Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Msheflin (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 18 June 2016 (→‎Help... My User Page has been Vandalized and Protected by an Overzealous Editor: 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      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

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

      (Initiated 124 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 92 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 90 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

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

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 16 3 19
      TfD 0 0 6 3 9
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 0 1 1 2
      RfD 0 0 7 3 10
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 165 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 161 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 137 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 43 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]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Six Flags#Requested move 21 June 2024

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

      Background

      Basketballfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      Beginning May 19, 2016, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#User:Basketballfan12_-_creating_non-notable_NBA_bio_stubs, Basketballfan12 has been flagged for their track record of creating biographies of non-notable sportspeople, which has placed an undue burden on the community to patrol, nominate, and discuss pages for deletion.

      The following AfDs on Basketballfan12 created bios have been closed as "Delete":

      Basketball-related:

      Baseball related:

      The following have been speedy deleted:

      Multiple editors have reached out to User:Basketballfan12, but the editor generally not respond, with few edits to talk namespace, and user talk namespace edits generally limited to blanking their own talk page.

      Since the discussion on May 19 was started, they have since created more new sports bios at Steve Brown (outfielder), Nate Fish, both of which are dubious of meeting WP:GNG with insufficient independent sources.

      Proposal

      Unless Basketballfan12 finally engages the community and addresses these concerns, I am proposing a topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc) by Basketballfan12. They are free to create pages in the Draft namespace, where other editors can move the proposed page to the main namespace. Basketballfan12 can request a lift of the ban once they have sufficiently demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Please note that there are at least 18 other pages created by this user that are currently undergoing active AfD discussions (I will not link them here due to WP:CANVASSING considerations, but I thought this might be relevant information). Full disclosure, I nominated these articles (and many of those listed above) for deletion after finding that this user had created many articles that did not meet notability guidelines. This user has not shown up at any of the AfD discussions, nor interacted with me on talk pages and appears to have no interest in doing so, yet continues to create new articles. Unless Basketballfan12 interacts with the community and displays an understanding and a willingness to fully consider the notability guidelines before creating new articles in the future, I would support the above sanctions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that I missed that less than half an hour before my above reply this user did respond on one of the active AfD pages so I've struck the above comment about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, it was Basketballfan12's first ever comment at an AfD, and it was an hour after they were notified of this AN discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you for sharing your concern's a ban is too harsh, We will respond to all future questions regarding sources Basketballfan12 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Basketballfan12: Wait a second - who exactly is 'we'? Are you a paid editor or is this a shared account? Katietalk 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @KrakatoaKatie: Basketballfan12 made a comment at Talk:Nate Fish, an article that they created; curiously, Basketballfan12 refers to themselves in the third person when commenting on their own talk page about the Talk:Nate Fish edit: "The author made some comments on the talk page, justifying his notability."[1] Basketballfan12's words imply a group account; moreover; they haven't been very forthcoming here on why a topic ban would not be suitable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Basketballfan12: Unfortunately, your recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris was essentially to keep the article, but the AfD was closed as delete. There is still no indication that your view on notability is now in line with the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm wondering if @Basketballfan12: is a non-native speaker of English, which would explain the use of the harmless Royal we. Not having seen any of the articles (as they've been deleted), I have nothing to base their grammar on. What about the articles makes them non-notable? Are they regional of local athletes? I remember when I was starting out that I practiced by making articles of people who I thought were notable (they weren't). Fortunately, I had a mentor (my Dad - that's right, I'm a generational Wikipedian) who pointed out how they weren't useful to articles. The point is, the user might not be up to speed on how the collaborative environment works, and is focusing solely on output, ie. article creation. Would it be dumb to offer a bit of AGF here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jack Sebastian: Judging by their edits, I don't think English is a problem, but @Basketballfan12 could clear up any misunderstandings by participating in this discussion. From what I can tell, the editor assumes that any athlete, even those from minor leagues, is inherently notable. Based off the volume of their article creations that have been deleted, allowing them to continue editing but limiting their creations to the draft namespace was my good-faith proposal. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bagumba: If that is the case (English not being an apparent problem, the subsequent use of the Royal 'we', and the apparent misunderstanding of notability plus the lack of necessary discussion), then I think a temporary block of the account is in order. Topic banning them isn't going to get their attention - AfD'ing the articles the user is creating isn't stopping them. I think that a block - for the good of the encyclopedia - will get them talking, if for no other reason than to say, 'why u do dat?' That the problem made it here makes the point of its necessity, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jack Sebastian: A block would at least an attempt to address the long-term problem. Still, I'm AGF that their contributions are useful outside of their judgement on article creation, and a topic ban would still allow them to contribute and learn about notability criteria in the draft namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we just remove privileges when it comes to article creation? Is that an option? That is probably by far the best option in my opinion, that way Basketballfan12 can still submit articles to AfC if they want, and work on other articles where they have been doing some useful work (i say 'they' because it is fairly clear that this account is being used by multiple people from several of the comments by Basketballfan12.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Insertcleverphrasehere: There is no specific article creation "right" that can be removed from a registered user. A topic ban is the only option.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Basketballfan12 has created another article on a minor league player, which I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Drossner.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      You might want to also check a couple of other articles: Michael Barash, Charlie Cutler. Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting relief

      I was topic banned on 1 February 2016 on Mudar Zahran article, I would like to request relief after I stopped editing article. I was topic banned when I was talking about the users in the discussion, when my words were misunderstood as accusations. 6 months were sanctioned and now more than 4 months have passed since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Links: User banned by @Drmies:for 6 mos. on 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) at User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 1#January 2016 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. HTH. Rgrds. --64.85.216.223 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I checked the edit history of Mudar Zahran and recommend that you wait out the full duration of the six-month ban. There were some questions on whether the various parties, including yourself, were editing neutrally and as to which sources were good enough to use. Incidentally User:Drmies' semiprotection has expired and I can see how there might be a need to renew it. Since this ban is a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA, your appeal options require using the steps given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, unless you can persuade Drmies personally. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have been subjected to other sanctions if I weren't editing neutrally, the topic ban came after my words in discussion on my talk page were misunderstood for accusations. I know and respect all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, this is shown in the fact that I have never been topic banned anywhere other than this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, six months is six months. I wouldn't have minded an early release for good behavior, so to speak, but what I see here is a failure to recognize what was the problem in the first place. Makeandtoss still does not seem to realize that it wasn't that their comments were misunderstood for accusations: they were, rather, understood as accusations because they were accusations. The link to the archived talk page discussion already provides enough evidence of that. BTW, I do not understand Zero0000's advice about CU and functionaries: there is no way anyone was ever going to run CU on SmartSE based on the wild allegations from Makeandtoss.

        The article that gave rise to this is contentious enough, of course, but I'm mostly worried about this lack of understanding--it's like someone making statements about race or ethnicity and then complaining that their comments were misconstrued as being about race or ethnicity. So I am not going to give this user the benefit of the doubt, not personally; if another admin looks into it and feels differently, they have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Drmies: Yes, my comments were in fact accusations, but that was before you warned me. After you warned me, I made a comment, which you understood as accusation. It wasn't meant as such but if you insist then I am ready to do whatever is necessary to prove that it won't happen again. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is very important to clarify that I didn't make any racial or ethnic comments, I was accusing a user of sockpuppetry. Then I was warned by Drmies to stop doing so, and while I was talking with him, my words were understood as another sockpuppetry accusation and I got topic banned. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


      Denial of sock puppetry of Moatassemakmal

      Yamla had been accused me as a sock puppetry of my user account Moatassemakmal. That's very unfair and untrue, I had been strongly denied of this allegations. It seems the administrator had trying to discredited me off from Wikipedia. I have been 2 months of anger with agony, please help me to clear my name and my reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.171.232 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Fear not; you have neither name nor reputation here. In any case, immediately changing your IP and then continuing the argument is hardly the most effective defence against such a claim. Happy editing! Muffled Pocketed 10:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that the block applies to you, person-behind-the-username Moatassemakmal. Until your block expires, you are not permitted to continue editing here. To other admins, note that this user brought up the block on WP:ANI and the block was upheld and a permanent ban was discussed due to the user's long habit of problem edits, including but most certainly not limited to a death threat (against another user, only a threat of physical violence against me). --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      GS/SCW&ISIL clarification sought

      Is 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting within the scope of the 1RR general sanction as described here: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR.- MrX 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      If ISIL has claimed responsibility, surely the article is related to ISIL, broadly construed... RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Given that ISIL is claiming credit (unconfirmed) and the gunman is reported to have sworn allegiance to them [2], I would say yes. BethNaught (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I must have been asleep when the community placed such broad-reaching sanctions.- MrX 19:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There have been numerous reviews of the sanctions after each attack like this, and every one has resulted in their maintenance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold on: Are you folks really telling me that discussion is what is being claimed as consensus for casting such a wide net over so many articles? Please tell me that there was village pump discussion in which dozens of editors consented to these general sanctions.- MrX 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The net was cast prior to that discussion. That discussion merely clarified the scope as it was being enforced. The reason I opened that AN thread was because the "Syrian Civil War" sanctions were being used by administrators for anything related to ISIL, because ISIL was related to the SCW. This kind of extension was a bit strange, and I didn't understand it. So, I asked for clarification. It was granted. Indeed, subsequent reviews have maintained that scope. The most recent discussion was this one. General sanctions are never established at the village pump, always at AN. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - since i placed the SCW&ISIL notice on Orlando attacks article and have already provided warnings to some editors, i should add that the expansion of SCW scope to ISIL topics and later community agreement to keep those sanctions in-tact, provide a solid basis for inclusion of Orlando event within the scope of sanctions. One important thing - the sanctions are designated to reduce edit-warring and NOT to punish editors. We do have a notification policy for users first engaging on ISIL-related articles, so sanction application on new users comes only after a standard notice is made, in order to make clear what is and what is not allowed; when users are aware of the sanctions, they typically refrain from edit-warring; this is the purpose of such sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something this far-reaching should definitely be discussed in a more public venue than AN. Is it reasonable to assume that that the one revert in this 1RR means a wholesale revert, and not simply inadvertently removing content in the course of copy editing? I'm all for solutions to prevent edit warring as long as they don't punish people editing in good faith. - MrX 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Object (as an editor to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting) - this is a developing news story and it is still not clear if this is ISIL related or not - there have been a lot of back and forth on the article, but most of it has nothing to do with ISIL topic - but about layouts, inclusion/non inclusion of certain lists, reactions, etc - so far consensus discussion has been working well on the talk page - but arbcom sanctions may cause some unintended editor slapping, afoul of WP:AGF. — xaosflux Talk 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Object Thin and dubious link to ISIL. All the article needs at the moment is sensible editing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have removed the SCW/ISIL notice from the talk page. User_talk:NeilN#Edit_notice details why. --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that we should remove the discretionary sanctions from this article. At best, it's tangentially related to ISIL and the Syrian civil war. I don't believe that the sanctions were intended to cover articles such as this. Mike V • Talk 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, we should not be adding sanctions to articles that don't need it. At the most, edits associated with ISIL at the article can be under sanctions but not the whole article, especially one that is pretty fluid at this time. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't seem to have been an ISIL connection before the shooting took place.[3] Obviously ISIL has to be mentioned in it, but I'd treat the article as non-ISIL for the most part. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      President of Brazil

      We may need some administrative eyes on this article. An editor (NicolitoPaiva) appears unwilling to accept that Dilma Rousseff is still President of Brazil. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I've issued a warning for edit warring. If the user persists, a block should be in order. --Kinu t/c 19:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      He's back Kinu & is continuing to slow edit-war. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      More of a fast edit-war now. As one of those who's reverted him, I can't pull the trigger myself in this case, but he's hit WP:3RR in both letter and spirit of the law. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello GoodDay, Seems we having trouble on editing President of Brazil. I live in Brazil, i am State Judge of Pará (State of Brazil). I am Member of OAB (Order of Lawyers of Brazil). I certainly know all brazilians laws more than you , that's my job. You think Roussef is still president of Brazil, that's not how it works. When Brazilian Senate approves the opening of Impeachment Process, the defendant becomes suspended, and the Vice-President, becomes Interim President. If you check Portuguese page of list of Presidents of Brazil you'll see that Impeachment occurred before in history of my country, on President Fernando Collor, and Itamar Franco replaced him. This is happening with Dilma Rousseff, Since he's suspended, Michel Temer is the new President. If STF (Superior Court of Brazil) back to decision (impeachment), Roussef will return to presidency, if not, he will be unable to elect any public office for eight years. Sorry for not contact before, i was busy with many Federal Process. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm inclined to think Temer's own press office know better than you about the matter, and they appear to think his title is still just "Presidente em exercicio". ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. "Presidente em exercício" means "Acting President", Dilma is "President Suspensa" means "Suspended President". do not talk about what you don't know, please. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Rousseff's presidential powers & dutires are suspended, but she's still President. Temer is still Vice President, though he's got the presidential powers & duties. But more importantly, you haven't gotten a consensus for the changes you want to make at the article-in-question & also, you've attempted to get at the talkpage there. Instead, you've been persistently ignoring everyone, via pushing your edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      To solve our problem , I propose that we make equal the original page in Portuguese: Presidente do Brasil. We should put both Acting and Suspended President with their photos. Agreed? NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree. Temer is still Vice President with the presidential powers in his hands. Rousseff is still President, even if in name only. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wrong. Like i said, i am member of OAB (Order of Lawyers of Brazil). I Studied Brazilian Laws for 5 years in Federal University of Pará,

      What do you know about the laws of my country? i affirm: Dilma is not President, he is suspended. Temer is acting president now. I proposed a middle ground , and put both names and photos, like in ORIGINAL page in portuguese. I propose again: Lets do that. or I will not give up of just put Temer, the acting president. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @NicolitoPaiva: This belongs at Talk:President of Brazil, not here. I also note you've been warned about edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Please note that proclaiming that you will not drop your position and stop editing despite consensus against you is considered disruptive editing, and is grounds for blocking. —  crh 23  (Talk) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      He's up to 'bout 5 reverts now, in the last hour or so. This is getting increasingly frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Neil, i didnt started this talk here, GoodDay did. Warn him then. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Rather than hand out multiple blocks for edit warring, I've fully protected the article for 1 day. Work it out on the talk page please. Further unilateral reverts after protection expires may result in blocks. --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I think I'll open up an Rfc on the matter, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @NeilN: Ok, thank You. Best way to solve it: we make equal the original page in Portuguese: Presidente do Brasil. We should put both Acting and Suspended President with their photos. That's not unilateral, and are equal original page. Thanks for moderate, and sorry for reverts. Tomorrow i'm editing to a bilateral and impartial page. Once again, Thank you. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The Portuguese Wikipedia is not a source. I find it worrisome, that you're stating you'll continue to try & force your edits into that article. I'd recommend instead, that you participate at the Rfc I've opened & wait until/if you can get a consensus there, first. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @NicolitoPaiva: Couple things. Just as English Wikipedia content has no say over other language content, the Portuguese language article has no say on what is done here. We can use it for guidance but arguing "because the Portuguese Wikipedia does it this way" is fruitless. Second, if your "editing to a bilateral and impartial page" involves editing without consensus, it's likely you'll be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      As I note on the talk page, there seems to be little interest in engaging in discussion in the RFC and instead just repeated arguing about what other languages are doing. Makes me feel like an oddball for actually looking at how sources describe the presidency and using that to formulate an opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Widespread and protracted incivility by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Jps

      Basically, everything is mostly opposed. One can't easily draw conclusions here either, except that both of these two editors might run into a block of some sort all by themselves; they don't need help. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
      @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@EdJohnston:@1990'sguy:@Isambard Kingdom:@StAnselm:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:@K.e.coffman:@James J. Lambden:@Johnuniq:@OldTraffordLover:@Tom.Reding:@John:@Roxy the dog:

      re-pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
      @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, EdJohnston, 1990'sguy, Isambard Kingdom, StAnselm, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, K.e.coffman, James J. Lambden, Johnuniq, Tom.Reding, John, and Roxy the dog: DrChrissy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      It is clear that JPS has exhibited disruptive behaviour, particularly incivility, in many areas of Wikipedia for over a decade. They have received at 27 blocks at a rate of at least one block per year since 2006 (except for 2012, which was probably because the ban they received in 2011 extended into 2012). I feel it is time that strong action is taken here to protect the project and other editors from their disruptive editing and sometimes deeply upsetting comments. I feel it is time for, at the very least, the imposition of topic bans for the areas in which they have been incivil and made personal attacks on other editors. Having said this, JPS is undoubtedly an expert editor in astronomy and it would be a great shame to lose this expertise totally. However, even in this area, JPS' behaviour is far from stellar, so I am proposing 1RR for this topic.

      JPS in a previous life

      JPS once edited as User: ScienceApologist. Even in this previous account, JPS attracted warnings. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience JPS as "ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter".[4] [5] [6]

      Proposals

      My 3 proposals are
      Proposal 1: JPS is indefinitely topic banned from pseudoscience and fringe theories, both broadly construed.
      Proposal 2: JPS is indefinitely subject to 1RR on astronomy articles, broadly construed.
      Proposal 3: Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are adopted.
      (I remain open to suggestions of Topic Bans and/or stronger sanctions in other areas needing protection from JPS.)

      Decorum on this thread

      Please read this – these are comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread
      (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)
      Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

      I would like to remind contributors of two areas of editing decorum. First, I respectfully suggest editors familiarise themselves with WP:Casting aspersions in which ARBCOM states An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Second, I suggest we adhere closely to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (see image).

      Other comments

      I have my detractors and I am sure they will point to my past behaviour. Let me do this for them. I have two current topic bans and I had my one and only block early this year. I will not mention the subjects of these nor link to them as this may violate my topic ban, but I suspect another editor will be only too happy to oblige. Gross incivility directed toward me and other editors by JPS has been occurring for a long time. I raised at WP:AN the issue of providing diffs simply as an indication of an editor’s misbehaviour and whether this would violate my topic ban. There were mixed answers to this, but some editors opined that simply providing diffs to these would be a breach of my Topic Ban.[7] Therefore, I have not supplied these diffs (which I suspect reduces the evidence I can present by 50%). If I have not listed an incident of incivility here and this affects another editor, it is likely this is because of my topic ban, NOT my judgement that the comment/s by JPS are acceptable. One last comment here. I will not be surprised if editors try to deflect concerns about JPS’ behaviour by indicating JPS does good work in protecting the scientific or mainstream point of view. However, please remember this thread is not about the content/validity/acceptability or otherwise of the subjects that JPS edits on, it is about JPS’ behaviour towards other editors.

      Supporting Evidence

      JPS’ lengthy block log is here. There have also been warnings for behaviour which are not on the block log, for example,JPS is warned here for 3RR. I have tabulated below, incidents of incivility by JPS for the last 6 months (an arbitrary cut-off point). The diffs are obviously numerous. I recently saw an edit/complaint on ANI that requested an editor who had posted 16 diffs as evidence should trim these to just 4 or 5 diffs. I disagree with this idea, however, I have made the table sortable so that readers can filter to the “Top 10” if they do not wish to read through the others. They may also wish to read the evidence when sorted according to the category of incivility.

      Please read this - Evidence of protracted and widespread incivility by JPS
      (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)
      Category of Incivility Quote & Notes Month Evidence (diff) Top 10
      Ridiculing JPS started a sub-thread with the heading “Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy”.
      Note: WP:Civility states Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.       		June [8] 1
      Threat “It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.” June [9] 2
      Calling editors “Trolls” ”For readers' information, DrChrissy has been serially-reverting on this page in classic trolling fashion” June [10] 10
      Calling editors “Trolls” ”Made trolling smaller for readability.” June [11] 10
      Calling editors “Trolls” ”DrChrissy and Fortuna trolling should not be fed” June [12] 10
      Calling editors “Trolls” “Below are the trolling actions of those who think jps was uncivil to DrChrissy” [JPS’ formatting for emphasis has been omitted] June [13] 10
      Creating non-neutral, personal headers. “The DrChrissy fan club does not like jps” June [14] 10
      Lying about editors “I see, you and Fortuna collaborate on articles about fish! It all makes sense now. (For those not in the know, this is high-level trolling. Look for the smell of the feet.)”
      Note – the lie is about the collaboration, not the odour of my feet.       		June [15] 5
      Calling editors “Trolls” ”So are you just a dramaboards troll then?” June [16] 3
      Sexist/Belittling “Topic bans and 1RR restrictions are not enacted at this noticeboard, love!” June [17] 4
      Bullying “It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject.” June [18] 10
      Name calling ”The problem is that the surreality-based editors are often more invested in pursuing their cause than the reality ones (for obvious reasons) and the noticeboards aren't really equipped to handle the longterm.” June [19] 10
      Insult “I think you have a reading comprehension problem.” June [20] 8
      Insult ”Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.” June [21] 10
      Sexist/Belittling “My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered.” March [22] 6
      Poisoning the well Jps started an WP:ANI thread and headed this “DrChrissy (yet again)” April [23] 9
      Ridiculing “I think you're being entirely ignorant and laughably wrongheaded if that's what you think is going on, but it is better for you to be honest about what you think is happening than it is for you to beat around the bush in the name of "civility", in my opinion.” January [24] 10
      Bullying (an admission) “If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.” January [25] 10
      Insults "My comment is that your contributions here are garbage." January [26] 10
      Casting aspersions ”We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISIM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.“ January [27] 10
      Chilling behaviour “I have a pretty good idea of who you are, 75.118.11.184.” January [28] 10
      Insult “You live in an agnotological bubble. You are a general laughing stock and should be aware of this.” January [29] 7
      Ridiculing “Academic use is neutral by definition. The title was crowbarred in by Christian apologists such as yourself to circumvent our WP:NPOV policy. Don't you know that lying (such as you just did about the history of the title of this page) is a sin?” January [30] 10
      Casting aspersions “@DrChrissy, your documented promotion of pseudoscience in the past makes me inclined to ignore your protestations. If you prefer, you can form a cabal with zzz and attempt to sway Wikipedia policy towards credulity. I doubt you'll be successful.” January [31] 10
      Lying/Casting aspersions “There is plenty of evidence that you have supported the pseudoscientific claims of various people, but we should not talk about this because you are topic banned from the subject. It is perfectly civil to say, in my estimation, your activism in these areas is promotional of pseudoscience. You can disagree with my characterizations and offer arguments to the contrary, but it is perfectly fine and, in fact, in the best interest of the encyclopedia that we identify pseudoscience POV-pushers such as yourself openly and honestly.”
      Note: My topic ban is not pseudoscience.       		January [32] 10
      Casting aspersions “(See, it's not uncivil to say DrChrissy promotes pseudoscience, and even if DrChrissy takes offense, I don't think there is any way to change the wording without abandoning the meaning.)” January [33] 10

      DrChrissy (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Could someone please move my signature so that it appears as the last text in the above. Thanks in advance. DrChrissy (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Done (I hope this is what you wanted) AIRcorn (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments

      • Oppose, but not for the usual reasons. The irritating thing about this report is that it is doomed to fail which is likely to convince jps of his god-like powers to flit above the fray, so he may well continue on his chosen destiny and be indeffed. None of the pings worked (see WP:ECHO), and the timing of this report means it cannot receive serious attention because jps just finished a week-long block for edit warring and mooning the jury at WP:AN3. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and possible Boomerang I would support a possible 2RR on astronomy articles, or an interaction ban with Dr.Chrissy, but besides that, I wouldn't support anything. Banning him from Fringe articles would be a bad idea, and hurt the encyclopedia. I do think that he isn't always civil, but I still think that he is a good editor. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      My responses to examples:
      Extended content
      1. I don't think that's that bad. It deserves a warning, but not much else.
      2. Not much of a problem
      3. Not much of a problem
      4. Insulting.
      5. A problem, not small, but not very large
      6. Small issue
      7. Sarcasm. It wasn't an outright lie, it should have been more civil, though.
      8. A problem
      9. I don't think that's sexist, small issue
      10. A bit harsh, but not that big of a deal
      11. A problem
      12. A small problem, but not that big
      13. A very small problem
      14. A problem, a stern warning would suffice
      15. A problem, though not as large as the previous one
      16. A medium problem
      17. Not a problem
      18. A medium problem
      19. A small problem
      20. A very small problem
      21. A very very small problem
      I didn't mean to use up so much space, but an interaction ban, a 2RR on fringe topics, and a stern warning would suffice. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      These valid points of concern seem to be ignored here, and this puzzles me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - DrChrissy was counseled by the community not to pursue this complaint, and chose to anyway. DrChrissy has a history of problematic editing which has resulted in several topic bans, levied by both ArbCom and the community. DrChrissy has a history of pushing the boundaries of his topic bans, to the point that the ArbCom ban was expanded to be more general than it had originally been. Other editors have informed me that DrChrissy makes valuable edits in certain subject areas, and I am in no position to dispute this, but DrCrhissy, with clearly invalid complaints such as this one, is on the verge of becoming a burden to the project, and slowly reaching the point where he will be a net-negative. This will be inevitable unless DrChrissy begins to follow the guidance of the community, and to start understanding the idea of a collegial community of editors intent on improving an encyclopedia. At this point, DrChrissy should not be sanctioned for filing this report, but DrChrissy should clearly understand that the next step will not be another topic ban, but a site ban. If DrChrissy doesn't want this to happen, DrChrissy should straighten up and fly right, and stop filing nuisance complaints against other editors in which he attempts to tell the commenters how they must behave (see above "comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread".) BMK (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh Based on the observations I have made of DrChrissy continually pushing ther ban edges here and at AE, even going so far into talking themself into a more restrictive topic ban when Arbcom was trying to give them a less restrictive one, I can only imagine what goes on in articles where two strongly opinionated editors like jps and DrChrissy are in conflict. I pretty much feel this is a it takes two to tango situation. Continuing, repetitive behavior while not directly rude is likely to have push back and that is what most of this conflict seems to be. The most this seems to need is: jps be nicer so "jps be nicer". JbhTalk 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have redacted a portion of DrChrissy's complaint due to potential OUTING. JbhTalk 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I wish some of the science editors would show a bit more restraint with their commentary, many seem to love a good argument even when the argument is already won. And it is nearly always won. There is also a certain amount of arrogance on display from many, but this is understandable to a degree when you consider the level of some conversations they have to deal with. From my perspective I have yet to come across a comment from jps which relates to content where I disagreed with the sentiment, although often I would not have gone for that sort of presentation. Maybe he is brave, maybe I am a coward, but either way he is an asset to the encyclopedia and should not be topic banned from the area where he is most effective. An iban may be beneficial though for both editors and jps should not be violating 3RR so flagrantly (but that is another issue). AIRcorn (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose As per almost everything BMK has said. With the exception that at this point I think DrChrissy needs a restriction from noticeboards except where they are directly a party. Quite apart from their recent deliberate entangling themself with Jps where their input was neither needed, wanted, or helpful in any manner. RE Jbhunley - there is no point in admonishing Jps to be 'nicer'. 'Nice' does not work with POV-driven editors. DrChrissy's editing outside of very defined areas tends to the fringey/pseudoscience/lack of basic understanding of subjects, which automatically puts them in conflict with hardline fact-based editors like Jps. There is a reason why DrChrissy has been restricted after a relatively short time here, and despite *mild* incivility Jps has been editing for years without serious problems. This is one of the few times I am minded to recommended a one-way interaction ban. Either way, DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...JPS has been editing for years without serious problems." Sorry to disagree, but 27 blocks spanning a decade is in my opinion, a serious problem. DrChrissy (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what I have seen of DrChrissy at noticeboards I would support some sort of restriction assuming one could be worded that would not create more drama than it avoids. I am also aware that saying "jps be nicer" is a pointless exercise - it is a pointless result for a pointless complaint hence my pointless !vote of "Meh". JbhTalk 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Either the restrictions imposed on Tarc ("may not edit any administrative noticeboards") or Abd ("indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.") noted here would work. I favour the latter as more specific and less prone to attemptes to game. Which DrChrissy has shown time and again he likes to push the boundaries of any restrictions placed upon him. The one for TDA ("indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started.") would also work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The third seems best to me but I have only witnessed their Noticeboard behavior. I would add a restriction to originating discussions at administrative/conduct noticeboards since, again from what I have seen, they originate most of the problematic threads. JbhTalk 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, as succinctly stated by Only in death; also support this sentiment: "DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama." K.e.coffman (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boomerang. @DrChrissy: is a serial plagiarist (here's the CCI) who has been topic banned by the community from altmed and by Arbcom from GMOs. The same battleground behavior that earned her her topic bans is on full display here. I'll also note that she intentionally followed jps into astronomy articles - an area she had never edited before - to stir the pot because she couldn't poke him on fringe articles. We need to discuss whether the encyclopedia benefits from her continued presence. 73.89.120.105 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
      • Oppose per BMK, I also agree that DrChrissy ought to stop with this nonsensical drama. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and it's probably about time for a one-way interaction ban to prevent DrChrissy continuing this type of thing, which simply wastes everyone's time. If an editor is seriously problematic, leave it for someone in good standing to bring the issue up. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and boomerang. I've lost count of how many houndish and tendentious ANI, etc. postings DrChrissy has made now. Others have already explained well that DrChrissy tends to pursue drama by following around editors they are in conflict with. This was also part of their GMO sanctions with an interaction ban with Jytdog there. Coupled with constantly testing the limits of their topic bans on the admin noticeboards and trying to pursue this action after jps already was sanctioned, it does seem like the community has reached the limit of their patience for DrChrissy. A ban from admin noticeboards as described above does seem warranted, as does the one-way interaction with jps to prevent further disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment To all those trying to deflect from JPS' incivility, let me remind you that if you are voting Oppose here, you are, in effect, supporting comments and behaviour such as

      • JPS started a sub-thread with the heading “Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy”.[34]
      • “It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.” [35]
      • Lying about editors to malign them|[36]
      • “I think you have a reading comprehension problem.”[37]
      • “My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered.”[38]
      I also note that 4 of these 5 examples are directed at editors other than me - this issue is not about me and JPS, it is about JPS. DrChrissy (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • While you may wish this to be only about JPS, it is normal for AN discussions to look at all involved. I am afraid you can't exclude yourself from the scope of this discussion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My clumsy wording. Yes, I recognise my behaviour will be scrutinised - I acknowledged this in my opening comments, but thanks for the reminder. DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Oppose and boomerang of some kind. This drama seeking needs to stop. DrChrissy has followed JPS to articles, pops up in conflicts they had no part in just to take shots at JPS, and just pushes and pushes and pushes. Hence the broadening of their topic ban. I usually am not big on one-way interaction bans but I'd vote for one here. DrChrissy has a tendency to pop up and throw in their 2 cents whenever one their perceived enemies ends up at a drama board. It does nobody any good and needs to stop. I'd also have no problem with a notice board ban unless they are directly involved. Capeo (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and boomerang. This is too much. The one-way interaction ban and notice board ban start to seem like sense too, opposed as I usually am to such measures. Begoon talk 18:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as unnecessary. Not enough substance here to merit anything more than John's warning to Jps on his talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Boomerang proposal

      Based on the discussion above: Propose DrChrissy is indefinitely prohibited from opening threads at or editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads where he has been named a party.

      • Support as proposer. (I am open to better wording) JbhTalk 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I feel this is the only way we can stop this endless drama. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. This time, at least, it was a genuine case. Although I did not suppose the topic ban for jps, it would be a grave injustice to punish DrChrissy while letting jps off the hook. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per my comment above. Wording is fine. (To StAnselm, then bring a separate proposal for jps if you like.) Begoon talk 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Begoon: I have been criticised above for making posts in threads which other editors suggested I should not be involved in. You and I have never interacted before to the best of my knowledge. You are not an administrator. What is your motivation for making your posts on this thread? DrChrissy (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, per my comment above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, in the least. I'm still open to an interaction ban proposal. The recent interactions by DrChrissy at ANEW and jps' talk page were definitive drama seeking for the sake of it. It needs to stop. Capeo (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has an unignorable and germane block history, regardless of who brings it up. John has said to I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Let's also consider that any repetition of this behaviour will be met with an indefinite block.. In lieu of my support of either of DrChrissy's proposals (despite the WP:SNOW it has received), I support John's decision, which seems like it would satisfy all parties involved.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The other thing that is unfair about boomeranging this is that DrChrissy was specifically referred here by User:EdJohnston, the admin who closed the edit-warring noticeboard thread. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that. Yes indeed, both EdJohnston and John indicated a filing for topic bans here at AN was admissible (without their encouraging it). DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Advice that something is "admissible" (i.e. allowable) can in no way be construed as approval of doing so, so I fail to see St. Anselm's objection. (I do note, however, St. Anselm's role as a party to disputes involving jps.) A very recent thread right here on AN started by DrChrissy as a "hypothetical" (which clearly wasn't, despite his denial - and here we are) resulted in multiple opinions from members of the community that DrChrissy should not pursue the complaint. These were specific to the value of the complaint and not, as was the case with EdJohnston and John, simple statements of what is and isn't allowed. BMK (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Multiple people told them this was a bad idea and they didn't take the advice. Less dramamongering is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per my comment above. Editors who already knew DrChrissy's background (I don't think EdJohnston has kept up with it) cautioned DrChrissy not to file this, but they plowed ahead anyways. DrChrissy has been warned plenty of times already just to continue the plowing ahead behavior, testing topic ban limits, etc.. Another slap on the hand saying next time will result in a site ban is pointless considering all the past warnings. The more reasonable approach is to not give them as much opportunity to pursue behavior they've so far shown they are incapable of stopping in order to prevent further disruption. If they persist even after that, then it's time to consider a site ban, but this approach gives them a better chance to work on content as opposed to keeping this outlet open for what would otherwise result in a site ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Kingofaces43, why the double standard? This is essentially the same argument DrChrissy is making against I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. If action is taken against DrChrissy, then I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc should receive equivalent treatment.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Tom. I've also been concerned about the double standard on display here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      User:John has made it crystal clear that he's standing over jps (a/k/a AlphaBits) with an itchy finger on the indef trigger. So, far from being a double standard, the proposal here is rather lenient compared the strictures under which jps will be working. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      DrChrissy & subsequently Kingofaces43 with others are asking for action now (which, for the former, is completely understandable, given the exchanges I've seen b/w DrChrissy & I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc in the astronomy space), while John is promising conditional action later. I'd see DrChrissy dismissing this complaint and moving on as equitable. If not, any action levied against DrChrissy on account of "being warned plenty of times but not stopping" without equivalent action against I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc does indeed resemble a double standard.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Shock, if that is the way it pans out, itchy finger, then fine. I'm more concerned about the discussion here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no double standard. The difference is that jps already received their block and is being watched by an admin. The focus of this proposal is solely on DrChrissy. DrChrissy decided to double down when they saw blood in the water and pursue more drama against jps. They have been specifically warned about this many times, especially when they follow editors into topics they haven't edited before. That is a problem of DrChrissy's that in part resulted in their ArbCom sanctions. The fact that they are continuing that behavior and constantly bring all that to the admin boards is why the community is fed up with it. This proposal is largely independent of whether jps was in the wrong or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I regret doing this because (per my earlier comment) it might encourage jps to plow on when in fact he must adapt to how things work at Wikipedia or be indeffed. However, DrChrissy is incapable of resisting an opportunity to waste community time and a topic ban is needed to direct them towards something productive. If another editor really is a problem, someone will notice and deal with it. Re the "double standard" comment above, that's not relevant to this discussion, but it is worth bearing in mind that jps is correct about content—his problem is how he reacts when faced with fringe enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct about content? Possibly often. But he also oversimplifies and ends up misrepresenting important issues, as per recent exchanges on the age of the Earth. His dogmatic approach is actually both inaccurate and counter-productive. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I've across this misconception before, that jps is "correct about content". He's not - at least, he wasn't in this instance. He was edit-warring to introduce the word "measurement" into the Ken Ham article, and the subsequent consensus version that came out of the talk page discussion did not have that word. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite apart from being a massive distortion of the actual discussion: Jps was against arguing that 'scientific consensus' should be the wording RE the age of the earth and wanted 'measured' because the first implies that there is any sort of discussion about the age (there is not). You two were effectively trying to have the article weaseally worded to imply that there is some sort of ambiguity or the age of the earth is in dispute (it isnt except by fringe loons and people with literal interpretations of the bible). One of the diffs presented by DrChrissy above is where Jps suggests Isambard Kingdom has reading issues. Uncivil yes, but when someone says 'go to article X and try that there' when article X includes in the very first line the information as a fact... either Isambard didnt actually read the article or they did read it and have as Jps suggested, reading comprehension issues. Personally I would have assumed ignorance rather than incompetance but since you are still harping on about the age of the earth, I am now leaning towards the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, read the second sentence too? Read the cited sources? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - The comments in this "Boomerang" thread have convinced me that my previous reticence to sanction DrChrissy was too lenient given his background of continuing disruption, so I support this proposal. BMK (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Perhaps those supporting could suggest what DrChrissy should do if he feels harassed/attacked in the future? Surely opening noticeboard threads others found frivolous doesn't mean he has no recourse except to hope someone names him as a party. OTRS? Message to arbcom? (this comment/question should be understood as unrelated to the thread about jps that led here, but rather about the possibility of attack/harassment that exists for anyone) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I would recommend an email to ArbCom - everyone has that option and this sanction does not take it off the table. Arbcom has the ability to handle behavior problems and it means he would need to think seriously about whether the issue being brought to Arbcom is frivolous or not. Multiple inappropriate or drama seeking requests to them would have negative results but if there is a genuine issue he can still get relief. JbhTalk 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The last time I emailed Arbcom it was over 24 hrs before I received a reply (possibly because of the geography - most members of Arbcom appear to be from the US whereas I am from the UK). Given that there have been several attempts to Out me, this would not be a suitable method of my receiving protection. DrChrissy (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that going to ArbCom is necessary. Most behavioral problems can be handled by an individual admin issuing a warning or a short block. If the admin believes that the problem is larger than that, they can make the decision to take it to a noticeboard. BMK (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an absurd suggestion. The last time I approached an admin for advice on my interaction ban, I ended up with a 1-week block (my only block ever) for breaking my interaction ban! DrChrissy (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @DrChrissy: This statement is completely false. I realize the conversation has progressed significantly since you wrote this, so no one will read this correction, but for posterity: The reason for your 1 week block is clearly stated in your block log, and in more detail at the AE thread you started, here. It had nothing to do with "approaching an admin for advice on my interaction ban"; you attempted to get the other editor sanctioned, for completely baseless reasons, after 2-3 previous instances where your topic ban violations were dealt with by patient explanations and warnings, rather than blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking for posterity, Noted. It did seem rather Kafkaesque. Floquenbeam on trial immediately! Muffled Pocketed 18:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Outing is addressed by individual admins or WP:OVERSIGHT not by posting at a Noticeboard. And if you were blocked for violasting an interaction ban for asking an admin a question that should be a solid clue you should not have brought up the issue at a Noticeboard. JbhTalk 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec) I note that the remedy as written actually has a number of broad loopholes in it, intentionally or otherwise. The prohibition applies only to (conduct) noticeboards, which means that – for better or worse – DrChrissy would still be able to comment and create threads on article and user talk pages, even where those discussions involved user conduct issues. Technically DrChrissy would still be allowed to ask other editors to create noticeboard threads on his behalf. DrChrissy could even deliberately insert himself into disputes to a sufficient extent as to be named as a party, thereby bootstrapping himself into noticeboard discussions.
      All that said, one could also argue that the loopholes are actually just a useful bit of WP:ROPE (to mix metaphors). If DrChrissy doesn't abuse his remaining privileges, then he would still be able to raise concerns about user conduct issues in a responsible, restrained, and constructive manner—perhaps by bringing those concerns to a trusted admin who could offer advice and independent evaluation. If he does abuse his remaining privileges or tests the bounds of this additional editing restriction, well...he's rapidly running out of non-siteban ways to curtail his disruptive conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the loopholes exist to give some good faith leeway. Also if they are gamed it provides solid evidence and justification for a site ban which is the next step if the behavior issues this ban is intended to address do not cease. JbhTalk 15:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? Are there not precedents in the bans to Tarc, Abd and TDA? What is different about a topic ban from noticeboards as opposed to a topic ban from a specific subject, or an article ban, a ban from moving articles, or, for that matter, an I-Ban, that makes it something that "shouldn't be given to anyone"? Do not all these bans seek to stop the disruption as specifically as possible while srill allowing the editor to continue to edit otherwise? What is the difference in quality or severity that makes this proposed ban beyond the pale? We deal out site bans and indef blocks, which are significantly more oppresive than a noticeboard block, so why should a noticeboad block not be among the tools available to keep the peace?BMK (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Beyond My Ken: If a person's actions on noticeboards are really, really disruptive (more disruptive than in this case), they shouldn't be topic-banned from noticeboards, they should just be blocked. If a person is allowed to edit articles, he/she also needs to be allowed access to people's talk pages and noticeboards to resolve disputes that arise from editing those articles. Otherwise, we're allowing the editor to be completely walked over, even though we trust his judgment in article-space. By the same logic, almost all interaction bans are full interaction bans (including mainspace), because allowing editors to revert each other in mainspace but not discuss those reverts in talkspace, userspace or noticeboards is disingenuous. Also by this logic, almost all bans from a single space are of article-space, because if a person isn't allowed to edit a topic in articlespace, it's unlikely he will cause problems on that topic in talkspace, userspace or noticeboards. Let's not forget why noticeboards exist in the first place: to resolve problems in article space. pbp 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • So your theory is we keep putting up with disruption and b.s. until until it gets so bad we indef them, that there are no legitimate steps inbetween complete freedom to edit and complete blocking. Nope, I do not buy that at all- and neither, I think, does the majority of the community. BMK (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Beyond My Ken: That's not what I was saying at all and I think you knew that. There clearly are steps between complete freedom and complete blocking. Topic-banning somebody from all noticeboards just isn't one of them, and that's for some really good reasons. The good reason is that, since access to noticeboards is essential to proper editing, we have to accept there being a certain level of BS on noticeboards. And seeing the comments in this thread, I'd say a fair number of editors that agree with that position. pbp 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, in fact, I did not know that, and I don't know how I could take any other conclusion from what you wrote. If you agree that there are sanctions allowed between nothing and all, then your reasons for not thinking that one should be applied to DrC allude me. Noticeboards are no different from any other area of Wikipedia, and people can be banned from them as easily as anywhere else, if there is justification. My feeling is that all those !votes here that said that editors should not be banned from noticeboards should, in effect, be thrown out, since they have nothing to do with DrC's behavior, and everything to do with the Wikiphilosophy of the commenters. Imagine if I started opposing all RfAs because "I don't believe that Wikipedia should have admins at all." How much weight do you think the buros would give to those votes? None at all, I would say, and the same thing is true here. If you don't like bans from noticeboards, write a policy that forbids it and see if it passes. It won't. In the meantime, this is not the place to air your feeling about noticeboard bannings, this is the place to decide if DrC's behavior has been disruptive enough to warrant a sanction. If you have another sanction in mind, let's hear it. BMK (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and please don't ping me again. I read this page frequently and I find the pings disruptive when I'm trying to work on an article. Thaks, BMK (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure he needs to be sanctioned. And sorry, BMK, noticeboards are different from article space. Most people who use Wikipedia don't read them; the people who do generally know what to expect there. There's a lot less damage to be done on noticeboards than there is in articlespace. pbp 01:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I fundamentally disagree with barring any editor from all noticeboards. There are certain things that non-admins need to be able to report (legal threats, personal attacks, threats of violence, etc). Where can a user topic banned from making reports do that? Instead, an interaction ban may be appropriate if reports against a certain user or set of users are becoming disruptive. I haven't evaluated whether they are, although the support here seems to indicate so. ~ RobTalk 04:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of those can be reported to individual admins or to ArbCom, and do not require access to noticeboards to be dealt with. BMK (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both of those options are slower and less efficient, especially when dealing with any pressing matters. What is being accomplished by this topic ban that can't be accomplished by an interaction ban? ~ RobTalk 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not just interactions with jps that are an issue though I think there should be an interaction ban too. DrChrissy seems drawn to threads that involve incivility even when they weren't involved at all. And their comments seldom, if ever, serve to defuse the situation but instead inflame it. Capeo (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I might withdraw my opposition if the topic ban were much more narrow (i.e. can only participate at noticeboards in discussions relating to things he was directly involved in, narrowly construed), but I still think this proposal is extremely broad. It sets a precedent that I'm not comfortable with. ~ RobTalk 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • * Comment. While it is clear that there is very strong support for action to control the excesses of DrChrissy's serial vexatious complaining at dramaboards, I worry that the community proposals so far are woefully inadequate. Considering only this latest episode, much of the disruption has gone on at a user Talk page which would not be covered by community sanctions currently under discussion.
      There are in fact a few voices that consider DrChrissy a useful contributer to the project, and no calls thus far for a community site ban, which for me is the only remaining way to stop his disruption.
      I suggest turning our approach upside down on this. Given that some of us still believe that DrChrissy can make positive contributions, perhaps we could allow him to edit articles, and their Talk pages, while banning him totally from the rest of the project. A suggestion that he restrict himself to comment on content rather than contributor might also be a condition of the community allowing him to retain editing priveleges? -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose boomerang; noticeboards, toxic as they can be, are generally places of last resort, which every editor has an established right to edit. If a behavioural pattern could be established, then it might be within the purview of the community to embrace such a proposition; but it hasn't been so it aint. And, after all, there's no necessity to force oneself through the morass. If someone doesn't like it: there's an encyclopaedia to build, somewhere. Muffled Pocketed 10:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose There's a strong element of The Boy Who Cried Wolf about this. While we don't want DrChrissy to cry "wolf" all the time, there may come a time when they have a genuine issue to bring to a noticeboard and they should be freely available to do so. It's clear that there is a genuine problem between these two editors and giving JPS the freedom to bully and be uncivil at will to DrChrissy in the knowledge that the latter is banned from reporting it is a very bad idea. WaggersTALK 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. As we move towards the inevitable site ban, let's at least try and limit the amount of the community's time this editor wastes on the drama boards. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - per above. This is the only way that we can deal with this disruptive editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as it is an absurd sanction proposal. Darwinian Ape talk 13:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per above. Whether or not jps should be blacked or not, I do think that his behavior was very rude, uncivil, and (to be frank) very immature, especially towards DrChrissy. I do think that is was, at least, completely understandable for DrChrissy to report jps. I strongly oppose any sanctions against DrChrissy. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Procedural comment while I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to restrict, I can't support it in its current form. Firstly disruption, as far as I can tell, has only occurred at AN and ANI. Also a mechanism should be given for overriding this restriction, as well as an appeal process. Therefore I would like to suggest the following counterproposal, which may be a compromise:

        Proposal: User:DrChrissy is community banned from opening or editing threads or at the following noticeboards: WP:AN and WP:ANI. Except for threads where he has been named as a party, or with prior written permission from an administrator. Appeals to this ban can only be made with permission from an administrator; after six months, and after that six months apart.

        --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I think ANEW would, in the least have to be part of it. The latest drama stems from DrChrissy showing up there to hassle jps when they hadn't been involved in the article in question at all. They went so far as to propose topic bans and other restrictions. It was plain silly and just a continuation of them gunning for jps any chance they get. That's why I think an interaction ban is in order as well. Capeo (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Would this leave me to contact Arbcom directly about issues such as harassment and incivility? DrChrissy (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a ban on participating in admin and behavioral noticeboard threads except when named a party, and a ban from opening threads unless cleared by an independent mentor. I've observed this user's contributions on various noticeboads for quite some time and noted that they are largely either completely extraneous, or needless fanning of flames. Nothing will be lost from their lack of participation in these venues. Examples:
      • Chimes in to provide a definition of "waahmbulance" in a thread they have nothing to do with.
      • Opines that a frivolous thread that didn't belong on that noticeboard, that they had nothing to do with, was closed too quickly.
      • Keeps going after being informed (again) that the thread doesn't belong there.
      • Comments on a complaint they have nothing to do with to criticize the OP's choice of venue and stir up emotions by calling them angry and threatening them with a boomerang.
      These are from just the last week or so. If no ban is issued, they could benefit from asking themselves the following three questions before posting to any of these boards: "Does this need to be said? Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me right now?" --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      These criticisms are based totally on ABF.
      My comment on "Whaaambulance" was to clarify the term. I had never encountered it before (perhaps it is a term widely used in the US, but it is not used here in the UK) and I was trying to save other editors the time of having to research the term.
      My opining that a thread was closed too quickly is based on a WP:CBAN policy which states Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members.
      "keeps going" Hardly disruptive
      "Comments" I was trying to offer impartial advice to an editor. More seriously, and very seriously, you have accused me of threatening a boomerang. I typed specifically that I would not be issuing a boomerang. You are seriously misrepresenting my comment to the community and I invite you to strike it. DrChrissy (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point of order There's no such thing as a thread that an editor- almost any editor- has 'nothing to do with.' Muffled Pocketed 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to understand the hostility and ABF of Laser-Brain - Another editor I think I have never interacted with before. (I reiterate, if it is questionable where/when I enter into noticeboard discussions, surely the same criticism should be made of other editors here.) However, Fortuna's point is totally valid. These are community noticeboards - not the privilige of just those directly involved. DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should consider that when several editors who you have not interacted with before have very strong feelings about the time you waste at noticeboards that you have indeed "gone to the well" too often and exhausted the communities patience. JbhTalk 15:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I oppose these boomerang threads except in clear cases of serious disruption. There have been a few boomerangs recently against people who brought things here in good faith. SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose for obvious reasons, but also in strong agreement with the admin SarahSV. DrChrissy (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - I'm just not seeing the egregiousness other people are. Good idea to open the thread? No. But I think this response is disproportionate. The introduction of random diffs to highlight DrChrissy commenting in threads he has "nothing to do with" is furthermore absurd (I think almost all of us have a time share in that glass condo). DrChrissy should heed the advice given here, and know that perhaps his judgment in what demands a noticeboard thread may differ from some other people's -- and that if it happens again, there may very well be a block or topic ban. ArbCom is still available if having trouble with another user and, after this, understandably gunshy to take it to a noticeboard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and I hate boomerangs in general. I know that I don't bring valid items to AN/I for fear of a boomerang that someone might be able to dig up. This place needs to be less bureaucratic. If this AN/I is without merit, then an admin can close it. But if there's merit, are we to say that users now have to suffer because they can't complain about it? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - I really don't like the precedent this sets and I don't see any clear evidence this user has been disruptive to the point of needing to be banned from participating in any boards. If he makes a post or comment that's inappropriate, it can be solved with a conversation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongly oppose. Per my comment above. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, although I would support good-faith advice to DrChrissy to just drop this stuff and move on. I'm tempted to say "why can't we all just get along?". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Second proposal

      Because this is going nowhere, but some editors would support a less strict version of this, here's a new proposal (based off of MrJulesD's idea):

      Dr. Chrissy is community banned from starting threads at ANI, AN, and ANEW unless given written permission from an admin. Dr. Chrissy is only allowed to comment in discussions where he/she is a party, unless given written permission from an admin. Dr. Chrissy is not permitted to file any charges against jps, unless given permission by an admin. If he/she needs to report something urgent, she/he should go to IRC, or email an admin. jps is warned, and is strongly advised to ignore Dr. Chrissy, even on noticeboards. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose. Per my comments above. The same general reason for not sanctioning DrChrissy still applies here. Whether he should be blocked or not, jps's behavior was very rude and immature and DrChrissy's actions are understandable, in the least. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • E/C*Oppose for obvious reasons. If the proposals above were going nowhere, that is because the issuing of a boomerang was disagreed with. Simply making up more proposals is not going to change people's minds. They are disagreeing with a boomerang being issued, not the proposal. Your new proposal will be forcing editors to come back and ivote again - this might be considered by some as disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as- misguided, shall we be charitable and say? Muffled Pocketed 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC). Muffled Pocketed 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support with appeals as I earlier stated "Appeals to this ban can only be made with permission from an administrator; after six months, and after that six months apart." --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose although I believe a "final warning" regarding disruptive edits, or, perhaps, discretionary sanctions allowing for sanctioning such conduct in the future, might not be untenable. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In their haste to get any sort of sanction against me, this thread is descending into total chaos. Is the proposal "second proposal" being suggested as an alternative to my original proposal of sanctions for JPS due to protracted incivility (I actually made 3 proposals)? If so, evidence (diffs) must be provided as to why I should have these sanctions. Such diffs have been notable by their almost total absence in this thread. DrChrissy (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose for the same reasons as above, and a recommendation this thread be closed. (I would, however, support a proposal which requires DrChrissy to file noticeboard TPS reports in triplicate, printed with 2/3" margins and stapled in the upper-left corner, sent by carrier pigeon to the Internet's treehouse, being sure to mark boxes 14a-22d, but not 17b unless 19a is also checked. So if you could go ahead and do that, that'd be great...) sorry :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @DrChrissy: It's not the font you gotta be worried about... Muffled Pocketed

      Request for closure

      Could an uninvolved admin please close this whole thing? There is no consensus for action against jps nor any boomerang action toward the filer. Now it's devolved into a series of proposals that are generating more heat than light. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support The nail has been firmly hit on the head. Muffled Pocketed 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. At last a proposal that I enthusiastically support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Unfortunately. No sanction against jps is a no-brainer. If people had simply allowed the initial proposal for sanction against DrChrissy to run its course, we might have found out whether there was support for it or not, but now that everyone and their grandmother has decided to craft their own proposal, the water is so damn muddy that it will never be clear. I would recommend that the closer -- an admin, please -- let DrC know that he has dodged a bullet here. BMK (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No bullet to dodge. Where were the diffs as evidence of my having been disruptive? DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Question to experienced admins This has clearly become so complicated that any sensible admin is going to shy away from closing it. In the interests of letting us all escape this mess with feathers ruffled but no serious damage, I would like to ask, if I were to withdraw my original proposal, would this allow an admin to close it on this basis of a closing statement "closed due to withdrawal by the OP", but with no further comment whatsoever regarding the participants on this thread. I really am trying to find an easy way out for the admins so I hope this is not mis-interpreted in any way. DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This has not been "complicated" in the way you're framing it. Your proposal re: jps was shot down, pure and simple, no question about it. What was left was what to do about you. At this point you can withdraw the complaint about jps, but that should not have anything to do with the second part: what, if any, sanctions should be heading your way. You were told not to make this complaint, and you did anyway; you've sowed the wind, now you must reap the whirlwind. BMK (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Note for readers: BMK is not an experienced admin, they are not even an admin. I asked the question to experienced admins to hopefully avoid any further disruption such BMK is immediately provoking. DrChrissy (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Note to DrChrissy: You posed a question, you got an answer from an experience editor. That you didn't like the answer is clear, but you cannot control who answers your questions any more than you can set up rules for commenters on your noticeboards complaints, as you tried to do here. BMK (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's responses like this that are why this all came so close to boomeranging on you, DrChrissy. Common sense should tell you that if BMK wanting you sanctioned is "disruption" then you wanting jps sanctioned is as well. Clearly, despite advice given prior to that, you don't believe the latter is the case so why do you see the former being disruptive? You really need to consider the perception of your actions. We get it. You don't think you should have the sanctions you have. It seems clear you think some other editors should have gotten sanctions instead of you. That's not what happened though and continually trying to pursue what you may think is justice can simply end up looking petty. It's perceived as drama for the sake of drama in the eyes of a lot of editors. And, please, please, stop making appeals to authority. Stop pointing out who is or isn't an admin when someone disagrees with you. You do this far too often. You seem often to forget you're appealing to the community, not just admins, everyone. Coming off as belittling does your argument no favors. LaserBrain's advice above is very good. Next time you feel the urge to comment on something think it through. Is what you're about hit save on going to increase conflict or reduce it? Is anything good going to come of it or is just the continuation of past battles? Capeo (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Both the original request and the backlash boomerang are suffocated in a quagmire of !consensus (the opposite of consensus). The "whirlwind" has blown itself out. Let's move on. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 21:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. @DrChrissy: Although Beyond My Ken is not an admin, Laser Brain is. It would be wise to listen to his advice, and stop WP:HOUNDing jps. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Offer Since no admins are stepping up I'm willing to do a non-admin closure before this thing descends further into the abyss. (This reminds me of why I turned in my admin badge all those years ago...) No offense taken if folks would rather I didn't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Since you commented in this thread and participated in the discussion at User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#Blocked, I think it's better if you didn't. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal for Community Ban of DrChrissy

      Bad faith proposal by probable sock of user with account
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

      We all know that DrChrissy is going to get banned sooner or later, with a good chance of sooner, so why not just cut to the cha

      • The proposer is clearly someone with an account. These are their first edits. I'm not waiting for an admin, I'm going to be bold and hat it myself.BMK (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk

      We are pleased to confirm trainee Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a full arbitration clerk, effective immediately.

      We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk

      WP:VPP#Closing

      This is an RfC about Wikidata fields in infoboxes. The 30-day period will run at 20:59 (UTC). I'll start work on closing this one at that time. Co-closers are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I've boxed it up and asked for additional comments. Co-closers still welcome, for now. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Crikey Dank, this sounds more daring than wrestling crocodiles naked. I wish you well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Warm yourself up first with negotiating Kim Jeong Un out of his nuclear arsenal, then you might be ready to tackle infoboxes. (People around here get exorcised over the most trivial things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh, thanks, those replies were good enough to quote in my closing :) I went with something minimal, because consensus seems to be developing to re-start the RfC with a broader question, and I didn't want to get in the way. (Self-preservation had nothing to do with it. I think.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Dank, the other thing is just a discussion, not an RfC or anything that should get in the way. Lots of people took a lot of time to comment in the RfC, so it needs to be closed properly. If you prefer not to do it, that's fine, but in that case we need to ask someone else. SarahSV (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, wait, I see, I'll add what I think you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, that needed to be more clear. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Dank, we need an impartial admin to read the RfC and summarize the consensus. That's all. The consensus seemed clear when I last looked at it. SarahSV (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      As I've said many times, anyone can challenge my impartiality or a closing result at any time. But maybe we can talk this out. Here's the problem: Wikipedians have a low tolerance for long closing statements. I've generally found that I can communicate two, maybe 3 things that I really want to communicate. I could go into much greater detail ... I've put a lot of work into this so far ... but then people would miss the things that I want them to hear the most. Does that make more sense? - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Sarah, I added a point that I hope better addresses your concern. I have minor regrets about lengthening the statement, but it's probably best since you're raising these questions. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Long closing statements are way better than inaccurate or incomplete closing statements. I've closed discussions with three paragraph closing statements before when it warranted it. (Not saying your close was inaccurate/incomplete, just offering general advice). ~ RobTalk 00:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope the point I added makes it clearer ... does it? Sarah? - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Dank, we need an admin to read the consensus of the RfC. Not a long statement, not his own opinion, just someone who will read the consensus. Would you please revert yourself so that we can ask someone else to close it? SarahSV (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I can see what Sarah's saying, but she obviously had strong feelings about this one, and I can't change a close to suit one side or the other. Anyone who considers themselves neutral ... did I stray too far outside the usual protocol here? Do you see my point about not wanting to make things worse, for no gain? - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Dank, I don't know what you mean about making things worse. The usual procedure is to ask on WP:AN/RFC for admins, usually a group of three in a situation like this. For some reason you stepped forward and did it alone, or rather didn't do it, and now we have a mess. I would like us to return to the status quo ante and follow the usual procedure by asking for three uninvolved admins to weigh the consensus. Please revert yourself and let that happen. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That's incorrect. See these 3 edits to ANRFC, repeated at the top of this thread. My invitation for co-closers has been open since before the 30 days ran, and is still open, but the window is closing fast. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Dank, the problem was that you decided to do it. Usually there is a discussion on AN/RFC at the end of the RfC, several people volunteer, other people say yes or no, etc. You bypassed that procedure, and now we have a non-close close, which means the RfC was a waste of time. I don't know what the procedure is for objecting to a close, but please don't make me go through it. Pinging Iridescent in case he has a suggestion. SarahSV (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone agree that I violated procedure here? - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to leave the offer open for co-closers for a full week from when I posted it, so, until Tuesday, 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC). Also, given that there's a challenge, I need to be more conventional, and I'm going to go add more conventional elements as an addendum now. Sarah, I hope you know that I respect you immensely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think Dank has violated the spirit of policy here, regardless of whether he's technically violated the letter of it. There are multiple questions which need to be asked, yet this RFC is conflating "is Wikidata reliable enough to use?" with "how should we be using Wikidata?", so participants are talking at cross purposes and unclear as to what they're actually supporting/opposing. I agree that there needs to be a structured step-by-step "Do we want to use Wikidata?", "What are we going to use it for?", "How are we going to implement it?" multi-stage process, regardless of the timesink it will become. A rushed all-or-nothing decision will either lead to what fr-wiki has done, disabling Wikidata importing completely, or to bulk importation of potentially problematic information. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Dank and Iridescent, I'm asking about two separate issues here. First, I can't see where Dank come to be chosen to close the RfC. I would prefer that it be closed by three uninvolved admins after a request here or at WP:AN/RFC, which is how these complex RfCs are normally handled (which avoids the thing resting on one person's opinion).
      Second, the question the RfC asked was: "Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out?" That's the issue people replied to, and so the closers need to summarize whether the consensus was for opt-in or opt-out, rather than deciding that in fact people didn't know what they were saying. I would like to go ahead and ask for three closers. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgot to ping Curly Turkey. SarahSV (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Mentor wanted

      I do have Magog the Ogre as my current mentor. However, I feel that I need at least one or two more mentors. It doesn't have been permanent, although I like a long-term one. I need someone to help me construct backstory telling. If that's not possible, I need someone to help me construct a good conversation with others. If that's not possible, I need someone to help me have second thoughts before I do something that would be deemed drastic. I don't want to get blocked again. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Mentoring is generally only effective with newer editors. You've had an account here for almost 11 years, and you've made more than 82,000 edits. What is a mentor going to teach you that you shouldn't have already learned yourself? BMK (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see that his specific request for help with "backstory telling" might be about something a lot of people might not know about. And I also know that the policies and guidelines have changed a hell of a lot since I've been an editor, which is a bit short of ten years now. If you want some help regarding specific articles, maybe the best and most effective way to get help is through an active related WikiProject, but, if you would prefer to drop me a line, I can't say I will necessarily respond very fast, but I can see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Putting up cynical resistance here is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be stigmatizing long-time editors asking for help with things they "should already know". I saw another editor catch flak at the teahouse recently for being an experienced user asking a Wikipedia 101 sort of question. Rather than being too experienced to learn anything from a mentorship, perhaps GH is experienced enough to know the ways a mentorship might be able to help him (e.g. in the ways loosely outlined in his original message). Maybe it won't be fruitful, but it certainly can't hurt and everybody else stands to benefit. As for whether this is the place to ask, vs. the Adoptee's Area, well, that's a separate thing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, I disagree, If an editor doesn't have a pretty thorough understanding of the workings of Wikipedia after 10+ years and 80K+ edits, then the chances that a mentor is going to help them get it are pretty slim. The editor would probably be better off doing some soul searching and deciding if they're really cut out for editing Wikipedia. Despite the propaganda ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit"), editing Wikipedia is, in fact, not for everyone, and we actually have too many editors (some of them fairly high-profile) who don't understand what the purpose of editing here is, and indulge in all sorts of irrelevant activity which just absorbs energy unnecessarily. Whether this editor is of that sort, I don't know -- I'm not that interested to do the research to find out -- but anyone who's been here for a while has got to admit that this request is a bit bizarre. BMK (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'll bite: What is "backstory telling"? Rgrds. --64.85.216.134 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Hey, while were at it, I'd like somebody to help me figure out how to promote some actor BLP articles to 'B'-class (Yes, I've read the B-class guidelines, but I found them to be as "clear as mud" enough that I'd like to work with somebody who's done it before to work with me on one or two so I can get the hang of it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      George, I'm also puzzled about what "backstory telling" is. If it has to do with (say) writing articles about movie sequels where you have to summarize what happened in earlier movies, the obvious suggestion is look at existing articles which deal with that problem and follow their examples. If it has to do with Wikipedia dispute resolution, then take a simpler approach and stay out of disputes! Wikipedia's bureaucracy is mostly a bad thing, so don't amplify it. Edit neutrally; don't do drastic things; don't take Wikipedia nonsense too personally; turn off your computer for the night if you find yourself getting upset; and either co-exist with editors that annoy you, or switch to some other area of the encyclopedia where they're not active. Take note that an awful lot of self-appointed "guardians of the project" are actually destructive and incompetent, so try not to be like them. Instead, figure out who the really good editors are, and follow their example instead. Is that anything like the kind of advice you wanted? 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      To elaborate, I want to retell any situation that I am in for background, like conflicts with editors. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I had guessed something like that. My advice is to focus more on staying out of conflicts. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      IJBall, the article quality pages have examples of articles that are rated A class, B class, etc. If you want to bring an article to B class, then get it to what you subjectively think meets the standard of the example article, then ask a relevant wikiproject for a B class review and deal with any issues people raise. Don't worry too much about the unclear instructions. It's all pretty loose anyway. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      George, the whole mentoring thing has been tried to destruction with you. I was the guy who convinced Elen to rescind your original indefinite block with mentoring conditions. I spent countless hours (and I mean countless) trying to help you. You never learnt a thing, if I'm honest. You seem fundamentally incapable of understanding that you might be wrong sometimes, and backing off. BMK is correct. If it hasn't been fixed in 10 years it's not going to get fixed now. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Maybe this just isn't what you should be doing. Begoon talk 19:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I can see a general principle where an experienced editor might request a mentor. If an editor has spent all their time in one subject area, let's say science, but then decides to start editing in another subject area, perhaps films, the editing style, information boxes and even reliable sources can change dramatically. In these circumstances, a mentor might be useful, however, I know nothing about the specifics of this request. DrChrissy (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Per Begoon, there comes a point when AGF reaches a limit; the mentoring thing has been going on for (literally) years now, and you still have just as much of an "anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy" mentality as you ever did. I would urge anyone considering becoming your mentor to read this old version of your talkpage from the linked point to the end to get a feel for exactly what they'd be taking on. ‑ Iridescent 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The root of the issue is this: Once George gets a "bee in his bonnet" about an "issue", any "issue", he cannot rest or drop the stick, ever. What makes this especially frustrating is that often the "issue" seemingly exists only in George's mind. His communication skills are extremely poor, so he is often unable to make others understand. This is compounded by the fact that he takes IDHT to astonishing levels, only "hearing" that which he thinks agrees with him. Many of the scuffles he gets into are over utterly trivial matters, but, like a dog with a bone, he is unable to let go. He doesn't really see mentors as people who can help him change this behaviour, but rather as people he can turn to in order to help him "win" whatever the latest bunfight is. With the best will in the world, I don't see any prospect that this will change - sorry. Begoon talk 05:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      UAA backlog

      Wikipedia:UAA has a massive backlog. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      RFC on setting up a separate section for BLPs at requests for page protection

      30/500

      Hey all,

      I don't like jumping the gun, but decided to place Peter Nguyen Van Hung under 30/500 protection, believing to find a warrant in the phrasing "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied where authorized by the arbitration committee or in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption" in WP:30/500. (I'm not claiming to be ArbCom here, right--it's the second part.) This article has been the topic of a specific longterm vandal who very cleverly (yes, very! bravo!) figured out how to get around semiprotection. If you all disagree or if I done something wrong, feel free to correct. You may notice also that I set the clock for "infinite"; I have reason to believe that the Nipponese Dog is still in the prime of his life and has nothing better to do with it. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I was about to post a clarification request about this. The ArbCom agreed in May that:
      "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption."
      I took that to mean that admins can use it in any topic area if the above applies. Have I misunderstood? SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Rob. BethNaught, you mentioned the relevant consensus. Can you post a link to that discussion? The usual thing is that admins can decide when to apply any of the protection levels, so I think there would need to be a very clear consensus to the contrary. SarahSV (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Suning Holdings Group

      The page was keep on advertised by newly created user which claim themselves as staff of Suning, but falsely added wrong information (or intentionally mixing Suning Holdings Group and Suning Commerce Group). I knew it is hard to verify my citation and contribution on that page as most references were in Chinese, but i don't see any benefit to start edit war to new user who propaganda. Matthew_hk tc 18:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing

      I already wrote this kind of request, but I can't find it, so I try to repeat my request. I'm asking to stop/ban Joseph2302 who followed me in my editing during Draft, or when the article was already submitted, and demanding that the article would be deleted. Instead of my request to you, he and another editor wrote you that I harassing them with the personal attacks (archive 925), which is not true. I understand that you will believe them more because they are a part of your "team", and even my prev. request looks is deleted, so I can't see the result of the dispute. I don't know Joseph2302 motive, I don't know him personally, but his action of asking for deleting my article by any course is done not in the good faith. And it does not make a good face for wikipedia as the organization. If you will find my prev. request, I have more details there, but here I just asking you to stop/ban Joseph2302 from any of my inputs. My article was deleted, then moved to the article, and now is moved back to the Draft, as Draft:Natalia Toreeva. From 10 pages in the beginning of the article, it was reduced by another editor to several lines, but still it was moved back to the Draft. If Joseph2302 will not be banned from my input, I don't see any reason to continue on the article, since it will be deleted without reason again. Do you have some independent editors who can look into this matter, and make the reason to define the article. Some of the editors told, the article is Autobiography, another told about notability discussion, and another editors including from Teahouse, notability is OK just need to clean up. Now, it is only several lines, but still..

      So, I'm asking you to ban Joseph2302 from any of my input, so I can continue working on improvement of the article and put aside my struggling. Hope you understand it. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Your request is unlikely to happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen unless you provide diffs as evidence. Also, since you seem to be writing an article on Natalia Toreeva, and your use name is Toreeva, one might surmise that you have a vconflict of interest, a policy you should read. If the article is about you, you should also read WP:Autobiography, in which writing your own autobigraphy is strongly discouraged. BMK (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I would consider that likely given they uploaded File:Natalia Toreeva End of USSR 1992.jpg describing it as created by Natalia G. Toreeva and they claim to be the copyright holder. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Before writing an autobiography it is critically important that you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Toreeva: If you can't find your own past edits, then how can you expect others to? You need to provide some form of evidence, diffs, links to previous discussions, or concrete foundation for others to go and find out what happened. Furthermore, it will be extremely difficult to prove that someone is following you when 80% of your article edits are to one page and almost all of the rest of your edits are to a single page draft in a related area and your own user talk page (WP:SPA) -- maybe they just disagreed with you in two instances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at the editing history of Draft:Natalia Toreeva, it seems as if quite a few editors have had a hand in editing it, and many of them reduced your text down to a manageable referenced article. Joseph2302 tried to get it speedy deleted [39], but was turned down by RHaworth[40], who then took it to AfD [41], all of which is perfectly legitimate if, in their opinion, the subject did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. At AfD, the community decided to delete the article [42], so it was moved back to Draftspace.
      I'm not seeing how any of that adds up to a sanction for Joseph2302. BMK (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva provides some of the necessary background.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Propose that in order to reduce the community's general blood pressure, and to preserve any WP career User:Toreeva might have remaining to her, she is indefinitely banned from working on articles relating to her and her work, broadly construed. As noted above, lots of editors repaired that article, and it had been returned to draft space in order to continue that work. Her assistance in doing so is supremely unrequired and wholly of a negative impact. Muffled Pocketed 07:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      That's why I asked for help in editing and also the Teahouse editors, since I understand I can't do it on my own. The article was edited by some editors, including "Ymblanter" and "My very best wishes", for which I appreciated, so it should not be as autobio anymore, but still it was moved to the Draft. Now what? If it will be there, and I don't permitted to edit, and no one is willing to improve the article, what is the next step for it? It is obviously to me. As the bigger picture: I'm doing my input to the "Soviet Nonconformist Art" (unofficial art in Russia), specifically St. Petersburg art groups such as "School of Sidlin". which I was part of that movement, "Sterligov Group", and "Arefiev Group". I feel it is my obligation to write about that time of the 1970-1980, because the time is ticking, and the legacy of that historical art movement could be missed. For example, in Arefiev group, only 1 artist is still alive, in our group, Yuri Nashivochnikov is 92 years old, etc. That's why they asked me to make my input, and also to include the article about Natalia Toreeva to show that the description of the groups was done by the "real" person. And if this small article will not get any approval, I am not going to waste the time and working on the bigger project, that in my opinion will be lost for the art history.

      Another question I have: about the collections in museums. When I looked other artists for the structure of the article, for ex., Alek Rapoport, A. Belkin, A. Ney, V. Lisunov, etc, they mentioned the museums that have their art work in their collection. And the references are only the photos of those museums. But when I included 5 museums, where my art work in their collection, this input was deleted, since it should be the website of that museum, where you (editor) can read the name of the artist in their collection. I have the official docs of the museums, where my art work in their collection, but your editors told me it should be the references to those museums to see your name is there. Is it the big hole in your acceptance in notability of the artists? Why another artists were accepted just naming the museums, but my input was deleted? I asked, for example, Spertus museum (in Chicago), if they have any websites where your editors can read the info about specific artist in their collection. He sent me email, that my art work indeed in their collection, but they don't have any websites for it, may be in future. So, what I should do in this case? I have an official docs from them (in 1978) about my art work in their collection, but no website any museum has where they would mentioned the artists. I also have the official docs from Dhiagilev museum, the State "Tsarskoselskaya Collection" museum, who send me the official docs about my art work in their collection (2014-2016). It could be another interesting fact: I have my art work (sculpture and graphics works for the films) in "Lenfilm" film studio museum, 1976-1977, St. Petersburg, and I asked them also about if they have any Website about their artists and the art works in the museum. Yesterday, I got an email, that after the falling of Soviet Union (1991), their museum started from ZERO. Everything was lost due to the political or financial problems, so they just started to gather info about the museum. It will take probably several years to restore or re-build the museum. Same with the Lenfilm film studio itself. I also have my Posters in the Washington museum of Russian poetry, and I gave the references of the website. But the editor told me you don't accept the "blog" info. I understand it. But the work is there, so you can't just delete any info, so looks like the artist's art work are not in the collection. Should be some easier way to accept the info, or accept the email where you can see the real doc, but not in the website of the museums, which currently don't exist? Why another artists info about the museums were accepted but my info was deleted? Something wrong is here, or your policy should have some acceptance rules others than just easy acceptance to delete. I don't talk about other countries, but since the falling of Soviet Union, and the Underground of Russian art, it should be done some correction on acceptance the info about that struggling time. So, please give me advice what is the next step with the article which is now Draft:Natalia Toreeva. Thank you for your time.Toreeva (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the next step is that we don't have the article. Unless the concerns brought up at AfD are addressed somehow. The AfD found "a strong consensus that COI editing has made the current state of the article an unsalvageable mess. I would strongly recommend that if a future article is created, the individual who is the subject of the article stick to participation on and suggestions on the talk page rather than direct article edits."
      So unless somebody who does not have a conflict of interest decides to create the article we probably just won't have one. If this happens your role would be best limited to discussion on the talk page rather than direct editing. If you just create it again in draft space then the AfD reasoning still applies. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly- which is why I suggest that Toreeva, for her own good (or, at least the good of the article) is banned from editing it. Muffled Pocketed 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock

      TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, since he is community banned, I'm bringing it here for review. He says

      I would like to start out by apologizing for my disruptive behavior/sockpuppetry. My past actions were irresponsible and childish. I didn't know what I was thinking at the time, and wished now I hadn't acted in such a way that would get me blocked and banned from editing on Wikipedia. I admit I used sockpuppet accounts, and denied it, which was immature of me. If there is anything else you want me to do to get my ban lifted, please let me know. Thank you.

      Anyway, thoughts or comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @TheREALCableGuy: - which accounts were your socks? SQLQuery me! 03:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather than just name his socks – after all, he could just name a bunch of blocked accounts and IPs – shouldn't TheREALFCableGuy show ownership of his socks by going onto each of their accounts and posting a comment in the sock's name on their talk page? BMK (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll also note two facts: (1) TheREALCableGuy has only been blocked since May 13, just a few days over a month. (2) The REALCableGuy has accounts on 16 other Wikimedia Projects, but only 1 edit to any of them (Simple English, in 2012). True, 5 of them are non-English projects, but it seems like TheREALcableGuy could have made some effort to show his good faith by editing productively on one of the other 11 projects in the last month. Really, we have nothing to go by here except the assurances of the editor that he's sorry and will behave better. Can someone speak to whether that is sufficient? BMK (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beyond My Ken: Uh, a month? He's been blocked since 2013... [43] Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed he has. My error, and thank you for the correction. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Has he socked in the last two years? If not, that's good enough faith for me. If he has Muffled Pocketed 08:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well on his talkpage he says he socked until April 2015 at least. I have no opinion on an unblock, that's just a FYI. Begoon talk 14:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, but it would take a CU to establish that he hasn't socked, and, as we know, CUs on en.wiki are not allowed to do "fishing expeditions", an enormous hole in our security procedures. That leaves us where we started, with whether we believe TheREALCableGuy or not. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you BMK... For clarifying the DUMBASSARY nature of the policy! What about at the user's own request, or with his permission? Then, similarly, if he gives permission, that's a good sign; and if he didn't- then it would tell us we wouldn't need to run it anyway- if you get my drift? Muffled Pocketed 08:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately WP:Checkusers says

      On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.

      BMK (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kww:. Any thoughts? Doc talk 09:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Could WP:IAR apply here? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      No, IAR isn't a free pass to being unblocked nor should it ever be, Just my extremely helpful 2¢. –Davey2010Talk 13:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I think he meant IAR on the CU policy. Good luck with that. No CheckUser will run a check with no evidence of ongoing sockpuppetry, even upon user request. It wouldn't even accomplish what you seem to want it to accomplish, since CU can only connect accounts going back a small period of time, and they also can't connect accounts over dynamic IPs, proxies, etc. Further, we shouldn't fault a user for our own policies on CU, nor should we require a user to prove a negative (that they didn't sock). It's impossible to do that even if we had no restrictions on using CU, given the technical restrictions of such a tool (both those put in place by the WMF and the general limits that would apply even if the WMF didn't abide by its policies on personal data retention). This ban appeal should be evaluated on the merits of how long this user has gone without having a confirmed sock, how disruptive he was in the past, and whether he's likely to be a net positive going forward. ~ RobTalk 14:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed. Has the user indicated what positive contributions they would like to make? I tried to clarify the "socking" timeline on their talkpage. (IAR might just have been TPOD wondering if chipping in on noticeboards was ok after being advised not to. I think that's fine, but one lives with the results.) Begoon talk 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) After taking a look at the original ban, I'd support unbanning if a WP:1RR restriction and and topic ban on all pages related to television, broadly construed, were put in place instead (both indefinite). Such restrictions would give the editor a chance to show us that he can edit constructively in areas other than where he's caused problems in the past. Appeal available after 6 months of constructive contributions and zero 1RR or topic ban violations. Over a year without socking warrants another chance, so long as the user understands that plenty of admins have their cursor hovering over the block button in case he continues editing tendentiously or doesn't abide by the restrictions. ~ RobTalk 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the most important question here is whether there is any benefit to unblocking him. There isn't: when he was an active contributor, his contributions bordered on useless. His socking spree demonstrates that not only does he have nothing useful to contribute, but he is a dishonest on top of it. There's no upside here at all.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Help... My User Page has been Vandalized and Protected by an Overzealous Editor

      I carefully read the policies for inclusion or exclusion of content on a user page. After deciding that I was well within my rights within the spirit and letter of said procedures and policies, I copied an article that I felt was being deleted in an attempt to overtly squelch a minority viewpoint - along with all relevant debates on that suppression - into my User page. I then started to build upon the removed article in hopes a) it could become a collaborative space in line with that stated element of User pages. And also to 1) preserve why I've left Wikipedia, 2) preserve a copy of the purportedly violative content to show the violation of Wiki's spirit and policies (in order to suppress said minority viewpoint); and 3) preserve the illegitimacy of the removal of the page in question and the incommensurability and disingenuous of the debates surrounding their removal.

      Now an editor has removed that material. When I reverted it, he removed it again under the guise of disruptive editing and protected the page. This is totally outrageous and I am embarrassed to have to argue for control over my own user page - or even an explanation for what incorrect interpretation of policies/procedures would justify such an undue intrusion. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=725922812"