Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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 |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 131 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to mention that there has been discussion at AN to attempt to resolve the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- My headache came back just reading that. Thanks, I'll extend my wikibreak a little longer --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. The outcome of the Commons DR and subsequent discussions have raised more difficult questions than they answered that I'm struggling a bit to sort through. I've requested input at WP:DfD; depending on the feedback I receive, I may settle on an outcome or punt the whole thing to someone more experienced with images. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 September 2024)
This will require a close by an editor experienced on WP:BLP polices. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Nemov. I am seeing activity since your request was posted (most recently on October 6, 2024), and thus I expect that allowing the RFC to run the full 30 days will produce a better consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Done (not by me). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 137 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 29 July 2024) Open for more than 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Done by Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC) added by clerk Andre🚐 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 16 August 2024) Open for nearly 2 months with limited participation. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's an impossible discussion to close because nobody either supported or opposed the business on the table. The only respondent proposed his own alternate proposal which the nominator opposed. Therefore, it should simply be relisted again. Andre🚐 07:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 22 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 29 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 30 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 4 September 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
WP:OWN violations and related behavior by User:SanAnMan
Hello. This is a continuation of a discussion that was archived before other editors and admins could weigh in. That discussion was begun as a complaint against me by User:SanAnMan. Later incorporated into it was a discussion that had originally begun on at Talk:Unfulfilled, but which was moved here by User:Softlavender. SanAnMan presented what he contended was evidence of inappropriate behavior on my part. I then presented evidence of SanAnMan's violations of WP:OWN, disruptive editing, including attempts to bully editors away from editing South Park episode articles, including outright deceptive statements on his part, which included fabricating non-existent consensuses that he falsely claimed I participated in, but because it was not sufficiently summarized (having been called a "wall of text"), I was asked to further summarize it. SanAnMan nonetheless offered a rebuttal, though he did not falsify, nor even address the evidence I presented of his behavior. What follows is a condensed version of the evidence of his behavior. I apologize if it's still longer than you would prefer; Illustrating patterns of behavior requires not only multiple examples, but some elaboration.
- SanAnMan frequently makes arbitrary changes to episode synopses, often without explaining how his versions are improvements, even when doing so creates grammatical errors. This is distinct from his perfectly legitimate fixing of my typos, repetitions of phrases, etc. which I genuinely appreciate.
- For example, he once removed a series of commas from a passage I wrote, including an Oxford comma. [2] While use of Oxford commas is a question of personal choice, he did not write that passage, but again wishes to impose his personal preference upon articles in a unilateral manner. When he subsequently did this again, he attempted to justify this [3] by falsely citing MOS:COMMA. In fact, MOS:COMMA does not call for the removal of Oxford commas, but says they may be used if used consistently. Nothing in the article exhibited inconsistency. SanAnMan argued, “But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article.” There was no discussion or consensus on this.
- He removed ratings info from an episode article, something that is common in television articles when source info is available for it, but he claims that it “never” goes in an episode article, again without presenting any guideline, MOS or consensus: [7]
- He’ll remove details from the synopses I write as being supposedly irrelevant, but insists on including those he prefers, even when they are trivia. He removed the name of a character because it’s “irrelevant”, even though the character’s interaction with a main character drove a plot point. [8] In another article, he removes the name of a character, Colin Brooks, whose death was the inciting incident of the plot, even though he left in a latter reference to “Brooks’ death” in the same synopsis. [9] Yet despite this, after I did a major fix to two paragraphs in another article featuring childhood vaping, including removing an incorrect claim about a minor detail [10], SanAnMan restored the mention of the detail even though it was trivial. [11]
- In another instance, SanAnMan split hairs over a description of a character being a reference to a Star Trek alien, removing reference to this on account of a detail on the back of the character’s head [12], as if that detail somehow meant that the nature of the parody was not generally true, even though it was one of the major points of parody in the episode.
- SanAnMan either does not understand or misrepresents the purpose of the Lead. The Lead (and for that matter the Infobox) are features of articles that summarize the article’s most salient points, which by definition, means that they repeat information found in the article body. He cited WP:OVERLINK as his rationale for this [13], when WP:OVERLINK says nothing about details in the Lead. When he removed the information again, he stated, “WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details.” Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. No MOS guideline says otherwise, and SanAnMan did not link to any that do.
- SanAnMan blanked the article for the South Park episode “Unfulfilled” (reverting it to a redirect) on an episode of South Park an hour and a half before it premiered, under the rationale that it had not yet aired, an inane rationale, given not only the time element, but the established practices of creating such articles prior to episode premieres, by various editors including himself ([14], [15], [16]) and the presence of articles on future films, novels, Olympics, elections, and other events throughout Wikipedia.
- SanAnMan attempted to cite WP:DELAY for this, when that guideline is for subjects whose notability is in doubt. WP:CRYSTAL also corroborates this.
- He also attempted to falsely claim that there was an “agreement” among the editors of those articles not to create such articles on the basis of press releases early in the season. Putting aside the fact that WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB do not restrict the citation of primary sources in an article as long as the article is not primarily supported by them; the fact that secondary cite-supported information on critical reception is always added to South Park episode articles within a day or two of the episode’s airing and the publication of critics’ reviews; and the fact that Wikipedia’s leans toward inclusion, and the practice of giving editors time to find sources before deleting articles, There was in fact no such “agreement” or discussion, as seen on all the relevant talk pages. When it was requested that he provide links to these discussions, he then attempted to claim that this “agreement” took place in the edit summaries, which is both absurd, and untrue, since no edit summaries show this. He even falsely claimed that I, of all people, was a part of this “process” he described. (I was not.) In addition, his claim is falsified by the continued practices of creating such articles on the most recent episodes, including the one that aired the week before the one in question, which he had not opposed. Presumably because he realized that he was caught in the middle of his lie, he abandoned it, because the following week, when I created the prelim article for that week’s episode ahead of its premiere, he offered no opposition, which he would not have done if he genuinely believed there had been a consensus, or “agreement,” among the editors to cease this practice.
- SanAnMan has reverted against two different editors ([17], [18], [19]), which is considered edit warring, and may be considered a blockable offense. In so doing, SanAnMan self-servingly declares that WP:OWN and 3RR violations are established on my part, but exempts himself from that assessment, even though he persistently reverted the article himself.
- SanAnMan presumes the authority to give “sole warnings” to me, when he is not an admin, and has no authority “sole warnings” to anyone, another presumption of unilateral authority that he does not have. Note also that when I point out what has happened in the past with serial policy violator and manipulators who tried to game the system like Asgardian—a perfectly legitimate warning—then all of a sudden, SanAnMan says, it’s “threat.” SanAnMan can issue sole “warnings”. But when I issue a valid warning based on my prior experience with similar editors, it’s a “threat” that is tantamount to in SanAnMan’s words, saying “I am going to get you blocked or banned,” (even though I don’t have the power to get anyone blocked or banned unless I have evidence of violations that warrant it), and a “personal attack.”
- When SanAnMan first began this discussion here December 9, he said of me, “He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing…” In fact, I never said that “any” edit SanAnMan makes exhibits such qualities, and the diff shows it. I have always distinguished between the solid edits he makes, and those presented here that are problematic.
- SanAnMan claimed here during the now-archived portion of this discussion that when he is told that his criticized for poor writing, or when he is told that his edits do not conform to Wikipedia policies, that this constitutes “bullying.” It does not. To argue that criticism, or pointing out when an editor is violating policy constitutes a “threat” or “intimidation” would mean that every time we address policy violations on Wikipedia, we are “bullying” the person doing so, which is ridiculous. WP:AAEW, which SanAnMan cites repeatedly, is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and its claims that pointing out policy violations is not a valid argument is obviously false. SanAnMan himself has no problem accusing other editors of violating policies, as indicated when he accused another editor of this in an ANI discussion just a few months ago [20].
CORRECTION: SanAnMan pointed out in this post that I denied reverting a wikilink, even though I did. In fact, I did revert the wikilink, but was under the impression that I had not done so when I denied doing this. I see now that I did revert it, and apologize for that error. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- In the archived discussion referenced above, admin User:Swarm specifically stated "we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point." He also stated that "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable" and "all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison." If the admins request that I refute this point-by-point I will, but until otherwise, I will wait. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both of these editors should be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing on the noticeboards and exhausting the patience of the community, the block duration to be determined by each editors' block history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Having just dealt with a editor/troll and stalker yesterday, my patience and mercy is at an all time low. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Here are the two users' block logs:
- (change visibility) 18:30, 29 November 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment--see block log, specifically the block of 25 June 2011) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 14:45, 20 June 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs | block) blocked SanAnMan (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 17:32, 6 December 2013 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Jessica Nigri) (unblock | change block)
- *(change visibility) 10:45, 24 June 2011 Ironholds (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: you should know better) (unblock | change block)
- (change visibility) 01:25, 18 July 2005 Khaosworks (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (3RR violation) (unblock | change block)
- An asterisk at the beginning of a line indicates that the block was removed before it expired. They actually have seven blocks between them, but I'm only showing those that matter: Nightscream was once unblocked by the blocking admin with a rationale that basically says "the edits that prompted the block were actually okay", and SanAnMan's first block was a case of {{User accidentally blocked}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- That their block logs are minimal doesn't surprise me - it's rare for admins to block on the basis of vexatious or tendentious reporting on the noticeboards, which is the loci of their disruption. Doesn't really matter as my proposal is obviously not gaining much traction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion; I'm not trying to say that they're too minimal to warrant further sanctions. Just wanted to provide data for your proposal. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing "tendentious" about providing the copious evidence of an editor's behavior. It's simply that the "community" here just doesn't want to read it, their "patience" apparently too thin for anything that is longer than a soundbite or slogan. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you said something very similar to that on ANI when you provided even more text and chided the community in advance because you assumed (correctly) that it wasn't going to read it -- it's another part of your disruptive behavior. People don't get paid here, you know, given the choice between wading through your interminable prose (or that of SanAnMan, who's almost as bad), which would take quite a long time and involve a great deal of cross-checking and other research, or doing something that could help the encyclopedia or the project with immediate results, it's not at all surprising that they choose the latter.Recall that saying that "Insanity is doing the exact same thing again and again and expecting different results"? Well, that's pretty much where you are: you could take the time and effort to boil down your concerns to an easily palatable meal which people could take in and digest, but instead you continue to serve up unappetizing 20-course feasts which no one wants to bother even getting started on. I believe Swarm said basically the same thing on that ANI complaint, and neither of you were able to comply -- nor do I think wither of you will ever be able to comply. That's why I proposed this block, which, unfortunately, is not going to happen.Perhaps I should have suggested a topic ban from Wikipedia space, or from the noticeboards, or an IBan between the two of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing "tendentious" about providing the copious evidence of an editor's behavior. It's simply that the "community" here just doesn't want to read it, their "patience" apparently too thin for anything that is longer than a soundbite or slogan. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Request: I would withdraw this proposal if another editor hadn't voted to support it - my understanding is that I can't because of that. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to close it due to lack of traction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion
(Non-administrator comment) Maybe just archive the thread without further action. All has been said above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- That may have to be. I did read through the sections above and previously read the older thread. There definitely are behavioral issues to be considered, but I for one do not know the best way to handle them. The thing I would want to look at is, are there similar interactions with other editors, or is this isolated? If this behavior occurs with other users, then I would be more concerned about an overall problem requiring some sort of admin intervention, but if it is just how two people interact with each other, then that may be all it is. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Then why not start there, with an IBan between the two of them?Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The last thread was not archived before anyone "could" respond, it was archived because no one wanted to waste their time on the massive walls of text they were bludgeoning each other with, which I warned them against doing. I'm not offended by seeing another wall of text, but I am astounded by the lack of clue displayed by Nightscream in thinking that another massive wall of text was going to improve the situation. Smh. Swarm {talk} 03:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not a massive wall of text, except for those too lazy to read it, and whose apathy on such matters is precisely the huge crack in the system that historically, manipulators have exploited to game the system here on Wikipedia. User:Asgardian is one. User:AlanSohn is another.And now we have SanAnMan. The guy blanked another editor's article, then fabricated a consensus that never took place, even claiming that I agreed with him on this, and then, after he was caught in the middle of that lie, skulked away from it, and naturally, the revolving door here in ANI doesn't care because, "Oh, it isn't ongoing behavior." Like he has to do this multiple times a day on a daily basis in order for you decide that it needs to be addressed. The text above is the evidence presented for SanAnMan's pattern of behavior, and was greatly reduced in length from my previous presentation. It cannot be conveyed with non-annotated diffs alone. If I'm wrong, then by all means: Tell me what specific part or parts of it you would remove? Feel free to use the sandbox if you want. And if you can't answer this because you haven't read it, well then, how do you know that the essential information can be conveyed with diffs alone? Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do you find it an effective strategy to insult the people you are asking to take action? Does that often work for you? When you call the cops because your neighbor's party is too loud, do you call the responding officers names and accuse them of being lazy and apathetic? Do you find that gets better results? And when they come, do you give the cops the history of every conflict you've had with that neighbor, from the time they moved into the neighborhood, instead of just telling them that the party is too loud and is annoying you?Are you getting the point I'm trying to make? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do you find it an effective strategy to label legitimate criticism with the spin-doctored term "insults" in order to evade giving actual consideration to the criticism because you lack the character to do so?
- Funny you should ask. When I've called the cops to complain about the neighbors' noise, the cops did something truly astonishing.
- THEY DID THEIR JOB. Are you getting that point? Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, an editor blanked a page, fabricated a consensus that did not exist, even falsely name-dropping other parties to this "agreement", and has not falsified all the evidence that clearly shows that this was an attempt a OWN-type behavior, or even addressed that evidence, and has also exhibited other examples that go to this pattern, but you and the others here have refused to respond to it. You know what that does? It sends the message to people like that that they can get away with that behavior until it reaches such a critical mass that one has to go through the task of ArbComa before they face consequences for it. And what's your excuse? "Oh, it's too long to read! Can you put it in the form of a soundbite or a tweet?. The problem is not "insults." The problem is that ANI is a paper tiger filled with people who have historically refused to address problems like this in an appropriate manner. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, even this ANI is getting nasty. Maybe a cooling off for the parties is needed. The blanking does sound egregious and probably deserves a closer looking at. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I read your massive wall of text, again, and you're literally just re-reporting the same thing. And these issues are exceptionally petty, and they have already been assessed to be unactionable by an administrator (me). You're not going to get better results beating the dead horse a month later. Even if you had a convincing case originally (which you didn't), the issue is stale now. When most people get into disputes, they seek out dispute resolution via community consensuses. If you want improved results, follow WP:BRD, seek third opinions, form local consensuses on the talk page, use content noticeboards when possible, and if all else fails, use RFCs liberally to form binding community decisions, even host them at a village pump or relevant Wikiproject to reach generalized decisions on things like comma usage or when a TV episode should be created, assuming there is no clear policy or consensus on these things already. If this comes back here, you're likely going to get an interaction ban and nothing else. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Experienced closer(s) needed for second Daily Mail RfC.
This RfC hits the 30-day mark in 3 days. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail.
This is a very contentious subject, and is likely to be challenged whichever way it goes. In my opinion should be closed by someone with a lot of experience and a thick skin. There may be some benefit to having one or two other admins cosign the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I volunteer to be a closer. I have not looked at RfC, and I have no time until the (European) evening anyway, so I am going to wait for two more volunteers willing to spend their New Year holidays on the close.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like a party, Ymblanter, happy to join in. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I skimmed over it and it seems that the !voters in favor of removing the ban primarily advocate evaluating its use on a case-by-case basis. But unless I'm missing something, the existing rule is that the Daily Mail "is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". That seems to be saying that there already isn't an absolute ban and if you can make a really, really strong case for its inclusion in a particular article, we'll listen to you. --B (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the bar is arbitrarily high, that's really no different from being infinitely high. Has such an exception ever been made since the first RfC? Hobit (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail would have to publish something that is worth using as a reference for anyone to argue that an exception should be made, and they have not done that. They haven't even come close. If the new editor ever decides to have TDM clean up their act, we could very well see such exceptions. The reason why there have been no exception so far is not that we set the high-jump bar too high, but rather that TDM isn't playing a game of high-jump. They are instead playing a game of limbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)- Erm, folks, this is not the place to be continuing the argument! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Point well taken. I have striken my last comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, folks, this is not the place to be continuing the argument! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the bar is arbitrarily high, that's really no different from being infinitely high. Has such an exception ever been made since the first RfC? Hobit (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- A third closer, anyone?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am willing to be the third admin. I've done some contentious closes, though this would be my first multi-party closure. I did not participate in either the current RFC or the January 2017 edition. Vanamonde (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Email sent. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have not received anything. Did you use Wikimail for me or the address you used last time (which is different from what I have now as Wikimail)? In any case, I need to read the discussion which so far I have not even looked at.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I sent it to Vanamonde93 via Wikipedia, including in it the email we used last time we corresponded. If that doesn't return correctly when they reply to my initial email, I'll CC you via Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have not received anything. Did you use Wikimail for me or the address you used last time (which is different from what I have now as Wikimail)? In any case, I need to read the discussion which so far I have not even looked at.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Email sent. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter, Primefac, and Vanamonde93: We are now past the 30 days. Should this be closed with a note that the closers are working on a closing statement? Otherwise it is likely for some innocent editor to close it, not realizing the shitstorm he is walking into. "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel."[21]
I have a procedural request: The last Daily Mail RfC ended up on an archive page all by itself. I believe this was because it was so large, but it turns out that doing it that makes it very easy to refer to the RfC in future conversation, of which there have been a lot (and no doubt many more to come). ---Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- We are in regular contact but are still reading the RfC, and it could easily take a week more to close it. I would not object closing the RfC for comments if Primefac and Vanamonde93 are fine with that as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've closed the section just as a precaution. As a minor note, Guy Macon, the WP:DAILYMAIL close didn't end up on its own page, just at the top of it. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- No objections to a temporary close from me; we're working on the final statement. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- No doubt The Daily Mail has already prepared a detailed rebuttal, including several direct quotes from your closing statement and various people's reaction to it.[22] I'm just saying. :) Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- No objections to a temporary close from me; we're working on the final statement. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've closed the section just as a precaution. As a minor note, Guy Macon, the WP:DAILYMAIL close didn't end up on its own page, just at the top of it. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Although exerting caution when closing it makes some sense, it makes me a bit nervous to be so cautious here. This RFC is by any reasonable reading actually more one-sided than the one that led to the Mail originally getting depreciated as a source. Treating it with extreme caution risks sending the message that the outcome is in doubt by making it look closer than it is. The first one needed a cautious close because it was taking an unprecedented step; but treating every single appeal to it with the same caution risks encouraging people to constantly challenge it and means we'll be wasting far more time and energy than necessary on challenges to a policy that, on the whole, does not actually seem to be very controversial (even if many of the people opposed are very vehemently opposed, this is an extremely clear RFC result by any reasonable standard.) Obviously consensus can change and all that, but in the total absence of any indication that it's changed (and given that it's reasonably clear the people who respect the Mail as a source have no intention of backing down in the long term), treating every single rehash of the debate as a five-alarm fire seems unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think any caution is needed regarding the outcome, but I do think that, based upon the personal attacks on the proposer and closers and the willful misinterpretations and bullshit arguments regarding the result of the last RfC that I have seen posted on some of the more flaky corners of the internet, the close should be carefully worded and should have multiple closers standing behind it in an attempt to avoid "one person decided" and "the closer got it completely wrong" accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Now Dacre is gone I don't expect a similar witch hunt, but it is as well to be cautious. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, I do think that the consensus here should be read carefully. Particularly, I think that nuances within peoples voting, expressions about when people think this issue should next be reopened etc. should be given due weight. I deplore off-wiki lambasting of people involved in the dispute. I also do not think that the supporters of removing the ban were the only people writing with vehemence. I am not sure why the argument is being continued on this page, particularly I do not know why people involved in the debate are talking with such certainty about what they believe the result will be here. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Now Dacre is gone I don't expect a similar witch hunt, but it is as well to be cautious. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The close has been completed and the closing summery posted. In my personal opinion, the closers did an excellent job. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone look (and fix?) at the Puerto Rico Highway 163 (aka, PR-163) Talk Page? I believe the PR-163's Talk Page should be titled "Talk:Puerto Rico Highway 163", but it reads "Talk:Avenida Las Américas", apparently because I used the Avenida Las Américas article as a starting point to the creation of the Puerto Rico Highway 163 article. Some (somewhat) related discussion is located HERE. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Mercy11, I deleted the redirect that was present on the talk page. You can create it with the appropriate banners, etc. now. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Will do! Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mercy11 and TonyBallioni: There was no need for the deletion. For future reference, see the instructions about creating and editing redirects. Graham87 03:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I’m aware. I just thought having the redirect in the history was kinda pointless and this would be easier for the user. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mercy11 and TonyBallioni: There was no need for the deletion. For future reference, see the instructions about creating and editing redirects. Graham87 03:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Will do! Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Requesting undo of renaming of followed Article: 2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute
FYI: Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute
This article has been discussed and concluded to move and rename, to retain neutrality of article, from 'Korean Navy radar lock-on incident' to '2018 Japanese-Korean naval dispute', as user's consensus. But, afterwhile, someone moved and renamed the article arbitrarily, without any notice in the discussion page. I think this is unaccepted action, violating rules and ignoring user's consensus.
Hence, I requesting Undo renaming of the article suggested on the subject. Thanks. Funny365com (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- This was done by Phoenix7777 who you forgot to notify. I'll go do so. The move was done under the grounds of WP:PRECISE. I don't see any abuse there, but other admins are free to disagree. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't discussed at all. You requested a move, and someone moved it for you, not because a consensus was formed, but because it was uncontroversial. There is no consensus to speak of. Now it has been moved back, which is acceptable per WP:BRD. You can discuss further on the talk page if you disagree.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I blocked Funny365com with a soft block as per WP:USERNAME. I expect they'll pick a new username and continue the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I think you seem to have misunderstood something. User Funny365com's account name is not companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups name. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: Their home wiki is kowiki with over 200 contributions. Username violation or not, account creation should not be disabled, since I doubt they wish to rename globally. If this is a username violation, they probably will want to create a new account to contribute on enwiki. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
indefinite (account creation blocked)
- it looks like some gremlin has converted a soft block into a hard block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding username, by the grandfather clause, this is the relevant version of the username policy. This is identical to current wording.
Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page
. Since the domain does not seem to have been registered at the time, nor is registered now, I don't think this is a good block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)- I have converted it to a soft block. Making it a hard block was unintentional. Any admin is free to lift the block if they wish. At various times throughout the life of the account, funny365.com has been active and serving sponsored listings. As such, I believe it fails the "commercial web page" part of WP:USERNAME. funny365.com is not currently active, though, so if an admin believes my block should be overturned on that basis, please just do so. No need to further consult me. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've unblocked based on that and also that per WP:UPOL "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have converted it to a soft block. Making it a hard block was unintentional. Any admin is free to lift the block if they wish. At various times throughout the life of the account, funny365.com has been active and serving sponsored listings. As such, I believe it fails the "commercial web page" part of WP:USERNAME. funny365.com is not currently active, though, so if an admin believes my block should be overturned on that basis, please just do so. No need to further consult me. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've changed my name from funny365com to Bluepolarbear247. Thanks for noticing name rules to me. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- It seems like I misunderstood how wikipedia discussion system works. So, it's not consensus, and someone just move article for me, right? And I should discuss again to change its name. but Is it good to any wikipedia user change an name of article, without discussion, eventhough there was previous discussion related on renaming? (Anyway, I'll continue discussion about renaming in article above) - Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to have been some confusion over what happened here. Funny365com/Bluepolarbear247 never requested a move that happened without discussion. Actually they started a RM (didn't check if it was done completely properly). After 22 hours and 2 people supporting the proposal (including the initiator/Funny365com) and 2 other commentators who express no clear opinion, the move was actioned by a third party who had already been involved in the article [23] [24] [25] [26]. The page was then moved to a different title [27] with the reason given as WP:PRECISE. The new title was not the same as the original title, instead it had elements of both the old title and new one i.e. was a partial revert. IMO, the actions here are reasonable. The first move was almost a bold move, since there was only 20 hours allowed for discussion and only 2 or 3 (if the mover was also expressing their support) in support so could have been reverted as with all BOLD moves. Since Phoenix7777 I guess doesn't disagree with one element of the move, they only partly reverted. The new discussion can decide whether the current title or the original proposal are better, and both editors who expressed an opinion have already done so in the new discussion so it doesn't matter much whether it would have been better to reopen the older discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I here doff my hat
Any passing admin, please remove my event coordinator right. I am not able to participate in such activities at present, and if I need it back I will request it again. Thank you for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Use of conflict-of-interest source after warning
I warned Sohail Anwar Es (talk · contribs) about using a blog the user owns as an external link in November 2018. Use of this blog has been repeated in December 2018 and twice today [28] [29]. All of the user's edits have been associated with adding links to this blog. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done I've just blocked this account. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Messed up permission grant
Hi, I was granted temporary eventcoordinator rights and for one account, MetricSwitch, I forgot to set the confirmed right to auto-expire. I don't have the ability to remove or edit it, so would someone revise it to expire in a day? Alternatively, the event is over so you could probably just remove it (and my eventcoord right since I no longer need it) at your discretion. Thanks! Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done @Wugapodes: I set the standard expiry on it. Thanks for letting us know. — xaosflux Talk 22:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested eyes at some AfD weirdness
Would someone mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model (pinging nominator, Anthony Appleyard)? I asked AA, but didn't understand the response – he said he deleted it, but the page log doesn't show it being deleted yet). There was maybe some sort of COPYVIO question, but wouldn't that be more appropriate through CSD, where it was originally, or at least removal of offending text? The claimed source isn't accessible for me right now, so I can't even check on that much. In any case, there doesn't seem to be an actual AfD rationale there, so there's nothing to discuss. Apologies in advance if I shouldn't be bringing this here (the notice says specific help requests should go to ANI, but ANI says it's for urgent problems, and this doesn't seem urgent, so I dunno), but the whole thing is just kind of strange. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete Binary Independence Model (speedy delete tagged for copyvio) after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The AfD is now closed, so the discussion here can be, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, so we're closing all the discussions? We need to reopen the AFD, unless the page gets deleted some other way (hasn't yet happened) or we come to some resolution here (also hasn't happened). Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The AfD is now closed, so the discussion here can be, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones
Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.
Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:
- [30] reverts [31] and [32] reverts [33]
- [34] reverts [35] and [36] reverts [37]
- [38] reverts [39] and [40] reverts [41]
- [42] reverts [43] and [44] reverts [45]
Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [46]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [47] a revert of [48]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [46]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
- So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
- Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
- Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- "And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.
- "The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Kiwicherryblossom
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Kiwicherryblossom
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Kiwicherryblossom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Syrian Civil War
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 20 May 2018 Insertion of "allegedly" into description of smear campaign against the White Helmets.
- 31 May 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
- 3 June 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
- 9 June 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede.
- 12 June 2018 Attempt to get "alleged" put into the title of a chemical attack.
- June-December 2018 Bludgeoning over a period of months to attempt to get "alleged" put into the title or text of a different chemical attack.
- 30 November 2018 Insertion of "alleged" into the lede after said bludgeoning proved ineffective.
- 3 December 2018 Insertion of "suspected" into the lede.
- 27 December 2018 Attempt at synthesis to claim Syrian rebels could have stolen helicopters and sarin to perpetrate an attack generally attributed to the regime.
- 27 December 2018 Well poisoning the UN Human Rights Council.
- 5 January 2019 Cherry-picking a blog to promote a viewpoint not supported by the blog. Inserting POV material into lede of the article without discussion.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Warned by Neutrality.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Essentially all of the editor's contributions from May 2018 to the present are edits to downplay, promote uncertainty of, or deny a number of chemical attacks generally attributed to the government of Syria. Taken as a whole, I believe their editing pattern is in clear violation of WP:TE and comprises a long-term pattern of edit warring. As a remedy, I propose a topic ban for all all topics related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Kiwicherryblossom
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Kiwicherryblossom
I still think that even in articles about the Syrian Civil War, regardless of our own point of view, we should respect the principle that “alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial” MOS:ALLEGED. However I shall steer clear of the topic for a while. Thanks to Darouet, Huldra and Govindaharihari for your support and points well made. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Kiwicherryblossom
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Thank you for this report. It was in the wrong place but I’m going to evaluate it on the substance after moving it here. Your diffs check out. I am inclined to implement a topic ban of maximum length because this editor has been creating a lot of trouble for a long time. Jehochman Talk 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The diffs above are very disruptive for the reasons given, and others, and they don't appear to be cherry picked. I'd support a topic ban from the Syrian Civil War. Hut 8.5 13:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have counseled the user and they accept the terms. diff and permalink. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban
Note: This is a community discretionary sanction enforcement discussion. The template instructions/structure was copied from WP:AE.
- This is not a vote. If you want to give a reason with evidence, that's fine. Jehochman Talk 20:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Involved editors
Support indefinite topic ban from edits related to Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The basis of this complaint is sound as I've observed in my editing at Douma chemical attack. Kiwicherryblossom's editing for the past eight months has been almost entirely focused on promoting the fringe point of view that chemical weapons attacks have not taken place in Syria, or that they were cause by rebel groups. This POV defies a large body of reliable sources that conclude otherwise. For example, Kiwicherryblossom extracted a quote from this blog ("various chlorinated organic chemicals" which might – or might not – be the result of chlorine used as a weapon”.) while ignoring the rest of the source which makes clear that chlorine in its pure form cannot be detected "some time later".[50]. Kiwicherryblossom has made similar edits to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. [51][52][53][54][55]. Kiwicherryblossom frequently cites unreliable sources, blogs, primary sources, and uses cherry picking and original research to synthesize their conclusions. They bludgeon discussions, repeating arguments in slightly different forms, apparently in effort to exhaust other editors. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose and request more eyes at Talk:Douma chemical attack. As I've pointed out on the talk page in these comments [56], [57], mainstream reliable sources often use tentative language when describing the Douma attack. Typical is this report from the BBC [58], stating that the OPCW's findings "suggests chlorine may have been used in April's suspected chemical attack."
As far as I can tell Kiwi has argued for use of similar language in the article.
By contrast, in this edit [59] MrX incorrectly attributes a US defense department statement to the BBC. When this error is pointed out to them [60], MrX responds that they "don't understand" [61] and doubles down on their error.
Both MrX and VQuakr have attempted to portray the BBC's language and similar language from reliable sources as "fringe," which is a gross misuse of that policy. As I stated on the talk page it would be a major editorial failure to convert the tentative language of reliable sources into encyclopedic certainty, but that is what MrX and VQuakr are asking that we do. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think your confusion arises from the fact that VQuakr and I are not relying on one or two sources, but rather looking a large number of sources, most of which report the same general conclusion that Douma was likely attacked with chemical weapons and chlorine was one of the chemicals likely use in the attack.- MrX 🖋 20:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Darouet:, the reason I generated this request was because I believe the editor's contributions, as a whole, are disruptively tendentious. That is critically different than having a content or editorial disagreement with them. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Heh, heh, the problem is that you also have a content/editorial disagreement with Kiwi, as is clear to anyone using one minute on the issue. But you are of course free to claim (or even to believe) that that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you want Kiwi topic banned, Huldra (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, and I also ask for more eyes on all articles in any way related to the Syrian war. In my 13 year on Wikipedia; these are among the worst articles I have found here. On Douma chemical attack, not only is Brian Whitaker denied a voice, so is Robert Fisk (when I told that to a journalist friend, he was literally speechless). I know the British Foreign Office have spend millions and millions of pounds spinning their versions to the press, with great success, it seems. Alas, spin, and facts are not the same thing. (Remember all those WMD that Saddam Hussein had?) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editors
- Support - as per reasons given by @MrX. WP:TENDENTIOUS edits on complex topics about the Middle East is disruptive behavior that does not show good faith and @Kiwicherryblossom's editing also exhibits the hallmarks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT via WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Huldra says it clearly. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huldra literally said nothing about Kiwicherryblossom's conduct, but OK. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree MrX. The issue here is about conduct. There is ample evidence to show that @Kiwicherryblossom is not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huldra literally said nothing about Kiwicherryblossom's conduct, but OK. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mailing lists - wikiEN-l shutdown and archive
At one time, this mailing list was an important policy discussion and decision-making venue. It has not seen more than a handful of forwarded posts in the last few years, and no significant discussion for the last ten, but its archives are an important historical record that include, among other things, early requests for adminship. I think we should formally close the mailing list to new posts, so that the archive will be static and fixed, and can be more readily preserved.
If there is a reason to keep the list open to new posts, we should identify some new list administrators, since most of the current list administrators are not presently active participants in the project. UninvitedCompany 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Are you proposing a shutdown, or are you merely asking that people sign up to be list admins? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Softblock and a ticked box
Example: [62]
I thought softerblock had "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (or just all boxes) unticked. This tick seems unchangeable. Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- It may have been that Dlohcierekim ticked that box accidentally, or did it intentionally but didn't realize the block summary said "soft block". If that wasn't it, it may be a regression bug. I say this only because there has been a lot of code changes to how blocks work lately. — MusikAnimal talk 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Err, actually I think that option isn't supposed to be there at all when blocking accounts, only IPs. So, probably a bug. — MusikAnimal talk 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The idea is to block the problem account and allow account creation. TWINKLE did the box box-checking for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- It won't let me change the block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, yes it is MediaWiki going insane. A fix will go out soon. Dlohcierekim made no error. It appears to be entirely a UI problem, too. It is not a hard-block, even though it may look like it when going to re-block. — MusikAnimal talk 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to look into this much, but I believe a histmerge of some kind is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Headbomb, a history merge would be a bad idea, since the histories overlap completely. Simply redirecting one to the other would work perfectly well, since they're virtually identical; if you replaced the current contents of Chiquibul with the current contents of The Chiquibul, you'd get these changes. I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) taken over in the Lightbreather case is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather
The bot that updates the table is broke. Can anyone make repairs.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Cyberpower678 Hhkohh (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: I know it's not ideal but as an interim solution if you go to the unblock template page and choose "what links here" and filter it to transclusions you'll have an up-to-date list. SITH (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @StraussInTheHouse: Thanks. Hadn't thought of that. I've been just looking at the one's my browser says I haven't been to before.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Global ban discussion
Per the requirements, notice is given that a discussion concerning globally banning Til Eulenspiegel from all WMF projects is now taking place on Meta. This discussion can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel. Nick (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Review of JohnThorne topic ban
More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future?