other emails are more difficult such as ones dealing with BLPs as we are frequently emailed by the subjects of our articles. If you are interested in learning more about the OTRS team, please see m:OTRS. On these pages you will find a lot of information. If you are interested, feel free to apply on Meta. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or post here. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=714395089"