User talk:Just Step Sideways

Welcome to my talk page

I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.

I am an oversighter, but it is generally inadvisable to discuss oversight matters on-wiki. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion, but you can email me if you prefer.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

please stay in the top three tiers

Tom Baker

Hi, thanks for semi protecting Tom Baker, but I'm wondering if it should actually be full-protected? The semi will stop the edit warring, for sure, but technically Vyselink has breached 3RR, and the article isn't on my preferred version, as I said on talk. From my experience with the Best known for IP, he will jump on anything that appears to favour registered editors, and in this instance I think it's best for everybody to calm down and sort out the dispute on talk. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I support Ritchie333's call for a full block, as to be honest, as the talk page shows, the Best-known for IP will be back, and will start this again. I will take complete responsibility for breaching 3RR, my only explanation being that the only time I have done so was against the Best-known for IP's editing at Tom Baker, and that I did attempt to have a conversation with the IP both times this issue has come up. But I did break 3RR, and will accept without fight any punitive action you deem appropriate. Even against the IP editor, I will be more careful in the future not break 3RR. My apologies. Vyselink (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't do punitive stuff round here, I'm afraid. My aim isn't to get anyone's wrist slapped for violating 3RR, but rather, the lead of that article is still in flux, and I'd rather get a proper consensus on it with more views without anyone being tempted to change the wrong version. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I did consider full protection as it is an edit war which by definition must Involve at least two users, but it looked like the IP was evading a block to edit war. Perhaps I should have looked a little deeper as I did not realize this was an LTA case. Although edit warring certainly occured I think we can let it pass given that the IP is apparently a notorious troll. Of course you are correct that in a situation like this the best thing is always WP:BRD. I don't think we should be worried about the IPs reaction in this case as it doesn't matter, someone like that will freak out no matter what we do and I wouldn't to put an article under full protection just to assuage the concerns of a troll. Let's let it be for the moment, if disruption starts back up other action may be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I admit I have deliberately copyedited the phrase "best known for" out of BLPs where it makes sense to do so, simply because it prevents so much edit warring and incredibly long talk page threads that go round in circles until everyone's exhausted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Superfeedr

Browsing the new pages I came across this page, which I noticed that you had previously deleted per an AfD. I don't know how to check what the page looked like before it was deleted, so I thought I'd ask you: has much changed since before, or does the article qualify for WP:CSD#G4? Pishcal — ♣ 19:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the deleted version was a two-sentence stub, so it has been significantly expanded. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your hard work! Enjoy a digital cookie! Bananasoldier (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lippert

The source is a published newspaper, KCNA, Korean Central News Agency. Kim is the member of a political group which demands the end of the war. It should makes sense considering the political statements that he screamed during the assault. White Anunnaki (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something is getting lost in translation here, but the source's tone, combined with the use of the phrases like "puppet police" and "madcap saber rattling" gives the impression is not a neutral publication that simply reports the facts. In fact, it reads as if the reporter thinks it is perfectly ok to cut an ambassador in the face if you are opposed to war, and that all Koreans feel that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I get it now, this is the central news agency for North Korea. In other words, a propaganda tool for the Kim regime that actual North Koreans mostly can't even access. That's not going to be considered a reliable source, not by a long shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found another source that confirms it so the information was reliable. White Anunnaki (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you use that source and just forget about eh North Korean one and what it had to say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

All newspapers have an opinion; that one has an opinion opposed to yours does not make it less reliable, as it was proven in this case. White Anunnaki (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that most newspapers publish opinions on the opinion pages instead of just mixing them in with the news, complete with over-the-top hyperbole. They may have been right about the man belonging to that group, but overall it was an extremely biased piece of reporting. I don't think you'll have much luck convincing anyone that an official mouthpiece for the North Korean government can be considered a reliable source of factual information. Feel free to take this up at the noticeboard if you don't want to take my word for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

White Anunnaki created an account two days ago but is citing rules like a Wikipedia vet making pro-North Korea edits attacking human rights articles, excessive tagging, citing North Korea propaganda sources etc most of which are being reverted by multiple editors across many articles. -- GreenC 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I wondered if I wasn't being trolled when I realized the source we were discussing was the official news service of North Korea. However, as I was involved here on an editorial level so I can't get involved on an administrative level. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Hi, Beeblebrox,
I noticed you closed the BLPN discussion on this article several months ago. Now, Andy the Grump has blanked the article as a BLP violation. I assume if this was the correct act, it would have come up in your decision so I hope you will review this edit to weigh in on whether the article should be deleted. It has already survived Prods and speedy deletes. Of course, it is also being discussed at AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. This situation seems to be spiraling out of control, with several users acting rather unreasonable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's been a contentious discussion page for a long time but this is a knee jerk reaction, to delete most/all of the article's content and then protect the article to admins-only. It disregards the lengthy discussion that have already occurred on the content of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The current situation is not optimal to be sure. I don't get why those alleging libel are refusing to contact the oversight team about it. That's exactly what we are there for. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Most, if any NPOV problems that existed in that article were incredibly subtle. Things like depicting one journalist's or another's analysis of the situation as biased, or bickering about the length of the accused's section in the article in comparison to the accuser's. None of these NPOV disputes really escalated to libelous, in my opinion. I think this was just a way for several users to de facto poke at the few they disagreed with. It really had nothing to do with libel in the first place.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Beeblebrox, Just wanted to say thanks for your help with the SPI, I'm not all that familiar with it so perhaps wasn't a good idea to drag them there, That said I guess it's better to be safe than sorry,
Anyway I've apologized to the user & all that so no harm done
Thanks for your help - Much appreicated :)
Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What to do?

What should I do for that user? (willfilm123) Since I just doubt it, should I proceed? or should I wait till I am 100% sure?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As i was saying at AN, you could try just talking to them about it. Or, if you're really not sure and their editing is otherwise OK you could just ignore it. Most of the time people with seemingly promotional usernames are acting in good faith and simply aren't aware of the WP:ORGNAME policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Still should I let the user know, to avoid future problems?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 22:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Thanks for the close; to be honest, I had completely forgotten about that, and only "remembered" when it popped up on my watchlist just now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that WP:UAA has been so busy lately that other username-related pages like RFCN and WP:UAA/HP have been getting very little attention. Seems to be the result of some UAA regulars moving on to other things, combined with some overzealous reporting of things that are not blatant violations. Anyhoo, you're welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I now?

Hi Beeblebrox, you may remember me from rejecting a request in WP:PERM/RV. You advised me to gain a bit more experience.. I think I'm sufficiently experienced now... Can I go for a request in WP:PERM/RV? Please do enlighten me...! Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You may file another request there whenever you think you are ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet letter

Is it necessary to leave the scarlet letter on User:Dicklyon, or can my master's user page be restored as a representation of his meager accomplishments now that he is officially retired? 73.222.28.191 (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Word can barely express how little I care one way or another, but I would point out that when he was initially blocked he made a big deal out of saying how much he didn't care and would just take a break, and it turned out he was already operating multiple accounts when he said that, so his word that he really is "retired" is not something I would trust until a lot more time has gone by without further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Hello Beeblebrox

Thanks for your attention at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. However your edit summary that " neither of you seem to know what this is " seemed to be amazing an ridiculous to me. I really don't like sounding rude here but this seemed to be painful. How on earth will you imagine that I don't know what WP:AUTOPATROLLED flag is? Although, it is never a tool but a user right or flag. Its a mistake to call it a tool and that should be understandable rather than such a ridiculous edit summary. As at the time user:Utogi applied for the flag, they never stated any reason why they need the flag and that is why I pointed them to that essay. The essay advised that "If you are applying for rights, be sure to show why you think you can improve Wikipedia by having those rights, generally by showing a positive record of actions and attitude. Don't just assert that you'll find the tool useful, give evidence of why you need the tool" the essay also advised that "If you are applying for autopatrol, point to the articles you created" meanwhile the user never pointed to any article they had created. The "Hello everyone" does not make any difference and meaning. Am aware they meant WP:HATSHOP and I never accused the editor of hat collecting either, am only pointing them to the advice above. Having mistakenly called the user right a tool does not warrant such an edit summary. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikicology, whether did know what autopatrolled is or not, you not only mislead the editor by using the wrong terminology and linking to the wrong page, you in no way were aiding the responding admin in making their decision. The PERM noticeboards are not a venue to interrogate or patronize editors (though that may have not been your intent). If you feel you must make comments like this, do so on their talk page, though you should respect the process and allow the admins to handle it. Constructive comments such as "this user recently had an article deleted as copyright violation" are fine, but keep a neutral tone and don't act like you are above them. Meanwhile you have had inadvertantly caused other disruption at PERM ([1][2][3]). I know you mean well and are trying to help, but perhaps you should leave the requests for permissions to those who can action upon them (and the clerking to the bots). Instead, consider putting your valued editing skills to work elsewhere, where you will have a greater impact on the project than this tiny corner of the admin backlog. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal and Beeblebrox. I will adhere strictly to your advice. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Answer

In a word... I wanted to include igloo. This program writes: "Warning: rollback rights are required to use igloo. Loading stopped". O.K. ?. I wanted to use permissions, including autopatrolled an rollback. I wanted to participate against vandalism. Don’t be nervous, please. I beg your pardon!. - OTOGI ^Messages 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If you wanted rollback, perhaps you should have, you know, asked for rollback. The right way to do that would be by posting a request at the apropriate page that explained why you felt you needed it and why you believe you have the required level of experience.

But that's not what you did, you filed a request for autopatrolled that just said "hi everyone!" and nothing else. I'm concerned that you apparently don't understand that the way you went about this was wrong in every way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with you !. It's my fault... :). - OTOGI ^Messages 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFP/R

Hello, you recently declined my request for this permission, which I completely respect. You listed my mishap with WilyD as the main reason for this, stating that I did several things wrong which I get. The misunderstanding was based on a believed piece of policy in my head which was that editors do not generally remove CSD tags (especially when they had been tagged by an admin) but clicked on the "contest this speedy deletion" button. Now I admit fully I was wrong, and don't know where I even got the initial conception from. I then added the template to Wily's user page (and as you mentioned I changed the default text). You said that I did not consider the possibility that I was mistaken, when I did (why else would I have asked another experienced editor for advice?) and then promptly realised my mistake and set about fixing the problem. I do believe that this was an isolated incident, based on a single misconception in my mind that led to one or two other non-brilliant outcomes. However, I would ask that you reconsider your decline, especially as I made a good number of reverts over the last day or so, and I believe that I am getting it right a good deal more often than not. I understand if you decline, as it was not an attractive mistake to make, but I do ask that you reconsider, as I believe that it was more or less a one-off with no other related incidents in the near past (that I can see). Cheers, JZCL 19:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said when I declined it, I don't see it as anything but an isolated incident, but it was a serious misunderstanding that happened very recently, and that you, initially handled very badly. If nothing like this happens again I could see a new request being approved in a few weeks or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK I understand. _{Dammit, if I'd just made that request a few weeks before; that was the worst mistake I'd made in years...} Joking asides it's good that you guys pick up on stuff like that which could indeed potentially be libelous. I will indeed re-post in 2 weeks or so. Thanks, JZCL 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey about that RFPERM

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

---

I just thought I would clarify about that whole RFPP thing. As you may have noticed, I keep an eye on RFPP and comment from time to time when I feel it necessary. I never actually close, except this time it was just so incredibly obvious there was no chance, I figured I would help out seeing no obvious harm in the action. The issue arose when WV an editor from past disputes magically shows up, having not edited there in months (other than last time an editor he disputes with wanted a permission) and reverts it. Now as I said, I'm not overly bothered, just trying to reduce admin workload when it is something fairly obvious like this. I'll let the regulars come by and confirm, though I feel they will agree., as it wasn't that big of a deal, I was quite confident one of you would come round and reclose the same way. However WV then launched a (in my opinion) unneeded attack basically, "I couldn't care less if you're bothered or not ... You're not an admin, ... you still over-stepped and made an inappropriate move. ... inappropriate and out of line for this page...". Now I'm sorry this bothered me, I had already struckthrough my ND and NAC and was fine to let someone else handle it, but he decided he needed to make it a fight by editing my comment and adding his reply. Is it just me that finds it interesting how he shows up at places I edit? This isn't the first time either... But anyway I just wished to explain my actions, just so you wouldn't think I was jumping out of line or trying to restore my close as WV tried to make it sound. SOrry for any inconvenience, and I guess I won't be helping out with semi-admin task anymore, even though that is one of the main reasons I edit, I don't particularly enjoy adding content... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your comments were 100% accurate and it was an obvious decline. It was certainly not my intent to make you feel unwelcome, it's just that lately it feels like PERM requests are getting more help from non-admins than is actually needed to manage backlogs, which are usually not a serious issue.

In contrast, some of our deletion processes have experienceing some larger backlogs, and there are things that can be done there as well, mostly non-admin closes of obvious "keep" outcomes or declining of flawed speedy deletion nominations or PRODs. Although I do enjoy it sometimes, I was never a serious article writer myself, that's pretty much why I became an admin. Wikipedia needs different kinds of users, article writers to create the content, and... well... I guess pretty much everyone else to maintain it. That would include admins, arbcom, crats, checkusers, and so on, but also folks who do vandal fighting, new page patrol, copyediting, and of course closing of discussions where an administrator is not required (this is why we don't really do NACs at PERM, they aren't normally considered discussions and as such don't really need a close, just a yes or no response. The one big exception is requests for the confirmed permission, where the rules are so narrow and it a permission so few users actually need that almost everyone gets told no).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I wouldn't want to just chase you off from contributing at PERM, there are many other areas that could benefit more from non-admn, non-content writing users like yourself. And if you do plan to become an admin yourself someday, a diversity of contributions in admin related areas (especially CSD) is a big help at RFA. Hope that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned here, I feel I have a right to correct some incorrect statements by EoRdE6. I didn't just "magically" appear at Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. It's on my watchlist. Further, it's not the first time I have said/edited anything there for months. I commented there just a couple of weeks ago. Again, it's on my watchlist -- I go by there a few times a week. That's the only reason why I knew EoRdE6 had closed and added the "Not Done' notice. That's all there is to it. No hounding or stalking of edits (as is being implied). And yes, I was curt in my comments. Why? Because EoRdE6 has acted in such a reckless manner before, crossing a boundary he shouldn't have -- one example is here [4], where he not only messed with the interface but also uploaded a screen shot of my contributions to commons and then posted it as an "example" of his work at Village Pump. He was told at VP in no uncertain terms how out of line he was with what he did and when a few administrators took him to task about uploading my contributions, he got the message -- or so I thought. Today's close by him was just more of the same kind of pushing the envelope. Hence, the reason for my tone with him at RFPPCR. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to continue this conversation, we both know it will get nowhere but I wish to correct just a few things in your statement. I did not "where he not only messed with the interface", only admins can do that anyway. Interface pages are full protected and I'm sure you know that. After I received a message from you, I immediately tagged the image for speedy deletion, then contacted a commons admin for immediate removal. As I said at the time, it hadn't even occurred to me what page the screenshot was of, it was simply the only one I took before the issue was fixed. I apologised for the issue and thought that was behind us. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"After I received a message from you, I immediately tagged the image for speedy deletion" Completely untrue. Two different editors and one administrator had to stay on you about doing it. You hemmed and hawed and kept linking to the screenshot (and was told to stop doing so). It took at least an hour after being told you were out of line for you to do anything about it at all. Long after I complained about it. I don't have time to provide diffs to the comments about it at your talk page and mine, but anyone can look at March 31, 2015 at both talk pages to get the whole, correct story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Good point...

..with the GlobalRenameRequest facility, administrators might block a user for username while the target's username request is pending. Fortunately, with steward and global renamer coverage, requests to that queue don't linger for long. (Mind, in the case you mentioned, the user accidentally filed the request onwiki while logged out and then fixed it.) –xeno^talk 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add something to {{uw-username}} asking the user to add a notification or a diff to their talk page if they make a rename request? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's not unheard of for admins to block for username even when the editor has made an onwiki request. One of my pet peeves :). –xeno^talk 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

SD0001

Could you also un-protect this editor's user page? I believe that the alternate account that they used should be noted there. BMK (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My Topic ban

Hi Beeblebrox. You just imposed a topic ban on me at ANI. There seems to have been some great confusion in the !voting during this ANI. The original proposal was "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI".(my emphasis) May I respectfully suggest that extending this to "all pages related to human biomedicine" is not in line with the way that people were !voting and you may have misunderstood . I did not even defend myself against such a broad topic ban because I did not think I had to. I can't remember the last time I edited a conventional human biomedicine article and in alt.med, other than acupuncture, in the last month only 2 edits on reflexology, 10 edits on acupressure and 1 on Reiki. May I please ask you to reconsider the scope of this topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion, and I do not believe I worded the tban notice correctly. I don't think you're going to like what I changed it to very much but I believe this is in fact what the majority of supporters were in favor of. It has been noted that when you avoid these topics you seem to get along much better. I would advise you to simply stay away from anything that could possibly be construed as being anywhere near the scope of this ban, I think you will find that editing will be a more enjoyable experience for you if you do. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict).Beeblebrox, thanks for closing this ANI thread. Just a detail, though… while nobody who's been following the discussion could possibly misunderstand the close, still, uh, if somebody just catches sight of the thread, or clicks on the TOC to look, it'll kind of look like it's JzG who's been topic banned. See what I mean? But I don't suppose that's a big deal, it might even amuse him. (Get a screenshot, Guy!) Thanks for taking on this sad mess, Beeb, good job, and I'm glad it's over. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC). I think that is an extremely important point - the uncivility of JzG toward me has not yet been dealt with.DrChrissy (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC) You think what is an extremely important point?? Please quote where I make the important point. Sorry, Beeb, I'm done on your page for now. I shouldn't be responding to DrC here, I was just so surprised. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC). Also, there was some discussion on ANI about the topic: "alt med", "biomedicine", "human biomedicine", "alt med and biomedicine", etc. DrCrissy has been editing Veterinary acupuncture since you closed the discussion. Could you possibly clarify whether your decision of "biomedicine" would include such topics? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Yes I have been editing Veterinary acupuncture. The sanctions do not extend into the veterinary area, only the human area.DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Biomedical is not strictly limited to human medicine. Regardless though, the topic ban discussion was primarily focused on issues dealing with alt-med (e.g., acupuncture), so there technically can be cross-over between veterinary and alt-med if the focus of the biomed ban is because of alt-med problems. Beeblebrox, it could be worthwhile to clarify just what the topic ban scope is (and that's it's for DrChrissy) to help with potential ambiguity issues in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I have modified both the wording of my close and the tban notice on DrChrissy's talk page to address these concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Beeblebrox, I'd be concerned about this being extended to animals. DrChrissy says she is, as I recall, an animal behaviorist or specialist in veterinary medicine. Acupuncture is used by vets, and that's something she might want to write about (and not only that). The comments that I saw on AN/I didn't mention extending this to animals. In fact, most weren't clear about the scope of the ban. A brief scan (can't promise I have everyone): Support topic ban from altmed (3): Kww, Bishonen (?), Andrew Lenahan (supports broader sanctions too) Support topic ban from all biomedical content (9): Dbrodbeck, Alexbrn, QuackGuru ("all controversial medical topics"), TenOfAllTrades, Jess, Zad68, Kingofaces43, BullRangifer, Jytdog Support topic ban, unspecified (14): Opabinia regalis, Doc James, Parabolist, TheGracefulSlick, Johnuniq, Serialjoepsycho, BMK, Cullen, Formerly 98, Ncmvocalist, MastCell, SandyGeorgia, Viewmont Viking, Guy Oppose topic ban (12): petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, Montanabw, Littleolive oil (support 1RR/2cmt), I am One of Many, Aspro, BoboMeowCat, Atsme, LesVegas, A1candidate, Gandydancer, Minor4th Other (2): Short Brigade Harvester Boris (take it to AE), Robert McClenon (ditto) Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I agree. I do not see a consensus to extend this sanction to animal articles as I have just mentioned on Cr Chrissy's talk page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)) There are 3 mentions of his edits to animals in the thread. The first notes that Crissy contributes to articles on animal behavior, but is problematic when turning to medicine, the second supports his continued contributions to animals in general (like rabbit) by avoiding an outright community ban, and so suggests a tban on biomed "widely construed". The last is by Jytdog, who is the only one I can see to propose the tban exclude articles on animals. IMO, it's hard to imagine there was consensus for the tban to exclude animal articles when only one editor indicated it should. Given that the problems began on Acupuncture, moving immediately over to Veterinary acupuncture seems risky, at best.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Look again at the original posting for the secondary thread "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI"....That is what people were !voting on.DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) @Crissy Correct, the original proposal was "alt med", not "alt med excluding animals", and many editors indicated that topic should be extended to also include biomedicine as well. Discussions sometimes change as they progress, as happened here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC) That really sums up my thoughts on the matter too. Alt-med regardless of species seems to be well within the scope people were discussing, so I don't really see something like veterinary acupuncture falling outside the scope. Someone could pull a broad biomedical ban from the ANI looking at those who suggested it, so I don't think Beeblebrox is blatantly out of line with that call (some suggested it as a wider ban than just acupuncture/alt-med, a few thought it was too much, so it's really Beeblebrox's call). Either way, I prefer to end ANI conversations once they are closed, so I've said my two cents here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Jess, there was no mention of animals in the proposal. The proposal was extended midway from altmed to all med, then several editors said they supported without saying what. That made it a difficult discussion to close. It's not clear that all the unspecifieds supported a biomedical ban, and there was no suggestion that they'd extend it to animals. We have precious few experts in that area. It doesn't make sense to topic ban one of them when they haven't caused a problem on those articles. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC) There is no consensus that specifically extends this sanction to animal articles. Further, that a vote does not mention animals or that it specifically excludes animal articles implies a support vote for an extension of the sanction is not reasonable. logical, or I'd add fair. I, for example, did not even consider that this AN/I case related to animal articles and I know DR Chrissy edits on those articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)) (edit conflict)@Sarah Correct, and since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume it isn't an exception people had in mind when !voting. In my case, when I said "biomed", I meant biomed, not "biomed excluding animals". I'm not sure it's fair to say Crissy hasn't caused problems on Veterinary Acupuncture when the thrust of the problems were on its parent article. A topic ban includes articles the editor hasn't yet contributed to - hence "topic". @Olive biomedicine includes animals, it's not an "extension", and the same goes for alt med. What we're discussing here is an "exception", and no exception was substantively discussed. Anyway, I agree with Kingofaces, it's probably not worth rehashing the whole discussion all over again here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC) No Jess, you are very wrong there - some in support of sanctions were saying that I did not understand WP:MEDRS. I actually do understand it, very well, but I do not agree with all of it so I question it...simple democracy and freedom of speech. Apparently though, such questioning is a henious crime. However, MEDRS doe not apply to animal articles, so, I should be free to edit animal-related articles. Your edit summary indicated some frustration at this discussion continuing...why are you in such a hurry?DrChrissy (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Agree with Sarah and Littleolive oil. The closure was way too hasty and did not take into account those separate issues raised by many editors opposing the topic ban. I certainly did not feel that my statement was taken into consideration either. As User:EdJohnston suggested earlier: "I'd suggest letting this run at ANI for another couple of days." [5]. Beeblebrox, I request that you allow some time to pass and wait for more comments before hatting an entire discussion like you did over here. It's okay to disagree with a group of editors, but it's not okay to close the entire discussion before a coherent consensus can be discerned. -A1candidate 21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I don't think I need every person who already disagreed with the tban to come over here and tell me they don't like the close. Except in the rare case of total unanimity it can be assumed that persons who opposed a porposal are not going to be happy that consensus favored it. I also don't see any benefit in re-opening it to let the vitriol and mitpicking run a few more days when the eventual outcome was clear already and the situation was deteriorating. Please bear in mind that this was done largely for the benefit of the sanctioned user so as not to drag out the public spectacle longer than necessary when the outcome was already clear, and that another admin asked for someone to please do so. DrChrissy was only damaging their reputation further with their persistent, poorly reasoned objections to comments by every single person who supported the tban, which we are now seeing right here as well, so you really aren't doing them any favors here. As to the exact scope of the tban, unfortunately not everyone was explicit about that, but the rough consensus looks to me like biological and medicinal articles are the areas where there have been problems, while their editing elsewhere has been generally ok. Let's be clear here: It was not and is not my task to decide what, if any, sanction I believe is appropriate, rather and admin is there to evaluate what consensus was reached by the community and I believe I have done that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Beeblebrox, I'm uninvolved and didn't comment during the discussion. If I had closed that discussion, I would have had to ping several people to ask them to clarify. It wouldn't have occurred to me to extend it to nonhuman animals, where DrChrissy is a subject-matter expert, because that was barely mentioned. There seem to be three ways forward: (a) re-open the discussion so that people can continue to comment; (b) open a second discussion that asks whether DrChrissy should be topic-banned from animal behaviour/veterinary medicine; (c) ask another admin to review the close. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC) @Beeblebrox, I am very sorry to say this but that is simply not good enough! You are now implying that your sanctions relate to "biological" articles! So when I get up in the morning, what am I allowed to edit? It definately is your task to decide on the sanction if you are taking on the resposibility of being the closing admin - there was never any discussion about "biological" articles. You have to make a clear statement on this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I was just "unbreviating" the term "biomed". It does not represent a change in the tban, which I am pretty much done discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC) DrChrissy, there was consensus for a topic ban from altmed. There may have been consensus for a topic ban from all human biomedical articles (that would include biology articles related to human beings). As I see it, there was no consensus for, and barely a mention of, a topic ban from animal behaviour and veterinary medicine. Probably the best you can hope for now is that the latter is clarified so that you're allowed to continue editing in that area. Being angry with Beeblebrox won't help your situation. These discussions aren't easy to close. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I think DrChrissy may have overreacted, but that is unsurprising given the speed with which Beeblebrox closed the discussion and seemingly ignored the statements of a sizeable number of editors (including myself). The suggestions put forth by User:SlimVirgin seem reasonable to me, and I sincerely hope Beeblebrox might consider them. -A1candidate 23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Beebelbrox. If my language was harsh I apologize. I know only a little of Dr Chrissy, made a few cmts on acupuncture an area I have almost no experience with, was treated to intimidation on my talk page after posting on the RfC and was very aware as were other editors of the vitriol on the Acupuncture talk page, not created by Dr Chrissy, and which leaked over somewhat to this RfC. So in all, I have particular view of this situation. I realize there are hard closes and that it takes guts to close when you might be attacked from either side. I didn't intend an attack. I don't agree with you, especially on the extension of the sanction, but respect that the close was an honest, and probably courageous act on your part. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)) I disagree with the idea that the ban being extended to vetmed articles, DrChrissy has been a valuable contributor there and a reasonable voice for the principles of alternative medicine, where there is more openness in the veterinary world than in the human medical world. (Or as my own vet likes to say, "Can't hurt, might help") This was raised, closed and done in less than 24 hours, I certainly would have !voted to oppose had I even gotten to it. (Distracted today by the 2015 Preakness Stakes, that's my excuse). I am very concerned with the tone and approach used whenever someone raises issues about alternative medicine on WP - even recent creationists get treated with more respect at the evolution articles (usually a quick revert and a request to not edit-war) than do people suggesting that the more-researched forms of alternative medicine might be something short of utter bunk and hokum - on the articles about those topics. Sorry Beeblebrox, that this discussion has erupted at your talk, but you were the one who closed the case. I do think the exclusion of animal topics is premature. Montanabw(talk) 01:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Update: Another administrator (Doc James) has requested that this topic ban be limited to human medicine only. See discussion on User_talk:DrChrissy. -A1candidate 14:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Not entirely, it would appear. Brunton (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) We are discussing the parameters and duration of the topic ban at User_talk:Doc_James#User:DrChrissy. You're of course free to join me there, but in the meantime, Beeblebrox needs to reopen the original topic at WP:AN/I for a centralized discussion. -A1candidate 15:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Agree that this needs to be centralized, because people are discussing it in several places. Beeblebrox, please re-open. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) It seems to me the consensus at ANI is two-fold. A topic ban on articles that fall under wp:medrs and a topic ban of articles related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I'm not sure if this includes veterinary medicine, but it does seem to include acupuncture in animals. These are also community imposed sanctions. Beeblebrox, it would seem, can only modify them based on the consensus. My reasoning is based off WP:UNBAN and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. They didn't impose them, they just applied them. If you can provide them with a logical basis based off the ANI discussion they can review that and change it based on their findings. Beyond this, to my understanding, anything else would have to be taken to one of the locations listed at WP:UNBAN so a new consensus can be made. The locations seem to be WP:ARCA, wp:ani, wp:an, or WP:A/R. For both arbcom related boards, Note the committee generally considers appeals of community sanctions only if there were serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, as discussed here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion at the ani does take into account animals. One user contends that DrChrissy has made productive edits at animal related articles and that allowing them to continue to edit them would allow them to further their competence with MEDRS and could eventually show justification to have this ban lifted. Other users support that DrChrissy has made useful edits to animal articles. SandyGeorgia seems to be the only editor to dispute this. They provide diffs. This topic ban doesn't seem to be intended as punitive. Other sanctions could have been added. The community acted only with the minimal need to end disruption. The consensus seems to be to topic ban DrChrissy from areas where their competence is in question. If they have shown competence in certain animal related articles perhaps there should be an exclusion. It does seem there may be some exclusion intended in the consensus. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC) So can Beeblebrox please clarify the extent of these exclusions as requested by DrChrissy? -A1candidate 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Beeblebrox, I've opened an AN/I to discuss whether the ban extends to animals: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy's topic ban. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Restore Anal Gestapo page

Please, restore Anal Gestapo page , it is important for Turnbonegro and Turbojugend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.124.204 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More relevant Anal Gestapo pages:

• http://www.redunion.info/tjns/glavna.htm
• http://www.groupie.hr/turbo-riesling-anal-gestapo-u-novosadskoj-crnoj-kuci-petak-30-11/sadrzaj/1811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.124.204 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As an adminsitrator, my task was not to decide for myself whether the article should be deleted or not, but rather to evaluate the consensus at the deletion discussion. Arguments based on Wikipedia policy are given greater weight, which is why the article was deleted. So, bearing that in mind I think you can understand why it was deleted and why I have no intention of restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

i really wasn't sure how or if that racino stuff was ever going to end. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

If you don't have anything constructive to say (e.g. logical explanation for topic ban and its scope/duration), I suggest you stay off DrChrissy's page and stop harassing then like you did here [6]. Consider this your last and final warning. -A1candidate 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)