Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 12 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 128 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 125 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 58 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 38 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 45 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	15	15
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	50	50
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 113 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 113 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 107 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 104 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 95 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 89 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 89 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 82 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 75 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 62 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page[1]. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.

Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.

I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Article taken from sandbox

Without sounding overly dramatic, what is the process when somebody steals an article from your sandbox? I'm talking about Jack Harper (footballer) which has been entirely lifted (via C&P) by Meeneunos10 (talk · contribs) from User:GiantSnowman/Jack Harper. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still in your sandbox. The other fellow merely copied what you had & beat you to creating the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And in the process, 'merely' omitted to note the source, thereby violating copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my issue, Andy. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A histmerge should be performed. I've tagged the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of these two pages but I would like to hear GiantSnowman's opinion. You must have had a reason to keep the draft in your sandbox without publishing it, so maybe it should be moved back? De728631 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It remained in my sandbox because he is not (yet, in my opinion) notable... GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he replies. In all his edits he's only posted once to a talk page. I'm not fond of non-communicative editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I don't approve of copying content from other people's user space without asking for permission. As to notability, I'd say Jack Harper is borderline notable given that he's been covered by multiple reliable sources. But I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Could WP:CSD#G7 apply here? GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just move it back to your sandbox and delete the redirect? Number 57 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit flummoxed by this, so for clarification - Has this guy just nicked a draft article from Mr. Snowman and passed it off as his own? Are there no policies about this sort of thing? Can't we give him a good slapping behind the bike sheds? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was copyvio. I've been bold and moved it back (and fixed the categories so they show but don't add the article to the categories). Hope I haven't upset anyone but I think that's the best solution. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I thought should be done, but I wasn't sure (hence why I raised it here - and when it happened previously, with a different user, we went through AFD). GiantSnowman 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

NeilN left a good msg to him, I've upped that ante, so they should get the message. Dennis - 2¢ 20:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Doug. I think this is the best solution. But just like GiantSnowman I was thinking along the lines of an AfD. The latter should then preferably have resulted in a move back to user space. But if we can spare some bureaucratic act then that's all the better. De728631 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More generally, if editor A writes a drat in their sandbox, and editor B thinks it is ready to be an article, or that they can contribute to it, editor B is perfectly entitled to move it to user space, or to draft space, or to edit it further. Nobody owns an article. All contributions to WP in any space are irrevocable ,and anyone may use it for any purpose, including the creation of a wikipedia article. sandboxes and draft space are there for protection of incomplete articles against deletion, not to create a private space.

Attribution is of course necessary, and is best provided by moving the page. We routinely move drafts from user space to draft space (formerly, to AfC). I have a number of times moved user sandboxes or unsubmitted drafts to article space if I think they are ready, but the user is not working on them. (It is ofcourse courteous to inform the user if the user is still active)

If the move is by copypaste, the attribution can easily be provided inseveral ways ; a history merge is preferred from a sandbox, because the earlier material might be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is correct... but I think there ought to be a behavioral standard that calls for at least a user talk message prior to moving a draft someone's written entirely themselves to mainspace. Sometimes editors sit on drafts for awhile, for instance because of sourcing concerns, and may even start working on something else (while this has happened to me, I'm not complaining about any specific instance since I'm ultimately fine with the choice of the editor who made the pagemove). I just think that, particularly where the creator is active, and the draft isn't so old as to be G13-eligible, the creator's input (though not necessarily permission) should be sought before moving it out of userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on this thread, excuse the intrusion. Unfortunately the discussion has taken my rather irrational but troubling article creation phobia to a whole new level. It was my understanding that a sandbox was a private user space, a workshop, a garage, where one could create and tinker in peace on work. Editors may not "own" articles but individual editors create the article concept. That is an individual, not a collegiate process. So one could one be working on an article, have the cites, pics, text 90% ready, and then it is taken? How does this explain the scores of "Articles I have created" lists on the talkpages of some of our most prolific content-creators?. There does appear to be an original conceptual "ownership", until an article is released onto mainspace, where it does indeed become common intellectual property, to be worked on by all. I find this concept mildly disturbing. Irondome (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Irondome: is that a thinly veiled accusation of OWNership aimed at myself? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I quote the intro to WP:OWN — Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Yes, you have the legal right to copy someone's sandbox into mainspace, but you absolutely must attribute it, and if you don't (e.g. this situation), you've committed copyright infringement. Copying it to mainspace, with proper attribution, is legal, but it goes against our community norms, and in most cases it's definitely not respectful. The answers to "Is X legal" and "Is X appropriate" are very often significantly different. Nobody's likely to complain if you move content to mainspace from the sandbox of a user who's been inactive for a long time, but (1) you still ought to leave a talk page note, in case the user comes back, and (2) that's because good content ought not be forgotten simply because the user's no longer active. This is quite different from when the user is still active; even if you think its writer has forgotten it, you should simply leave a talk page note, not copy the content to mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the user's page, moving something from someone else's user space "is like a stranger walking up and eating food from your plate at a restaurant, without asking." Even if done with attribution, it is still a rude act. While it doesn't break any copyright policy if done properly, as a behavior, it should be discouraged. You should ask first unless you know the user is no longer active. While none of us owns our user space, there is no question that we each are granted a higher degree of control over it, and this should be respected. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something very wrong about this situation. Until the article is released/published by the author and placed into article space, it is not an "article", and thus is protected by copyright. If it's not that way here, then it should be. OTOH, if an editor is creating an article in their userspace and they allow other editors to help them develop the article, then they share in that copyright, but it's still not an "article" until released, and it is the right of the original author to determine the time of release. We really need to ensure that the author maintains control until they are ready, or they release control voluntarily. They need to give permission.

If a hunter, knowing a fellow hunter was stalking and about to shoot a deer, then shot the deer first, some blows might ensue, or even a grave found later in the forest for such a misdeed. Poaching an article or a deer is a very offensive crime.

We should make it a behavioral policy that poaching someone else's work is sanctionable. We don't allow legal threats between editors for such, otherwise illegal, actions, but we do have other ways of sanctioning misdeeds here. What is illegal and wrong outside of Wikipedia should usually, to some degree. also be considered wrong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I can't see any issue of Copyright since no user owns their talk page or anything else on WP. Also, since only free content can be included on WP then it is impossible to claim copyright on something that no one can claim to own. If I come upon your sand castle on the beach and knock it over, I am a jerk, but I haven't done anything illegal. It would appear that the only real problem here is the notion of who creates an article and who gets credit for actually creating an article. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a debating forum where we explore the meaning of liberty and ownership. The entire issue is that building the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community, and if an editor is slowly developing an article in their user space, then another editor is being disruptive if they choose to move the page or copy/paste it with attribution. Sure, if the author takes a long wikibreak and messages on their talk result in no feedback, it might be appropriate to move a draft from someone's user space. However, the issue here is entirely to do with fostering a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just bloody rude. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethical issue aside, it sounds like you don't understand the copyright situation. You're required to to dual licence all your textual contributions to wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. It doesn't matter whether something is an "article" or not. This includes anything you post to your user page, user talk page, and talk pages. Your comment that I'm replying to for example. This is a fundamental pillar and there's zero chance you're going to change our copyright requirements for contributions. People who want to develop content without freely licencing it are welcome to use their own webhost that allows that, remember wikipedia is not a webhost. (I should clarify I'm not suggesting people should move something someone's developing in a sandbox without asking, but simply that there's no copyright or legal issue. Although people should remember whatever we do here on wikipedia, there's nothing stopping someone using the content somewhere else if they obey the terms of the licence.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A similar situation

Please forgive me for butting in, but I have just discovered a similar situation and am not sure what I should do. I have had a page for a Japanese baseball player in my sandbox for a long time. The page is at User:Athomeinkobe/Kato. Most of it is my translation of the corresponding Japanese wiki page, plus some other facts I have found. It is not ready yet, as I have not finished the translation and want to find some further references, including english references if possible. But I have just discovered that the player in question is no longer a red link Kosuke Kato. I can see that the first version of the page is a direct copy and paste from my sandbox, including all of the untranslated Japanese text. I have advanced my work since then, but nothing substantial has happened to the main article. What should I do? Your advice is appreciated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the article will qualify for WP:CSD#G7 as I'm not sure that [2] quualifies as a substanial edit. Alternatively, perhaps a friendly admin will be willing to do a histmerge, moving the article back to your sandbox and deleting the redirect, e.g. @Dougweller:. As it stands, the article is a copyvio as it doesn't attribute the content to you. If no one does and you finish your sandbox in the meantime and it's ready to be moved, you could request a histmerge from any admin from your sandbox to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is technically a copy vio and you can CSD tag it for G12, pointing back to your copy. You could add a summary pointing back to your sandbox, but if you delete the sandbox, all attribution is lost. You can also histmerge it, which combines them. Regardless, you might point that editor to this discussion. What he did is flatly against policy. I'm not inclined to block over a first time mistake, but making a habit of it would get a block. Dennis - 2¢ 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. I will contact Dougweller when I (finally) finish the work. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I just restored a number of threads, including this one, which had been archived to archive 266 by the bot, and then unarchived, but not restored here. They simply disappeared completely! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [3], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Granada#Merger_proposal

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

---

Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion as am unable to enter into a dialogue. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster didn't attempt to enter into a dialogue. There was no consensus. The original poster proposed a merge, and promptly implemented it, and was reverted, and implemented it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster proposed the merge, and implemented it, and move-warred to implement it again. The claim that there was no attempt at dialogue is literally true, in that the original poster made no attempt to engage in dialogue, but moved-warred to implement a controversial move. (The merge is probably correct, but did require dialogue and consensus.) Recommend a short-term block so that move can be undone while proposed merge is discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There was no move at all; what are you talking about? There was a merger, involving a redirecting of the second page (Timeline of Granada into Granada), which Bye for now reinstated once. What we have here is a simple edit war in a very early stage, with both participants at 1R right now. The claim that Bye for now "made no attempt to engage in dialogue" is absurd – he proposed the merge, with all required notices, and then waited five days, during which no objections were raised. The poor conduct is on the other side: the other editor involved, M2545 (talk · contribs), reverted the merger with a pointer to "WP:CONSENSUS" and "WP:BRD", but in fact didn't point to any such consensus, nor to any attempt to establish such, nor did he make any contribution to the "D" part of "BRD". The failure to engage in dialogue is plainly on his side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do see now that five days did elapse. I don't see any discussion by either party. Was there a Request for Merge or a Request for Comments? Some method of Dispute Resolution should be used. Can this thread be closed with the issue taken either to moderated dispute resolution or an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple content disagreement that doesn't require outside intervention at this stage. If M2545 wishes to raise objections to the merger, they'll simply need to do so, i.e. actually state why they object to it; if and when that happens, the further path of dispute resolution can be considered. In the absence of any such reasoned statement, the issue is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I created the Timeline of Granada article on 5 November 2014. The article as of 11 November 2014 at 9:28 was still at the stub stage, and not given a chance to develop before it was "merged" into the main Granada article. -- M2545 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, on 6 November 2014 on the talk page I objected as follows: "Some events in a city's economic history may not be dramatic, but can be notable nonetheless. See Timeline of Paris for an example of a city timeline with lots of economic, political, cultural, etc. detail. Instead of simply deleting content, please use Template:Relevance-inline or similar tool. Thanks." -- M2545 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the editor Bye for now did not really "merge" timeline content into the Granada article (see revision comparison) but simply deleted it instead. -- M2545 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there are many lists like this (see Category:City_timelines) does not seem to me to necessarily be a reason to keep this one. In fact it might even be seen as a reason to merge/delete some of the other ones. My reasons for removing things like "1910 - Cafe Futbol in business" were explained HERE but they were reverted anyway so I'm not sure of the relevance. As explained on the merger proposal: Anything I consider useful has been transferred to this article from the "Timeline of Granada" so that a redirect to this article can now be implemented. If other editors wish to transfer more information to the main Granada article then I don't see that being a problem as long as they can can justify it to other editors there (sourcing/notability/relevance etc). Anyway we now seem to be agreed, in principle at least, on the merge. --Bye for now (PTT) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement. Timelines complement prose articles. The deleted Granada timeline stub should be restored and given ample time to develop, with contributions from mulitple editors. -- M2545 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe moved to a sandbox page until its creation can be justified? In particular, the Lead section needs to be addressed, as was brought up the the timeline's talk page. --Bye for now (PTT) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the newly-created page "Granada_chronology" should also be covered by this merger proposal. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That page is going to need a history merge with Timeline of Granada. The resulting page should probably be moved to Draft: space so you guys can work on it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - though it will need the agreement of M2545 of course. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, moving to Draft: should be open to discussion, but since Granada chronology appears to be copy-pasted from an old revision of Timeline of Granada, they have to be history-merged, to satisfy attribution requirements. An admin will need to do that, I don't have the tools. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone advise, please, on what happens next? Will an admin now make a decision as to whether or not the two list articles Granada_chronology and Timeline of Granada are to be redirected to Granada#History? --Bye for now (PTT) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I was just going to tag this for history merging, because I forgot that we could do that. Duh. But I see that the new page has now also been redirected (creating a double redirect). @M2545: What is your goal here? Are you abandoning the timeline idea, or do you (and/or Bye for now) want to work on it?

What I'm thinking is, after the histories are merged (important first step), the page can be moved to, say, Draft:Timeline of Granada, and you (both if you're interested) can build it out until it's ready to be moved back to the mainspace. Or submit it through AfC if you prefer, maybe that's not a bad idea. Or, if you're planning on abandoning it, then please tag Granada chronology for G6 or G7 deletion (admins' call) to solve the history split problem. Ivanvector (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivanvector and others, for your attention to this matter. Obviously I think Wikipedia would benefit from a Timeline of Granada article, but am reluctant to continue building it given Bye for now's unhelpful and destructive edits in the past week. I would rather spend precious time and effort working on content that will not be deleted. -- M2545 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a general consensus that these "timeline" historic events lists are a beneficial addition to the encyclopedia, and it looks to me like you're both generally agreed that it can be built out in Draft: space. I think any disagreements here can be chalked up to good-faith misunderstanding, but if I'm wrong about that, best to say now. I interpret that Bye for now has no opposition to building out the list in Draft: space in anticipation of it eventually being moved to mainspace to complement the Granada article, rather than simply being merged into it, based on the discussion above. Am I wrong about that? Ivanvector (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - I have no objections, in principle, to lists in general or to "historic timelines" (which I consider to be a variant of a list). The edit history shows that I did spend some time trying to improve the list but, in trying to reconcile the list creator's objections at Talk:Timeline_of_Granada and adding maintenance tags, I came across this: Ivanvector adds: from WP:LEADFORALIST:

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

and Is the article worth it?.

"Before placing templates on a page it is worthwhile to consider whether it should in fact be included in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Some articles can be tagged for speedy deletion or marked as an article for deletion."

The problem I have with this list is that the lead does not specify what should be included/excluded, leaving it wide open to becoming a magnet for unsourced and/or trivial material. This would inevitably lead to an unbalanced view of the history of Granada city's history wrt relevance/significance/coverage etc. If it were to go through the Draft/AfC process then I can see how these issues would probably be resolved. I can see that - if done well - a Timeline of Granada would then actually complement the article. However I can imagine that, once it were "released into the wild", it would quickly be modified to be the same as all the others. After all, it would be unfair that contributors could add their favourite cafe in Barcelona to WP but not one in Granada, etc. Consequently, unless these others (some examples are amongst this list ) went through the same process, it would probably be a waste of time for those involved. I raised this issue because I was looking for a decision/answer rather than as a job application. If the decision/answer is that these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP then fair enough - I'll just try to stay clear of any topic that involves the history of a city. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) edit: what I meant was if these city timelines are perfectly OK on WP in their current format. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, not to cut you off, you've got valid points, but let's deal with the history merge first, then we can talk about the issues with the article on the article talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The situation right now is that not only has the merge been undone but, as a special bonus, pretty much every edit I made to this list-article has been reverted.[4] But at least I now have the answer/decision, which is: basically, everything I did was wrong. So I'm probably not the best person to contribute anything further to this topic, which I think can be closed now. Please accept my apologies for having wasted your time. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible COI query

I would like to archive all the closed request at WP:RFC/N but, I have either commented on or closed the remaining requests. Would there be a COI issue with me archiving them, doesn't seem to be but, just want to be sure before I do it. Thanx Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do it. I was going to do it, but it's a ridiculously bureaucratic archiving methodology. NE Ent 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

lol :P doing ! Mlpearc (open channel) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tag team uncivility by User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat

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

---

This is a continuation of the saga of the same three (?) editors again disrupting an article's talk page, this time for Stanley Kubrick's, with the same mockery and violation of various WP guidelines, including PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership as they did in a previous ANI. SchroCat and Cassianto have only recently made a few edits to Stanley Kubrick, apparently setting the stage.

• Similar ANI discussion in Sept. 2014.
• Recent continuation of violations in Stanley Kubrick's talk.

As Kubrick is a widely read article and an important director, I'm hoping this kind of disruption can finally be prevented. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: the previous ANI in Sept. was announced on their respective talk pages, but was immediately deleted. So this time I'll just add the notice to the Kubrick talk page instead. --Light show (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide difs for all these serious allegations? Reading the dispute on the Kubrick talk page, it seems like you are in a content dispute that you are losing in. Secret ^account 19:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the majority of comments by the three users violate one of more the the guidelines. I'd be diffing almost all their comments, which would take them out of context. None of the problems for this ANI are about content, they're about behavior. --Light show (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see on that article is the behavior of Light show. Bludgeoning, digging in, unwilling to consider other perspectives. All this gnashing of teeth and digging in when everyone disagrees with you is a waste of time and does no service to the reader. If you can't constructively edit an article, you shouldn't get in the way of those that can. Even dragging a content dispute to WP:AN (and not even WP:ANI), shows a desire to ramp up drama more than solve problems. You are right, there is a behavior problem on that page, but it seems the problem is you. And the backhanded sockpuppet claims simply because everyone agrees that Light show is wrong is an ad hominem attack. I would support a topic ban here, just to be done with it. If you can't work with others on an article, go work on something else. Dennis - 2¢ 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend some serious research into this matter. Okay, Light show isn't the good guy here. But it is a familiar pattern to me to see all thee show up when you have a conflict with just one of them. The Banner talk 23:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Research away Banner, I think you'll find three different IP address's which will counter your unfounded suspicions. And then you can look as stupid as Light show does now. Cassianto^talk 10:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing IP addresses is simple nowadays. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are you accusing one or more of us of being the same person, Lightshow? Please have the decency to stop making snide comments hinting at it, and just come out and say it. – SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this your only user name? --Light show (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not that it is any of your business, but yes, this is my only name, and my only account. I have also met Cassianto (along with four other editors, two of whom are admins). I have not met Doc Blogeld, but I know that he is neither me, nor Cassianto. – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP policy makes it everyone's business. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the admins he is referring to, I think. I am happy to confirm that SchroCat and Cassianto are not the same person. Wehwalt was the other admin present, on a trip to London earlier this year, and Tim riley and Brianboulton were also present for a very convivial drink or four. Light show: when in a hole, stop digging. If you want to dig further, then tunnel over to WP:SPI, if you really have any evidence. Otherwise you're just making yourself look very silly. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

By ignoring all the issues for this post, you and others imply that anyone requesting that teamish editors abide by WP guidelines to act civily, to avoid PAs, harassment, pre-announcing an edit war, tag teaming and declaring intended ownership, is going too far and looks silly. It's not silly, but sane, in my neck of the woods. --Light show (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Light show. Isn't it obvious? I'm not commenting on the behaviour of you or anyone else on that talk page because, knowing Schro and Cass socially, I don't think I ought to take sides. I'm certainly not going to give you a reason to complain about the growing consensus by joining in now. Your nonsense allegations about sockpuppets should have been dropped by now. Period. Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • When you make an accusation like this the "serious research" is up to you. If you don't, or can't, provide evidence to support your statement there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to it. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • [5]] for instance, And the saga around Kilmurry Ibrickane where a completely valid article about a Roman-Catholic parish was merged because the lads preferred an article about a civil parish but, to my opinion, had not enough content to do this. The Banner talk 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah I was wondering last night how long it would be before you turned up Banner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. User:Cassianto 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)" --Light show (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think that Cassianto and myself are the same person don't you? LMAO. I'm pretty sure Tim riley would laugh to high heaven at anybody who thought that. It's almost as nutty as thinking Tim and Brian Boulton are the same person... Would I review my own article here LOL. I don't think you honestly think that, you just find it hard to believe multiple people think you're a shoddy editor. Myself, Cass and Schro have a pretty similar sense of humour and generally seem to have a similar outlook on here. And we don't tolerate editors who don't know how to write articles and make those who do feel guilty about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been asked twice whether you use other user names, and both times chose not to reply. And again, this has almost nothing to do with content issues or even Sellers, who, BTW, was a great actor. It's about a blatant failure to act civily, as explained in the first sentence above. --Light show (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's about a blatant failure to act civily, " Exactly. And you blew it as soon as you started bringing up Sellers on the Kubrick article and assuming bad faith before I'd even begun. Virtually every post of yours had a personal attack on the work we put into it. Your attitude towards the hard work we put into the article is disgusting, even if you don't think anything of it. If from the get go you'd been like Masem or somebody none of this would have ever happened. You really need to take a long hard look at yourself. This is going to be three different bans now. Keep up the way you act and edit and I'm sure that before long it will be a full ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have enough evidence to take this to SPI, stop making accusations. There are more than 10 of us who have supported the proposal. Perhaps we are all sockpuppets too.... We hope (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Light show, shudder the thought, but have you ever considered that you may be related to us? Does that make you a sock puppet? Cassianto^talk 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this how you treat a long lost cousin - having them banished? --Light show (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about that before you brought your vendetta to the table and tried to put me off improving the Kubrick article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since I thought I was posting an incident in the right place, but it isn't, I can move this discussion if requested, or someone else can. --Light show (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's already here, we won't be slaves to format, but that doesn't address the issue that you present on that talk page, of being a combative editor who, if he can't have his way, will stand in the way of others. I've never edited that nor any article like it, and reading through that talk page, that is exactly the impression I get, someone using obstruction as a tool to get their way. And you keep dragging up this Sellers article, what is that about? Dennis - 2¢ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Light show would bring us to ANI over "behaviour" when he showed the worst kinda of bad faith towards my intentions to develop the article even before I'd started on it! I genuinely meant it when I say if he showed good faith and willingness to work on it together to the benefit of the article I'd be up for it and treat him more decently, but it's basically the fact that he takes a swipe at the Sellers article on every post that is terribly annoying and counterproductive towards development. He's obsessed to the point it's taken over much of what he does. It doesn't stand a chance while he's around. When I got to this article BTW it was a massive 190kb of mainly quotes. He's best kept away from Kubrick articles in discussion and in contribution. Any editor who thinks his Sellers article is superior to the current FA has no place editing wikipedia and is an obstacle to quality development. He just doesn't get what a quality article should contain and read like to the point I think he's not compatible with editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Light show from Stanley Kubrick related articles

There has been clear evidence of a vendetta targeted towards Dr. Blofeld that has carried on from the previous Peter Sellers' article. The following revisions suggest that Light show is unwilling to assume good faith whilst editing on this topic, and this is also suggesting that he is trying discourage Blofeld from editing it whenever he starts again.

• [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

He even removed 15 kb of the text Dr. Blofeld wrote on the Kubrick article recently. This appears to be part of his tactics in order to frighten away Blofeld from resuming editing. This is clearly disruptive behaviour and proving to be a major obstacle to the improvement of the article:

• [15]

One final diff here, this shows that Light show is attempting to sabotage another "good-faith" edit made by Dr. Blofeld through criticism:

• [16]

Light show also insists that Blofeld, Schro and Cassianto "totally ruined" the Peter Sellers article by taking it to FA and believes that his version of the article here should be restored. In comparison, look at the the current article! It's obvious now that there is a vendetta going on, and with that this will impede any development of the Kubrick article as well as labelling positive quality improvement as "ruining it". This behaviour is clearly disruptive, several admins including John and Masem have expressed concern with Light show's editing patterns (notably excessive quote farming). Therefore I propose a topic ban on all Stanley Kubrick related articles indefinitely (provisionally), however I think it's more suitable for a sysop to decide on the length. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef - I've been reading through more diffs, I don't think persuasion is going to work here, and my first duty is to the article, not his ability to edit it. Indef doesn't mean forever, just until the community decides it is wise to revert itself. Dennis - 2¢ 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I think this is the next step. --John (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef This is just part of a larger pattern- indef at Peter Sellers, indef at uploading images. Anyone who doesn't agree with him has to deal with this type of behavior from him. We hope (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef I have no alternative but to support the ban. I tried to get Light show to collaborate and discuss the article but he can't avoid taking a swipe at Sellers and its contributors on every post.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef is the next best solution for now, Ofcourse as Dennis says indef doesn't mean forever so all can be changed providing you edit in a constructive manner but till then topic ban it is. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the knowledge that the ban can be lifted at request at some point in the future with evidence that disruptive editing has ceased. Also suggest that perhaps other articles being edited by the individuals involved be watched to see if disruptive behavior carries over into them. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef -- Wikipedia is a very difficult place to be when Light show is around, as this boomerang has proved. Dr. B has spent a long time working on Kubrick in his sandbox for the good of the project, and along comes Light show to get in the way. I think this ban is needed in order to allow Kubrick to develop into something good. Cassianto^talk 22:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. People should be able to work constructively on an article without such harassment: let Doc B do what he has to do, and then constructively help in polishing, tweaking and re-working a few bits, not engage in mass edits of his work and block any work being undertaken. I can't see that being the case here, as there seems to be a lack of good faith in Light Show's approach to Blofeld's work. Next time, please notify people on their talk page: I do not have Kubrick watchlisted, so it's only by chance I looked in on the talk page. I'm also troubled by the grossly unfounded and snidey accusations of sockpuppetry, which happened in the thread, and here: provide proof, or withdraw. Finally, if you're going to accuse people of their behaviour, provide diffs. You haven't done so, because there is nothing to report. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As with the Peter Sellers article there is far too much wikidrama and wikilawyering emanating from Lightshow. I am not sure when this theory that "consensus building is the same thing as tag team ownership" of articles came about but that simply is not the case. MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reviewing applicable talk page. NE Ent 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Open the pod bay doors, HAL. Er, support, per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• What's happening, there's so much drama and dust I mean, Support, also per above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that Lightshow is on his/her way to being banned from a second article. How many articles -- or groups of related articles -- is a person banned from editing before we consider a community ban? (I'm not advocating for a block of anyone at this time, but this is a possible outcome everyone -- especially the original poster -- should consider at this point.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. Interventions / sanctions should be the minimal possible that might do the job (WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment). Obviously if the behavior is repeated on a third article we'll likely be have a much shorter / quicker discussion. NE Ent 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LS does have a history of adding quote farms to articles and image problems of course, but the main problem with this is that he's unable to drop the Sellers grudge whenever he interacts with any one of us. I don't have anything personally against him but I think it's very clear he's attempting to put me off editing the Kubrick article and like Sellers I think it's more to do with OWN issues than real concerns about degradation of quality. It's not acceptable. He doesn't like editors removing quotes he's added or rewriting into a proper article with flowing prose. He's under the impression that wikipedia biographies should consist mainly of quotes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Update the ban discussion link for David Beals

Could someone update User:David Beals to point to the archived discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#David Beals)? I feel a bit weird making an edit request on his talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you —Soap— 04:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Need administrator eyes

It would be nice if more administrators could watch WP:GS/GG/E, and help respond to requests for enforcement of the Gamergate sanctions. Thanks for your potential future assistance! RGloucester — ☎ 05:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone close this please

The move discussion has at Talk:Blonde_bombshell_(disambiguation) has lasted 11 days now, instead of being closed after 7. Five say "support" or "rename", while no one has said "oppose". Dream Focus 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A move request or CfD being closed in a timely manner. LOL. That's been one of the casualties of the admin exodus of the last couple years. While we're on the topic, there are a couple of category discussions from October 12 I'd like an admin to close. pbp 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account - User:Antandrus

After being around for 10 years, I now think that this admin account has been compromised. I'm sorry, but since yesterday, an IP wrote on somebody's talk page [17] [18] and reverted what seemed to be perfectly fine edits, it's a talk page anyway. He even replied to me as I posted a biting newcomers notice:

"He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too. But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)"

That link referred to a completely different user. Who must be unrelated to the edits I am talking about. He also said "You're banned - get lost" when blocking an IP. Can a CheckUser come in to see these IP's. In fact, how can IP users be banned under WP:BAN? How did he have any authority to ban someone, as an admin who is not part of ArbCom? Must be a compromised administrator account, check the contribs and you can see some evidence. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not template the regulars, and please do not make silly accusations at noticeboards, particularly when an explanation has been given. Making a fuss about WP:DENY reversions is a guaranteed way to encourage vandalism and long term abusers. Antandrus is one of Wikipedia's most respected admins, although I'm not sure where this report fits in at WP:OWB. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "defacto ban" component of WP:BAN — perhaps it's a frequently-blocked user who's never been unblocked and who will apparently never be unblocked; such a person would be included as "banned" even without an Arbcom discussion. Bans apply to individual people, so yes, we can ban people who aren't using an account. If you have spare time, look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors — we even had an arbitration case for an IP that just wouldn't stop being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The longer you are an admin, the more of these kinds of users you get to know. We each have a few banned users we know so well that we can spot them from across the room. And yes, sometimes we are blunt when dealing with them, it gets old, we are human, we aren't obligated to act saccharine sweet to known banned users abusing the system. Antandrus' behavior, as indicated here, isn't out of character or expectations, so I am pretty confident he hasn't had his account pwned. Dennis - 2¢ 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you Dennis. I regularly revert and block this particular pest. For those with long memories, he has been called the 'George Reeves Person', and there's a deleted LTA page about him. He's a serial harasser and particularly vicious off-Wiki. I have, however, learned his real name and where he lives, should we need to take more serious action. It's been a couple years since I've received threats of physical harm from him. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - death threats, etc.

Hi guys -- sorry to wake this thread up again, but I would like some advice. This person, who has been vandalizing, trolling, spamming, and issuing threats to anyone who opposes him, since December 2005, has issued an unambiguous death threat to me. I guess he didn't like the range blocks I laid down to shut down his latest spam-and-rant campaign. One significant problem is that there is no reliable way to get a message to him; he uses one-time-throwaway T-Mobile IPs now (ignore their geolocation: he's in Chicago, or very close, anyway). I am reporting all threats to law enforcement. I want him to know that I know his real name and his address (will not state it here) and I am not shy about giving it to the FBI, the Chicago and River Grove, Illinois police, and any other entity that might assist. If you have admin rights you can read the history of this guy here (note who deleted the page). I want to get the message to him, equally unambiguously. Has anyone had success contacting authorities in such a case? Feel free to contact me privately. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to contact the FBI, tell them you are an admin on Wikipedia and file a formal complaint with the info you have. I'll email you.--MONGO 01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which is allot harder to find than it should be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 FBI, and the sooner the better - while the data is still hot. I hope that this is resolved quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

It might be worth asking for a global block on that /23, for a week or so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

@Antandrus: you should contact WMF legal as well; I noticed that you contacted one of the stewards on Meta somewhere, but really it's the WMF who makes the call as to when the info should be released to authorities and such (and then they can give the info with a good claim to veracity) --Rschen7754 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also contacted the emergency team. Legal are not the relevant team as they can take weeks to respond by which time letting them know would've been pointless. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a response acknowledging this. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User known to WMF and they're "obviously happy to help in anyway necessary" Jack Stamps (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh yes, they know this user. Thank you! I'll contact them. I'm already following a bunch of the above suggestions (and thank you for those who e-mailed me). Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please also consider filing an abuse report with T-Mobile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - newbie

Obivously Antandrus should take every step necessary to protect his physical safety, and I can't add anything helpful to advice above regarding that. But what does that have to do with DSCrowned? They're not threatening anyone, are they? They even edited for almost a month before creating their user page. They seem something weird, they ask the first person they're supposed to ask, get what seems to be a kind of a brush of, ask at the next place, and get told to make not make silly accusations, and the dreaded -- oh the infamy -- "don't template the regulars" -- because that's so important. Gee, maybe they're just confused and are trying to help. There's only like a quarter million "unreferenced tags," who needs to welcome new editors? Did ya'll know this tidbit about hydrogen peroxide [19]? I didn't. So maybe the next time a newbie shows up we can be a little more chill about it? NE Ent 04:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The first diff in the OP shows a NOTFORUM violation being removed with edit summary "rv banned user". The second is the same. Presumably DSCrowned has no idea what "rv banned user" means, but is sufficiently confident to drop a "November 2014" template, then refuse to engage in discussion despite getting a full explanation within twenty minutes. Antandrus may be too polite to respond as I did, but someone needs to strongly support those who spend years defending the encyclopedia. It's not the vandals that cause people to burn out and leave—it's the lack of support from onlookers who instead provide impractical suggestions that everyone just suck it up. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think my action was a technical mistake that I made, Andardus's edit summaries seemed different to other edit summaries he used when reverting completely different stuff, though, when he was reverting the "vandals" that I specified, very quickly indeed, as those questions he posted seemed to be "good" comments, I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but these comments do not look like forum questions. Perhaps I misintepreted. This is to the point of two competing edit summary usages. This confused me, as it looked like his account was compromised... I never even knew he had T-Mobile on him. Contact the FBI? Is it really compromised? Sorry about this incident. DSCrowned^(talk) 13:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am quite serious when stuff go wrong, it is my personality. However, I never intended to end up in such a place like this, I am just worried about what Antardus would do when his edit summary use is clashing along with each other like there are two different users. I sincerely apologise for my mistakes. DSCrowned^(talk) 13:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You obviously meant well -- the wiki-ism for that is "good faith" and the initialism is WP:AGF. And Wikipedia is a very confusing place at first. In the future, if you see something that seems weird, a good place to ask is Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is specifically designed for new users. NE Ent 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider the behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers an impractical suggestion. NE Ent 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

DSCrowned, thank you -- no worries -- you were trying to do the right thing. By the way, now that my range blocks on 172.56.0.0/23 and 208.54.64.0/24 have expired, the banned user responsible for this entire thread is back. If you are curious about this, look at each of the four edits contained in that diff, from four different T-Mobile IP addresses. They all show his characteristic style; they all fail WP:COMPETENCE; and the moment I revert them he will explode again, and vandalize one of my user or talk pages on one of the other Wikimedia projects. I don't like laying down range blocks on T-Mobile because of collateral damage issues, but it's usually the only way to stop him. Nine years of this. I don't think anyone else is watching. Why do I do it? To save some other poor sod the time and frustration of trying to talk to him, welcome him as a newbie, etc. etc. and then get on his hit list once that unfortunate but helpful soul realizes what they have stepped in. If you watch recent changes you will spot lots of obvious vandalism, but once in a while spot something a little more difficult. Like this. -- Anyway, thank you all for help on this. Antandrus (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Moved from WP:ANI

 – NE Ent 23:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There were many edits made after consensus.[20]-[21]-[22]-[23] I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Wikipedia by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 0RR seems unreasonably restrictive, as Fut.Perf. points out it gives the upper hand to the POV warriors. Wouldn't full protection have been better? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. I would ask anyone commenting here to take the trouble to read the actual restrictions I imposed, which are at Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. They are written in English, in plain text, so this should be easy to accomplish. If, after reading the actual restrictions and not the very poor summary presented above, anybody has any concerns, they should message me at my talk as stated there. Since the restrictions were placed on 20 October, a grand total of 0 editors have done this. Not even the two editors I have blocked so far have complained. Coming straight here to complain about my (successful) admin actions under a misleading summary is a strange thing to do. I am a little concerned that User:Arthur Rubin's actions (which include an out-of-process full protection) here arise from some more sinister motive than lack of competence but for now I will assume good faith and put it down to that. --John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple editors assumed that you would respond to the multiple requests for your involvement on the article talk page. This discussion on this noticeboard seems a good way to clear up the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John: I did read your wording of the restrictions before I commented here, and my criticism above does apply to them as worded. A "no reverts" and "no major edits without prior consensus" rule is a recipe either for slow degradation or standstill of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John, your snide and sarcastic "they are written in English, in plain text" is the sort of thing you would (rightly) have taken someone else to task for. Lead by example. 216.3.101.62 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• fwiw, i had just recently started editing the article when the 0RR was imposed. i objected, as did Bobrayner and as did] Yobol, and when John remained firm, I said I would not participate under a 0RR condition. I stopped watching it (although I did pop in to !vote in an RfC that I saw notice of). Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors raised concerns about the 0RR restriction for precisely the same reasons as noted above, with unfortunately little direct response. I have also largely ignored what has been going on on that page due to said restriction. Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem without driving off experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair I did not read John's restrictions before I commented above, but I have now, and I stand by my comment. Other editors' concerns about what's considered a revert are valid. If I'm working on a page where anons are repeatedly inserting nonsense claims, and any corrective action I take comes with a reasonable risk that some admin is going to interpret it as a revert and block on sight, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Besides, isn't WP:0RR meant to be applied to seriously edit-warring editors, not to pages? Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Arthur Rubin, under the circumstances, imposing 0RR was a mistake. Fully protecting the article was responsible a decision, and modifying the restriction to make it 1RR would remedy the situation. Alternatively, Fut Perf's restrictions could be be implemented instead. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• "No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR" is what User:John put in place. That is an unworkable restriction on most articles, and certainly not one about a pseudoscience. A 0RR restriction places the crackpots on an even footing with legitimate editors, and that prevents building an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about others, but this page has to do nothing with pseudoscience. I was notified about zero revert soon after I had edited. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me.[24]

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I get the picture. I see now that the ArbCom tag was added here on 30 October by User:Roxy the dog, one of the problematic editors at that page, well after I had become involved in keeping the peace there. I later had to block said editor for repeatedly insulting other editors there. Then just now I get an ArbCom notice from User:QuackGuru, (diff above) another problematic contributor who I have also had to block. The problems there, quite apart from any perceived COI involved, is that the question whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not is one of several things the two entrenched camps have been arguing about for ages. If the tag is to stick there, I might step back and let Arbcom administer this as that is what they are paid the big bucks to do. I wonder though whether Roxy and QG need further sanctions for this game-playing and battleground behaviour. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just about fell out of my metaphorical chair when I read that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Their 'thinking' cannot be found even among the smallest minority. Sadly if someone is convinced to think that 2 and 3 is 4, and keeps repeating the same miscalculation, we should seek solution. Page was created 10 years ago and there was no discussion about pseudoscience on its talk until last month. Only RTD believes and his intention is to plaster the article with 'this pseudo scientific claptrap', it is possible that he would receive some support from the editors who haven't researched. Bottom line is that they cannot really form any compatibility, nor there is any comparison with any other pseudoscience. No expert would agree. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That the current practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific would appear to be beyond doubt. Surely you aren't claiming that there is any sound scientific basis for it?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Then those scientists become pseudoscientists if they have plagiarized Ayurveda or any Iron age and older practices for making a new form. Depends upon research. నిజానికి (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the person who described the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.... We are not here to discuss article content, but thank you for making your position clear on that. I myself am strictly neutral on the article content and will do whatever I can to enforce proper editing and decorum there. If 0RR is felt to be unhelpful by neutral admins such as Fut.Perf. and PhilKnight we can strike that. We can of course still block for edit-warring. The more serious question is should an editor who is involved not just in editing the page but in insulting those he disagrees with, be allowed to add this tag while the article's status is being discussed? Should it be allowed to stay? I haven't seen this situation before and am genuinely curious how other respected and neutral admins think it should best be handled. --John (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• e/c I find it rather sad that for the third time today I have found John to be dishonest in his edits. His actual reasons for my block, per the log, are, "harassment and personal attack" and as he himself stated in the discussion following said block ""when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"". For the third time this evening, we expect better behaviour from our admins. I might also add that a fellow admin of John's stated that "I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. - It is time to examine your own behaviour, John. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Roxy the dog, calling others a fringe editor is not personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Blades, just so you know this isn't a personal attack, it is very nice to see you here. I would just like to point out that I'm a fringe editor too. Best regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sounded like fringe advocate when you were referring to others. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Blades, what an interesting comment. If I may be allowed to make a polite observation on it, you do indeed appear to be advocating fringe theories both here, and on the Ayurveda Talk page. Would you not agree? Be safe. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes you have a point there. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, my position is quite clear: we are here to make an encyclopedia. We certainly have battleground articles, and it's important to make certain that some behavioural norms are adhered to. That does not include making it simpler for people to portray myth and superstition as if it were science, and that's what a 0RR restriction does: it treats the two as being equivalent. Our goal here is to ensure that we maintain civil discourse while ensuring that reality-based edits prevail.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you said it yourself, we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight pseudoscience. An article in a permanent state of edit-warring deserves 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ensuring that pseudoscience is not described as factual is an essential component of being an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would be best done on the talk page instead of turning the article into a battleground. -A1candidate (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problems could have been solved in a single day, if we were going to follow the consensus and the long discussions that have been made about hardly 4 issues. But what I have seen is that even if 10 people are in agreement, there is always one, mostly Roxy the Dog, who disrupts the process. John is actually correct if he claims that Roxy the Dog is gaming and battling. I would like to add that this page never had any edit conflict before 18 October, this year. One day, Dominus_Vobisdu had removed long standing content from this article, with the summary "This whole section is unsourced, but comparisons to real medicine are egregious OR and POV)",[25] yet there was no OR and POV and section was actually sourced, all he did was remove the translated terms. After I added more citations to each,[26] he reverted it again[27] without even reading the citation and said "Must be MEDRS sources", same thing was done by Roxy the Dog,[28] "None are WP:MEDRS". Though none of these required MEDRS, and when I brought it to talk page, I only had a one-liner from Roxy the dog, it was "e/c none of those comply," I had to bring it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, where the consensus was established to include these terms, yet, both Dominus and Roxy the dog had started to edit war, they were not discussing about the removal of this longstanding content. That is why the page had to be under 0rr restriction. Today Roxy tells that there was no consensus[29] but he is alone opposing these edits, at least since 18th October. Whenever Roxy the dog was asked about the reasons behind his opposition to this kind of common information that has been cited with reliable sources, he could done nothing about it but refer to comments of Dominus Vobisdu,[30] though they lacked any policy backed rationale, and approached Wikipedia:DONTLIKE. Roxy is ignoring that clear consensus on Medicine project, still pushing that irrelevant comment of Dominus Vobisdu and telling others(Jayaguru-Shishya) to "stop being disruptive",[31] right after coming from a block. I have never seen even a single edit from Roxy the dog, that could benefit the page. All he has done is revert others' edits and distort. Of course some kind of sanction is needed for Roxy the dog. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think sourced text should be in the article:

The talk page discussion is not helping. Click here to read the text and sources.

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as fr, Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected". In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead. Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects. Quackwatch states "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe." References

• The talk page discussion is going nowhere. Maybe a group of admins can decide what should go in the article. What do others think? The 0RR restrictions are not helping with improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• With the majority of editors disagreeing with those changes, including the last 2 newly proposed paragraphs that have been rejected a few times. It seems like you believe that consensus is based upon how much you have misused the noticeboards or how much you rebelled for your preferred version. That's why John highlighted your battlefield approach. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a specific disagreement with the proposal based on WP:PAG? I don't think so. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying what I said before. Because you are pretending that you have skipped every single explanations that has been provided to you by number of editors on the talk(page) and you need an explanation here, I wouldn't be copying that whole to this noticeboard. I have rechecked the relevant section and multiple editors were involved in building up a summary. You can help there, after reading and reviewing that discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lifting 0RR restriction

It's pretty apparent that the 0RR restriction has very little support. Since John refuses to lift it (see User talk:John#Ayurveda restrictions), what's the mechanism? Ivanvector, Arthur Rubin, Fut.Perf.?—Kww(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I think Philknight can suggest something good. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Though John really put the hammer down it does seem he had a call for action. How about mandatory BRD? After the revert don't add it back without a consensus. Bold, remove, and discuss to get a consensus, if you can't get a consensus on the talk page take it to one of the multiple venues for dispute resolution. That along with some of the other restriction John set in place: No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to an uninvolved Admin or to WP:AN/I. All business on this particular article. No trash talk, just content. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've got no objection to a "no trash talk" restriction, but enforcing BRD isn't very different from 0RR. The conclusion from our Arbcom decision on pseudoscience is that we needed to take measures to ensure that our policy of neutrality was not manipulated to favour distortion of reality.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• BRD seems very different to 0RR to me - BRD is effectively 1RR (it has an "R" in it), and that's a mile away from allowing quackery to be added and not reverted without discussion. Given that the onus is on the contributor of content to justify it, 1RR/BRD seems to me like the limit of what is sensible in terms of revert restrictions. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's agreement among neutral admins here that 0RR has no consensus, and John refuses to acknowledge or suggest an alternative, I think another admin is warranted in overriding John's restriction. Though I'm not an admin myself and personally haven't encountered this situation before. But what should it be lifted to? Full protection? PC/2 doesn't have consensus for use, and I don't think would help here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please lift it. John doesn't appear to be able to look at his decision to impose 0RR in an objective manner, nor look at options: User_talk:John#Ayurveda_-_At_your_request. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well how about 1RR with the additional restrictions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:The BRD isn't different from 0RR, except that the editors are able to edit the article. Challenged stuff goes out. It can't go in without a consensus. Honestly there will be little effective means to take measures to ensure that pseudoscience isn't used to as you say distort our reality(you made me laugh there.) There's stuff to do but none of it's guranteed to work and I'm not sure it's in our ability here to do them. Such as we could set up a review committee with specific instructions. It just seems to me though that we can trust some of the systems already in place. They ain't perfect. The main thing that comes to mind with that suggestion is that it ends the disruption, it encourages working towards a consensus, and it does give room to work. I lean to the presumption that if you can't get a consensus it might not need to be in the article. There are pitfalls to this presumption but we do have a consensus based system. The system has the potential for abuse but most any system does. The (for lack of better term) partisan fringe editors could go to a world is flat article and challenge the mention that it was once thought that the world was flat. Pretty much though that is Pointy and pretty much just a bad faith negotiation tactic. That would suggest to me that such an editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia to me. There would be enough rope here for one to hang themselves.But honestly I'm just offering an idea to forward this conversation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming John's restriction is under the aegis of arbcom discretionary sanctions, as (as far as I know -- someone please provide a link to policy if I'm wrong) an admin can't unilaterally place restrictions on a page unless it's under General or Discretionary Sanctions. As described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, an overturn discussion requires a clear consensus of admins here (on AN) or AE or ARCA. Rather than wikilawyer over whether "ANI" counts as part of the "AN" clause, I've simply moved the discussion here. I agree with Kww et. al. the 0RR should be overturned for the reasons they give but my non-admin vote doesn't count, of course. NE Ent 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent That arbcom sanctions template was added by Roxy the dog,[32] after 12 days when John had imposed 0rr.[33] Bladesmulti (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't determined whether an article is in the scope of the sanctions or not. It isn't required in order to issue sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct and article was always under Wikipedia:ARBIP because it has WikiProject-India. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to wikilawyer either, but technically all of the comments in this thread prior to NE Ent's at 23:27 14/11/14 were made at AN/I, not at AN. You just moved them here. Sorry, you brought it up. I'm also in favour of overturning as a non-admin, fwiw. I'm in favour of either the 1RR or enforced-BRD proposals, although I think they are functionally the same. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing there about 1RR vs. enforced-BRD. Since the discussion about what to do with the article is proceeding on the article talk page, and John is participating, let me leave this with a comment that I am opposed to 0RR in general per the above, and a suggestion that we close this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to close this thread before the 0RR is replaced by a potentially helpful restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To suggest that John is participating at the Talk page is over egging the pudding by a considerable margin. He has posted once since October 19th, has never answered questions or pings, and has stated that he does not watch the page.Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'd hate to see what 'not participating' is -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He posted today, slightly modifying his restrictions. Still, he's essentially said there can be no edits without consensus, and reverts only under strict conditions, yet the page is not full-protected. It's even more of a mess than 0RR - now nobody can really be sure if their revert is going to be considered in violation, or even if their edit is going to be considered a revert, or if they're going to be considered part of whatever team the admin decides is edit-warring, and now it's all also subject to WP:ARBPS enforcement so editors can be handed a long block after barely a warning if their edit falls afoul of these open-to-interpretation restrictions. If I were an admin, I'd be afraid to sanction anyone for fear of being dragged before Arbcom for misinterpreting John's conditions. There's a consensus that 0RR should be removed, and technically John did that, so I guess he can do what he wants. I'm not going anywhere near that article, personally, but I hadn't been going to anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a diff from John's talk page, following a comment from John on my talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff above does not say what I thought it said. It seemed to support all the behavioural evidence presented. I apologise for misinterpreting. I have attempted to strike my comment above, but it looks kludgy. I would welcome anybody editing that to show me how I should have best done it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been misbehavior and deviation from Wikipedia policy on this article all around, by both sides of the dispute and by John. The article needs a reboot with an influx of new editors and new administrators. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell 0RR was imposed by John without the authority to do so. Only ArbCom or community consensus has the authority to impose a general sanction such as that. As such there are no valid extra restrictions on Ayurveda beyond standard discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." He has now removed the 0RR restriction (as per Talk:Ayurveda#Update), the 3 restrictions left I believe the first two are not imposed by John but just standard WP policy (WP:Edit warring, WP:Civility) imposed on all pages (And through discretionary sanctions can be enforced by any uninvolved admin). I have questions about the last restriction added "Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand." This does not appear to be standard WP policy. Normal policy is Bold, Revert, Discuss. While I agree its usual for major changes to be talked about in the talk page first, that is not usually something that an admin can impose through discretionary sanctions. As such I wonder where the authority to impose this comes from? --Obsidi (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Re: 0RR was imposed by John without the authority to do so. As you mentioned the article is under standard discretionary sanctions which specifically says, "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That part is about sanctions of individual editors, but you are right in policy under Page restrictions at least as it applies to the 0RR. Still page restrictions are not as broad as "any other reasonable measure". It does talk about the "addition or removal of certain content", I guess its at least arguable that this applies (the addition of major changes), although that seems to be focused on specific content not so generalized. --Obsidi (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Close Review Media Viewer RfC

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

---

I request a review of the close at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I am the author of the RfC.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. No action had been taken on this outcome. Many people were demanding respect for consensus itself, and demanding this RfC reach resolution.

I attempted discussion with the closer here on his talk page. The closer immediately invited me to take it to Administrator's Notice board. Nonetheless I attempted to pursue positive discussio ns with him because Policy says that's what we're supposed to do. I even defended him when someone jumped in with a hostile comment. The closer simply decided ignore me, without even the courtesy of informing me that no answer was forthcoming. Brief discussion resumed after I accepted his invitation to take things here. I now understand he disengaged because of the intruding hostile comment, but he still should have shown me some common courtesy.

RfC Question 1 ended 64 Support 32 Oppose. This is an exact 2-to-1 outcome, 67%. The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

"Reaffirm June_2014_RfC": This involves evaluation of whether the previous RfC was valid and whether any intervening events had invalidated it, establishing that it was a standing outcome still awaiting resolution. If it is deemed to be a standing result awaiting resolution, then it is merely question of community choice to issue a statement of affirmation. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

"Implement June_2014_RfC": The RfC question and the RfC arguments were specifically requesting that the original RfC be resolved. This is significant. Many people were focused on the principal of respecting and resolving an established consensus, rather than focused on Media Viewer itself. This RfC explicitly contemplated that participants may have cast an Oppose on the issue of disable-by-default, while supporting this RfC because they insist upon respect for carrying out an established consensus. This RfC explicitly considered participants might have Supported on the issue of disable-by-default itself, while believing there was cause not to follow through with that RfC under the current circumstances. The issue of wanting Consensus to be respected and the issue of preferred media viewer setting are not trivially interchangeable. The RfC was explicitly intended to allow people to cross the lines on those two issues when participating. The questions invite different arguments, and those arguments need to be properly evaluated as such.

I want to make a comparison here. An anonymous IP can wander onto the talk page of a protected article, spot a standing consensus-edit-request that has gone unresolved, and simply go over to Administrator Noticeboard to request an admin grab their mop and carry out the routine maintenance task of implementing that still-standing protected-page-edit-request. Carrying out a standing RfC result is a routine maintenance task. Consensus was applied in creating that standing result. A request for implementation of a standing result needs no consensus, it can be a request by one person. This RfC is seeking a routine community-consensus to issue a formal call for an admin to step up and complete that pending routine maintenance task on the previous RfC. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

Any change to the close on RfC Question 1 clearly triggers a reevaluation of RfC Question 2. Question 2 should be consensus support, or consensus support except bullet point 6. Bullet point 6 was poor drafting on my part. 6 was not intended to have any effect itself, it merely intended to reflect the expiration of the 7 day hold on implementation from Question 1.

A final note on the situation. The June_2014_RfC is a standing result, which any admin might step forward to fulfill at any time. Given the percentages in the community there is zero likelyhood of establishing a contrary consensus in the foreseeable future. That result is going to stand indefinitely, until someone does step forward to implement it. An affirmative close on this RfC as a whole imposes a mandatory 7 day prohibition on implementation, and a mandatory attempt to work with the WMF on to resolve this. Alsee (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close This was closed a while ago and the close was within discretion. Moreover, there was no policy rationale that was given for the WP:Vote that was held by Alsee in her/his nominating statement or otherwise (see, WP:CONLIMITED), and it expressly contradicted the plain language of WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never participated in a close review before, is customary for participants in the RfC itself to be casting Endorse close?? And is it also customary for them to essentially copy-paste their RfC Support/Oppose comments here? I was hoping the process here might involve..... I dunno.... maybe consideration of why I assert the close was incorrect. Alsee (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

endorse close in this sense means endorse the closing rational in this situation. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understood that. What I was wondering is why we don't simply save time and copy-paste all of the participant Support/Oppose comments here. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. To overturn you must show an abuse of discretion, which usually involves a breach of policy but since your proposal had no policy rationale there, you cannot make any such showing. I certainly did not analyse the closer's discretion as a participant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was applying, but did not quote WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. For example this goes directly to "The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses", "Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold", and "close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated", and probably other points. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There does not appear to be a misunderstanding, nor does any of that cure the defect that the proposed vote had no policy rationale. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "abuse of discretion". No one is suggesting abuse of any sort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

What? "Abuse of discretion" is a common phrase, it means did someone act outside of their discretion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. When there's a 2:1 ratio against the close, the closer has an obligation to explain why the predominant conclusion had such a weak foundation as to be disregarded. There's no problem with closing RFCs against the popular count, but doing so with a vague handwave is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note Question 2 has been archived here.

Overturn close without prejudice. Speaking for myself I looked at that debate, and because I saw the overwhelming support decided not to vote on Q1 (IIRC). It seems to me that the Q1 would require a closely reasoned close to be "no consensus" especially when "no consensus" has the same effect as "oppose". It also seems (without close examination) that Q2 might reasonably have a no-consensus close, but it should be given a proper close, even if Q1 fails because it speaks to community resolve. In other words, we may wish to say to the Foundation "The community believes that due to changed circumstances it is now acceptable to have MV as the default, but we wish to make it clear that we still believe that we should have the final say on configuration done through wiki-pages." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

the main issue with overturning the close is that there is no possible result from doing so. Yes, we could ask the foundation to do so, but WP:CONEXEPT will come into play (as a policy on this sort of issue, I weighed it accordingly). If the close is changed, it's only to cause more friction with the WMF, and the accompanied dramafest. I've explained the rest of my rational for the close already in various places, if people want to know more, then I'll try and explain. However, if people get hostile, then I'm not going to engage further. This did include the events after last time, showing there is no positive resolutions to come out of this for either side. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann you say you explained your rationale in "various other places". Could you point me where to look, aside from your talk page? I would also appreciate it if you would explicitly address my Review Request reasoning. You have not even indicated that you disagree with it, much less given any reason you think it is incorrect.

The only argument I see you adding here is a desire to avoid drama. I would like to note that your closing statement explicitly contemplates another RfC and multiple Oppose statements explicitly provide justification to start another RfC extremely soon. This RfC had 67% support. Leaving this closed as no-consensus 'with a three percent justification simply imposes the drama of yet another RfC, making supporters even more pissed off at the repeated denial of consensus. Alsee (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes; A future RfC where there is a possible outcome. There is no outcome, nor any means to show one; The WMF responded to the oppose points, which is something else that affects consensus; If someone improves an article at AfD, to the point where the issues no longer exist, would it still be deleted? WP:ROPE seems relevant here - if they improve it, then it's for the better, otherwise we can discuss this after the latest rounds of improvements are finished. There is no way we can (or will be able to) implement the consensus. Also, please stop vote counting; This was an RfC, the clue is in the word "comment", so it is not a vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, the problem is that you are giving extreme weight to an argument that is completely bogus: if the software isn't in acceptable condition now, it shouldn't be default now. If the WMF actually comes up with something useful in the future, then they can discuss making it the default at that future time, but what they may do in the future has no bearing on what we should do today. Overriding numerical counts is certainly acceptable, but your reasoning for doing so is without merit.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, no. Mdann52 was required by WP:CONSENSUS policy to take the views of the WMF into account - so the characterization of 67% is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, a 2-to-1 outcome is a damn solid consensus and a closer needs a damn good reason to deny it. You cannot tell me to "stop vote counting" when your given justification for refusing a consensus close was that 2-to-1 was 3% short of bogus 70% threshold. I explained on your talk page why 70% was invalid, and you stopped responding. After filing my Review Request I indicated on your talk page that I was curious to hear your response to it. You didn't answer. I asked you above to explicitly address the review request reasoning. You have failed to do so. That is three times you have failed to deny it was clear error. If you do not state that you disagree with the cause for review and give a reason, then I am going to change my Overturn Close reason to "Closer does not dispute that he mis-evaluated the question and incorrectly applied a 70% threshold for consensus". Either change your close to reflect consensus, or participate productively here and explain how 70% is valid. Alsee (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

70% is a generally accepted threshold elsewhere (eg. RfA) for showing clear consensus. Here, as it is less than 70%, I looked into the reasoning a bit deeper than I otherwise would (this is standard practice I use elsewhere too). 70% is not a brightline, rather an advisory I use for working out rough consensus. Overall I base my closures on the discussion, not the ratio of !votes or whatever. In this case, including what the WMF said, there is not a consensus to do this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page you justified the 70% because "Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support". Maybe I'm reading waaay too much into your latest comment, but does your more general explanation for 70% here reflect an acceptance that the close statement should be directed to "Reaffirming and Implementing June_2014_RfC" rather than "implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer"? I would consider that a meaningful step up in accuracy. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you took CONEXCEPT into account and gave it significant weight, your close is defective. If you look into the rationale for the policy (which, by the way, was added by an employee of the WMF without discussion), it's to prevent the community from demanding something contrary to fundamental principles or demanding something with unreasonable technical costs, neither of which is the case here. CONEXCEPT has NEVER been applied in this manner before. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm presumably the alleged WMF employee being insulted here with implications of underhanded behavior, I will point out that CONEXCEPT was created two months before my first edit, and that it was discussed not only at the time of its original addition but also later, e.g., here, and always reaffirmed (and often improved).

I have never had any reason to edit any policy in my capacity as a non-employee independent contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation. What you are falsely calling my addition is almost word-for-word what Ring Cinema proposed on the talk page, and Ring's words were discussed here in Archive 14, just like my edit summary said they were. There were five editors involved in that two-thousand-word-long discussion (which is more than typical for a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS), and nobody involved in that discussion was working with the WMF at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. 70% threshold for consensus was not within reasonable discretion, and other reasons listed in review request. Alsee (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Clarification: Closing policy provides for things such as cause to discard improper votes and policy arguments to trump nonpolicy arguments. I meant simply assigning an arbitrary 70% threshold in a close that fails to provide a dang good rationale is not within reasonable discretion. Alsee (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overturn close It was closed against consensus and it doesn't appear Conexempt would apply KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn - I almost voted to support yesterday, as I tend to give a lot of leeway to the closer, but when you are closing against the count, you have to explain better. I've made the same mistake at least once, and I voted against this particular close, but my conclusion here isn't based on what his conclusion is, nor do I want a second bit of the apple, I just want a close that takes the time to explain itself, and supports itself in policy. Whether his conclusion is right or wrong, we really don't have enough information to know how he came to it. Closing a contentious debate like this needs a pretty solid explanation, particularly when it goes against very strong numbers. On the technical aspects alone, I think it goes against our expectations and should be revisited by someone else. Considering it spawned an Arb case, it wouldn't bother me if a panel of 3 closed it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely overturn close - I fail to see any proper reason to close it as "No Consensus", besides fear of or faintheartedness towards the WMF. I know, the WMF has acted quite forceful, one could even say very hostile, against the communities in enWP and deWP, without any proper reasoning, without any need for speed, just because they could. As long as they don't behave in a proper way, they should be reminded of their misconduct by the community, they seem to hope for it to settle without any consequence for the perpetrators. This was a clear vote to reaffirm the first one, no doubt about it. The WMF has to say something to it, it should not be made possible to hide behind improper closures. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ask the closer for a detailed explanation or overturn. "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio, however along with the arguments for and against, no clear consensus has emerged." is not an explanation (real explanation should be much more detailed). Somewhat more specific explanations in the closer's talk page include a claim "A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval."(Special:Diff/632836952) that looks suspicious for many reasons that have already been mentioned (66% is rather close to that 70%+; shouldn't enabling the MV count as "A major change in software" as well?). But more importantly, what was that "support after arguments"? Yes, I get it, it is not the vote count. But still - what was it equal to? How was it calculated? Can we recheck it?

By the way, " I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." (Special:Diff/632802362) looks especially wrong. The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community; opinion of WMF (or anyone else) shouldn't count for anything here, not just "have less weight". Other comments by closer (like Special:Diff/633909415) also seem to be rather inappropriate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "represent"? Even ignoring the plain language of WP:CONSENSUS, anyone with an internet connection may comment in the RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, did WMF actually comment in the RFC? It would seem to be rather hard, because WMF is not really "anyone with an internet connection". It is not an "anyone", a human being, as it is an organisation. And since organisations are not allowed to have accounts, I don't see how they can participate in an RFC.

Now if it was said that opinion of WMF representatives who did express it in or "near" the RFC was taken into account - as opinion of individual users - that would be different. But it was said that an opinion of WMF - an organisation that did not participate - was counted. And, apparently, it was given more weight than the opinion of many of participants. Of course, it is hard to say how much, since we have no detailed explanation, but I read that "less weight in my decision then the communities votes" as giving opinion of WMF just less weight than 100% of participants. Perhaps 90%, perhaps 80%... Anyway, I'd say that would be far too much weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents. The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law. 100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents." - well, in that case, what weight would you give to opinion of United Nations? Or of European Union? Sorry, but your position leads to too many conclusions that are questionable at best...

"The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law." - yes, they do make some decisions. It does not mean that their opinion counts as, let's say, opinion of 10 or 100 or 1000 users. It is true that in some cases consensus does not achieve much, but it doesn't mean that WMF opinion is the community consensus. And closer of RFC is supposed to find out what that community consensus is, not what will actually happen next. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other." - I am not sure what you are saying here... My comment about "90%, perhaps 80%" concerned the weight that was given to opinion of WMF. The statement I quoted might mean that opinion of WMF was given as much weight as 90% or 80% of participants would have. Although it might be that no weights were actually calculated and the closer just based the decision on his feelings (it would explain why no detailed explanation has been given)... That would be unfortunate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where. Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts. Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other. By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic. The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS. Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where." - well, if you meant that organisations mentioned in policy can have their opinion counted in RFCs, then you should have said that. Anyway, I do not remember any policy that actually says so. Nor do I remember some "precedent"...

"Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts." - once again - policy or precedent, please.

"Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other." - OK, what did I say and where? Can you cite it? The closest thing in this discussion is "The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community;", but that is not very close to what you are arguing against...

"By policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic." - did I say it is?

"The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS." - which just so happens to be a policy that describes consensus as used in Wikipedia...

"Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy." - well, I guess we can look at the policy itself, but in this case the important point is that in that case "I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." is still inappropriate, although for a different reason.

In fact, I do not see how your arguments are supposed to support your claimed opinion "Endorse close". If WP:CONEXCEPT applies in the way you claim it to apply, the close "No consensus" is still wrong - it should have been "Consensus doesn't matter". Giving weight to both "communities votes" and WMF would still be wrong.

So, please, less outrage, more arguments. And more quotations (of policy, precedents, other users). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What outrage? I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia. The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What outrage?" - none, if you say so.

"I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Wikipedia." - you have certainly linked to policy (although not to some precedents or something that would actually support your interpretation of it), but I do not see you actually quoting from it. Or quoting anything else. For, you see, I do quote you in each response for a reason. It does make it easier to avoid misrepresenting your views. And, since you did seem to misrepresent my views a bit too much, I would recommend you to try to quote me as well.

"The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter." - I am afraid that is one more case when you misrepresent my position. I am not saying that we have to "reclose" the discussion ourselves. I am saying that, if your interpretation of policy is correct, no close that is not equivalent to "Consensus doesn't matter" is going to be compatible with the policy. Furthermore, the close uses lots of reasoning that is incompatible with your interpretation of policy. Thus I think that if you actually care about the policy (instead of just avoiding the fight with WMF), it is rather inconsistent for you to endorse the close. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the policy, so WP:Consensus does matter. I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy and voting is irrelevant, so there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes. (also, look for quotation marks) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Such a short comment and yet it includes so much! We have: 1) equivocation between "consensus" and "WP:CONSENSUS" (especially strange after you have accused me of such equivocation - "The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS."), 2) straw man argument ("there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes" - I am not arguing that it should be overturned just because of "vote count" here), 3) "proof by assertion" with failure to address the arguments against that assertion ("I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy" - I have just argued that the close is incompatible with your own interpretation of the policy, not to mention interpretation of others)...

Though, of course, your position is rather hard to defend without fallacies... I guess this discussion could give the closer enough reason to give your "vote" a proper weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to (yes - I pointed you to WP:CONSENSUS because that is what is relevant - not your claimed undefined consensus). No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn. The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden[tial]" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to" - it has little to do with what "equivocation" means. I meant that you are using "WP:CONSENSUS" (policy) and "consensus" (something described by that policy) as if they were the same thing. They are not. The section you point to is even called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". If you argue that it applies here, then consistency would require you to argue that, yes, the close is still against the policy and the right close would say something like "Consensus doesn't matter." (of course, if you point to policy without actually quoting what it says, it becomes less obvious).

"No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn." - right here I am arguing that if the policy is to be interpreted as you wish, the close would still be wrong. It has nothing to do with vote counting.

"The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden[tial]" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after." - I have to say that I do not understand what you are saying here other than that it has little to do with what the word "precedent" means... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your misuse of equivocation is your fault not mine - the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, which is the definition of consensus that matters on Wikipedia. Your the one who argued for an imagined consensus of editors by exalting vote percentages - and I pointed you to CONSENSUS policy - which says what has "precedence" with respect to its formation - WP:CONSENSUS gives the "precedence" to the acts and decisions of the WMF - valid formation is by definition only according to that policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I obviously do not think much about those your arguments, but perhaps now we can leave everything to whoever chooses to close this discussion... There should be enough evidence. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took part in the RfC, so I will refrain from putting in an official !vote on the closure review. But Mdann's comments in this thread cast a serious doubt in my mind as to his/her impartiality in the closure. His/her comments in regard to CONEXCEPT and relations with WMF rather blatantly suggests to me that Mdann's closure was a supervote, instead of an attempt to summarize the consensus of the discussion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, just about everyone who gave such opinion here participated in the discussion... In fact, I wanted to add "as a 'voter'" to my opinion, but then I noticed that and it seemed to be rather pointless... I'm afraid that there are no more truly "uninvolved" users left (not counting the ones who wouldn't want to have anything to do with such discussions in the first place)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Just an update, at this time Rich Farmbrough, KoshVorlon, Hobit, Adam Cuerden, and Obsidi did not participate in Q1 which is at challenge here. I think Rich was in Q2, but the fact that he actively declined to participate in Q1 arguably gives him a uniquely proven willingness to respect any valid outcome on that question. Their 5 unanimous Overturns seem to be good evidence that RfC supporters aren't merely here to whine. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read a lot. The close was very poor. If you are going to go against numeric consensus (and there can be darn fine reasons to do so!), you need a better explanation. I didn't get the sense that the closer had internalized and was able to explain the arguments on both sides, let alone that there was some overriding issue that made the numeric consensus worth rejecting. Note: this is not the same as saying the close result was mistaken. If this gets overturned and someone else closes it, the close might have the same outcome. But hopefully for a clear reason. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn The close seems to be an assertion with no connection to reality. When you're claiming there isn't a consensus, then stating immediately thereafter "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio" - and have literally no argument why there's no consensus, your closure is bullshit and should be overturned. That not everyone agrees is expected - otherwise, why have the RFC? - but doesn't mean that the viewpoint of a supermajority should be ignored with no other reason given. The closer dropped the ball badly here, and doesn't really seem to be able to defend his views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn per Hobit. If the closer is going against numerical consensus, he needs a good reason to. KonveyorBelt 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

closer note I'm going through a few RL issues at the moment, so I'm lacking the time to give this the full attention I would normally do. I hope to be able to come back and leave a full analysis of my closure within the next 24-48 hours or so. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I am fine with going against the numbers if there is a strong policy requirement or if some of the !votes are invalid, but this isn't that. In this case, the closure went against the votes without any good specific valid reason why, as such it should be reversed. --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn As per others. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, I have prepared my full explanation, so please find it below. In order to do closes, I make notes and a rough tally of the points on both sides. In this case, in the "support" section, there appears to be a number of main categories - "I don't like it/it used to be better before" type comments, "consensus already formed" etc., "there are bugs/issues" and "see usability/approval numbers". In the support section, the main categories were "Not applicable, per WP:CONEXCEPT", "ongoing consultation/improvements/fixes" (also echoed by the WMF), "benefit for readers/easy to turn off if you want", "not really an RfC" (not considered) and "Better than before". The WMF also indicated that they were listening and making changes made on community feedback, including easier opt-out, and they will reconsider this once they have new data. Overall, with the full comments made, and the relevant policies mentioned (CONEXCEPT, m:Limits to configuration changes), and the history of this issue (bugzilla:67826 and previous RfC), that at this time, there is no clear consensus to carry this change out. Please let me know if you wish for me to clarify anything. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1.When the discussion is about software useability, arguments like 'it was better before' 'there are bugs' are perfectly reasonable reasons to disable something by default. 'Consensus already formed' is also a valid argument when the question is about 'should we endorse previous discussion'. 2.Weighting against that with the WMF's 'we are doing stuff that might at some point in the future lead to it being useful' is really really bad judgement on both consensus, and weighting/evaluation of evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hence I did not ignore it. Additionally, how is looking at the improvements/bug fixes "bad judgement"? If there was an AfD, and a participant was actively editing the article and fixing issues, would the article be deleted? Usually not, they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed to carry on (WP:ROPE). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that can pass for a "full explanation"? Sorry, but anything that can at least be similar to a full explanation must be at least ten times longer. If you do not want to write that much, perhaps you can simply upload your notes that you mention?

Frankly, the impression I get is that you read everything and then closed in the way you did just because you felt like it. Can you give some evidence that would clearly demonstrate that this impression is wrong?

Anyway, some specific questions that must be answered by a full explanation:

1. You have said that ~70% support would have been necessary. What number did you compare with that "~70%" (it had to be some number; it makes no sense to talk about thresholds without numbers)? How exactly did you come up with that number?
   1. What exact weights have been given to each type of argument (or participant)? Why?
   2. What exact weight was given to opinion of WMF? Why?
2. How exactly did you use "CONEXCEPT"? That section is called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". Do you think it applies?
   1. If the answer is "Yes", why did you try to determine consensus at all?
   2. If the answer is "No", why do you say it was "relevant"?

Answering those questions should get you started... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

70% was a rough figure, not a brightline rule. I'm not sure where it originated from, but it was a piece of advice I've received in the past from an admin to use while closing discussions, and how deep they need to be examined.

In terms of weight, I gave more weight to the community than the WMF, because of course the community is bigger. I give weight to arguments as opposed to participants primarily, but of course those arguments with more support are given more weight. After looking through this, the rough consensus was about 55:45, which to me is within the realms of a "no consensus" close. Note this does not overturn the decision of the previous RfC, it just says that there is no consensus at this time to reproach the WMF and try and get it disabled at this time.

Personally, I did not consider CONEXCEPT, as I mentioned in the close. As a relevant policy (as it covers RfC's just like this), I did give weight to !votes referring to it. The reason it may be relevant here is that as a decision of the WMF whether this is on or off, it is clearly a possible reply from the WMF, and a valid point to make. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn as per above. And since its been a few days now. Can someone get on and do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. Seems like a supervote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn result. We don't need consensus at this discussion to continue enforcing the removal of MediaViewer, because we previously had consensus to remove it. When a discussion results in consensus to do something, a later discussion must have consensus the other way for things to change: a "no consensus" close for the later discussion results in the continued enforcement of the first decision. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Mdann52 voluntarily withdrew his close on Question 1, and edited the RfC page to reflect this. This is a single multipart RfC, reopening it reopens the entire RfC. Part 2 is explicitly dependent upon part 1, and any close on part two needs to take into account the close on part 1. I edited the page to reflect a reopening of part 2 as well.

I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is. For what it's worth I have no objection to dropping the final bullet point from part 2 if the closer(s) feel the current !votes are too close for a sufficient consensus as-is, but I would hope such a close would be clear that the part 1 call-to-implement kicks in at the end of the 7 day hold. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks

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

---

With respect to the confession here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#I am... and the corresponding user talk discussion and SPI... I'm starting this thread to request a reversing of my past blocks (I think all except the first one but I am willing to dig in to histories and give diffs), a logged warning by ArbCom and retrospectively reversing of my (now removed) 1RR and IBAN sanctions with respect to Darkness Shines. This is because all these were made in deliberate hounding, baiting and disruption for about a year or more. From the first article Taliban I edited with an editor "The Last Angry Man" [34] (why is TLAM still unblocked?) and this editor who was not much active in my topic area jumped in to support (I should have reported right then but I did not have a lot of evidence; and later all my reports would have been rejected due to history with DS), he eventually was hounding me to every single article I edited (including the brand new ones that I created); obviously from my contributions history. Whatever attempts I made to take this to ANI, DR, ArbCom were disrupted and eventually resulted in an interaction ban and 1RR which I got reverted the hard way by regaining good standing inspite of all this hounding by a sockpuppet who was thought to be a 'genuine' editor. I am starting here as I want to raise the least drama but I am willing to go to ArbCom if the community is not even willing to appreciate an administrative failure for years. I am not even asking for any apologies here, I just want things acknowledged to bring my own editing at a better standing. These are my main concerns that I want reversed where applicable or acknowledged to be wrongful where already reversed:

1. IBan with DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
2. 1RR restriction due to baiting by DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
3. Rollback removed due to a block due to this baiting.
4. Final warning logged by Seraphimblade (ArbCom) (standing and needs to be reverted).
5. My block log looks like hell so want it noted there that the blocks were wrongful per policy - all but my first block involve DS; mostly directly reverting / Iban vio (or at the very least for maybe one case, he was influencing consensus / tag-teaming with any other editors opposing me).

All this because admins were wary and were not ready to swiftly block on behavioural evidence of disruption, hounding and mess that resulted in finally creating WP:ARBIPA and later DS got himself topic banned from the area. His sockmaster account's blocklog rivals his current (apart from all the intermediate prolific socking) and by the looks of it he was under 1RR and sanctions similar to his current ones even then. I can safely say that a major part to play in this was by DS. It is unfortunate to see recognition on his talkpage by even administrators given that he had been nothing but trouble.

This is a rare case, but administrators who initially volunteered to work with us as uninvolved including Magog the Ogre‎ and Salvio giuliano‎ and the editors who were working over the main content disputes (Mar4d, TParis) would know how deep rooted this mess was and I can not find enough space to even list the damage that's been done to Wikipedia; the man hours wasted (mine and of all the editors / admins at ANI / ArbCom), the new editors hounded off, and major disruption of my own efforts to a content area covering 3-4 countries atleast. Here are some archives remotely pointing to the history:

You might say that I should have acted differently assuming that it was not known that he was a sock, but it was deliberate baiting and hounding by a sock with no fear of indeff (because guess what, he's already indeffed and a sock). This revelation changes everything and all my blocks / sanctions were wrongful because you can not have an iban / sanction / block because of a block evading sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Please start with no justice. Having an interaction ban with an indeffed blocked sock is effectively having no ban at all, but we are not a bureaucracy and there's no benefit in wading back through all the history changing stuff that doesn't help the encyclopedia and, in the end, that's all that is important. Wikipedia editors are never sanctioned due to other folks behavior, they're sanctioned because of their own behavior. The fact that someone else turns out to have not followed the rules doesn't excuse one's own behavior. Finally, claiming "administrative failure" is an inappropriate collective personal attack on the editors who have volunteered their time to do admin scutwork. The simple fact is that Wikimedia Foundation has declared we will have socks. Well, not directly, but the combination of not requiring registration and very, very strong privacy rights for volunteers is effectively that. The WP:SPI folks do the best they can in ferreting out the more obvious cheaters, but that's about the best you can expect. NE Ent 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read my original comment, I'm not asking for justice.. and before you go and throw more essays at me, reversing of warnings / sanctions and blocklog is the least that can be done. I am willing to redo the content the hardway and I probably wont be able to fix a year's disruption anyway like that if at all. For the claim of administrative failure, I'm not the only one claiming this. Look at the first ANI thread I linked. So suck it up for this is what you get for letting a disruptive editor roam around. If you think that amounts to no ban at all... the short answer should have been that because there's no need to go wading back through histories to do this; I am the one responsible for diffs. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• What Ent said. The fact that he was guilty of even more issues doesn't erase your guilt, nor justify your previous actions. And I can promise you that there are many thousands, yes thousands of socks we haven't caught here. I know of many, I just can't quite prove it, so I can't do anything. We don't have the tools, the authority or the manpower to catch even half the socking that takes place here. Not by a long shot. Your request to essentially turn back time and pretend he never existed is unrealistic and unworkable. And for the most part, changes nothing. And I would add that while we are permitted (but not required) to revert banned socks, to go in mass and revert everything he did just because "I can", would be disruptive this late in the game, and be seen as WP:POINTy. We aren't going to get Orwellian here and turn DS into an unperson by erasing three years of history. I can explain more, but in the end, it doesn't matter if DS was a sock or the Pope of Chili Town, your actions were your actions, and him being a sock doesn't excuse them. He isn't here anymore, move forward. I am sorry we didn't catch him sooner, but we aren't mind readers and socking is remarkably easy. Dennis - 2¢ 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My guilt? Great... diffs? All baiting and hounding by some one whose all edits are invalid. From 0 common edits to almost every article. So forgive me if my behaviour wasn't exemplary and that administrators are not the only ones to claim WP:NOJUSTICE (an essay ever edited by 7 editors), that goes both ways. There's not one instance where I have asked to plainly revert out everything, though I would not be wrong to revert where I feel like. This is about my disputes with him that administrators knew were on brink and the blocks that were unwarranted. I believe that inspite of being sympathetic on his talkpage, you would have blocked him if you found it, but I don't believe that I am the only one to blame for all the forumshopping that got my blocks and sanctions. If as per NE Ent, it is not a ban at all given that he was a block evading editor wasting genuine editors' time, why is this such a big deal to ask for an acknowledgement in my block log which is a policy Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log unlike the essay thrown at me. Ironically, I'd like to quote an admin's comment from ANI that they give DS a certain amount of leeway because he has been dealing with a lot of socks. So forgive me while I ask for you guys to, for once, accept a wrong and implement policy which is the least that can be done here and the only thing I originally asked for, not for undoing everything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And asking for a thing or two, directly to that admin, is perfectly fine, but you are asking too much in this report. It is frustrating for us all, and I understand why it is most frustrating for you. I would even support adding a one second block to your log to add a note in the summary, although I'm not sure it makes much difference. But you are asking too much in this report as a whole. Farmer Brown (Dennis) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it is all being interpreted, but I have already gotten my sanctions removed the hard way by proving from my edits; they were obviously with a de facto banned (indeffed) editor anyway so I do understand what NE Ent said and a one second block noting this about blocks is enough and very much per policy. Coming here than going and finding the blocking admin(s) seemed to be the better thing in my judgment so I did. The only thing that is left otherwise is the ArbCom warning... I don't know its standing (it specifically refers to "inappropriate interaction with DS" which is all void) but I can wait for Seraphimblade and Magog the Ogre's comment about that. I don't know what else do you think I am asking as a whole in this report? I was hounded for a year by this editor... I don't think my reaction by posting this thread is out of ordinary. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. I have respect for both TopGun and Darkness Shines. At the time, I felt both were knowledgable and resourceful editors. Darkness Shines confession, which still leaves me with doubts, is disappointing. Not because he confessed but because I trusted him and I feel let down. If his confession is true, and not an attempt to burn bridges because he is exhausted, then TopGun deserves the benefit of the doubt and a lot of his past actions would've had policy on his side (ie. exemptions referring to blocked socks). I think it's fair to cut TopGun at least a little slack if not a clean slate altogether.--v/r - TP 17:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm with TParis. I can sympathize with TopGun because I've been there, in terms of working extensively to deal with a difficult editor only to find that their account was a sockpuppet. There is something particularly frustrating about having one's time and effort wasted by another editor's dishonesty in this fashion. I note, with irony, that one of Darkness Shines' many blocks was overturned because his adversary in an edit war turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (see block log, 30 July 2012). While I get the "no justice" concept, and have cited it myself, I do think we owe the same sort of consideration to TopGun here.

  A couple of other points: Darkness Shines' block log is sort of remarkable, in that it makes me wonder how he retained any editing privileges here at all even before his confession. There's a clear history of disruptive editing with the DS account alone, and anyone who's shocked to find that the account was operated by another disruptive editor wasn't paying very close attention. And let's recall that the sockpuppeteer in this case was banned for, among other things, serious violations of WP:BLP, a policy which we all pretend to take seriously, at least when it suits us to do so. This episode should probably prompt a bit more introspection about how we react to disruptive editors. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Amen to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Irony seems to be the core of this and fits in with Magog's comment below about the punitive nature of just editing with an editor like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I recommended TopGun post here after he consulted me privately. I first came upon their dispute while meting out punishments at WP:AN3. Eventually, I went through an ArbCom proceeding with them in which I made it very clear that I thought DS was continually gaming the system and doing his best to harm TopGun. So I am not wholly impartial at this point.

To speak my mind anyway: I thought a lot of the blocks against TG were done in an attempt to be even-handed: to punish both sides equally, when it was quite clear to me that this was DS's exact goal. Cause a lot of disruption, muddy the waters, and when the ax comes down, everyone has a body part lopped off.

Also to note: TopGun has not been perfect. In particular, he's not very good at recognizing what constitutes "neutral." But this is a problem a lot of editors have without the long block log to suit. IMO, the majority of his blocks were due to collateral damage. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a bias here, but you've admitted it, so I respect that. I get along fine with TG and DS both, but I've interacted more with DS due to Nang* socks, so might have my own bias. I never interacted with either when editing, only as admin. Thinking about it a couple of days, I wouldn't be opposed to consider some of what TG is asking about. What I don't want to see is the community go on a tear to "erase" DS. That would be vindictive. At the same time, looking at some modifications to TG's sanctions does seem reasonable as long as the goal isn't "anti-DS", but instead leveling the playing field, which wasn't even for TG before. If MastCell wanted to look and make the call, I'm pretty confident I would be ok with the modifications he felt were balanced and reasonable. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I can't speak for everyone else, but I wasn't proposing an erasure of anyone (whatever that means). I don't think it is a good idea to do away with his contributions, for a number of reasons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I know Magog, and again, I respect your honesty. I singled out Mast, as I think (?) he is enough in the center to have a good bead. I did work with DS a lot with socks, so I found him likable, so I have a bit of a bias, I admit. I have no bias against TG and find him agreeable, as well, I just haven't been around him much. I was just thinking someone who is closer to the center to just "do it" by fiat and have it be done. It took a day for me to come around, but I agree with you here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This one is from when Magog wasn't of any eventual opinion about DS's behaviour. Anyway, this post was never about DS's own current block... he tends to earn that independently (even when he makes a new 'clean slate' account). It was about what had happened to my standing due to his prior actions and hounding. The SPI and everything else have their own merit and I trust the SPI admins to make the right conclusion. What I am asking has nothing to do with reverting DS's contributions as a whole, rather getting a clean slate for myself. You've misunderstood the purpose of my thread (it is not titled 'nuke DS's contributions'). My request to reverting past sanctions, blocks and the logged warning is not anything that isn't already kind of understood since I could never have had a sanction with a sock. All I am doing is making it formal. Although I am personally of the opinion that a big deal of his contributions (while he was editing with me) were pointy and for the purpose of undoing me and yet I originally stated that I am willing to edit all that the regular way with all other editors who may independently disagree and hence the same consensus procedure. How does that do away with his contributions as a whole? The fact that I reversed all standing sanctions on me the hard way should have been enough endorsement of the fact that I never was the reason per se to disrupt the project. Since MastCell is not leaving sympathetic comments on DS's talkpage and his statement here is based on the voice of reason, I can trust him to do it as well if he was to sum up the consensus and make a 1 second nullifying block and remove the warning from WP:ARBIPA. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the sockpuppetry, I might as well admit that I had my suspicions over TLAM being a former account of DS as far back as 2012. The similarities in contributions and POVs between both accounts, and many old talk page archives had sent some bells ringing back then. However, there was not enough conclusive evidence to make a judgement, and given the cesspit of content disputes, sanctions and administrative interventions going on back then, the thing remained on the backhand. However, having sifted through the contributions and similarities between both accounts more recently (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley), I am more than convinced that TLAM was DS, and that both accounts were used abusively in content disputes with TopGun (including instances like this, where both DS and TLAM are voting support on what seems like a talk page RfC, and abusing the vote process; this is probably a tip of the iceberg). What I find ludicrous is that having already admitted to being Marknutley, and despite the plethora of evidence related to TLAM given at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley, DS is not willing to go a step further and own up that he also abused two accounts concurrently. Just owning this may generate some goodwill. I'm not sure why he's denying links to TLAM, but the evidences available quite strongly proves otherwise. I haven't been editing with DS or been in a content dispute with him for more than a year now, so I don't have any hard feelings. I am just perplexed at the truth coming out. I've had my fair share of disputes with this editor in the past, especially back in 2012. Like TG, I was taken to all the dramaboards and amid blocks and SPI accusations due to the editor concerned. Looking at his recent blocks, it is evident he's been engaged in content disputes with many other editors too. I also feel that many administrators have been too lenient with DS at times. It is probably because of that attitude that things have been allowed to get to this point. I think TopGun's request for a reversal of past warnings and sanctions is justified, to give him a level-playing field and also a clean slate that he deserves. For me, his reaction is natural and understandable. No editor would like having irremovable stains on their record and getting their repo damaged, especially when the other editor (who's the reason for much of it) they were engaged with for many years is now a confessed sockmaster and had been taking everyone for a ride. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I registered in 2012, so unfortunately had no knowledge about his socks. I was also one of the many editors hounded by DS, was a newbie then, but Thank god (if he exists) that I withstood this initial pressure and stress. Nominating articles created to stop the other party was one of his left-hand jobs. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. As Mar4d said, I was also taken to "dramaboards" and more than 90% of my conflicts were with him, the popular sock master. He with his socks, made it impossible for the newbies..... I had no option other than to take wikibreaks, etc. Anyhow, I feel good that finally Wikipedia has got rid of the main sock of that virus. I also support TopGun's request for the reversal of past things. The sockmaster had no fear of being taken to boards and blocked because he had many other accounts too and could easily make a new one and settle. Faizan 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion, warning rescinded

Let's remove log of warning. Imposing admin prefers to defer to the consensus here [48].

Support. I don't think it's important in the big scheme of things, but it's obviously important to an editor (TopGun) and I don't see any down side. NE Ent 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'd have to oppose this. While I very much sympathize with TopGun's wish to set the record straight with respect to the Marknutley/DS disruption, in the specific AE thread referenced here it does appear TopGun was rather blatantly trying to edit-war bad content into an article, so I'd still have to conclude the warning was objectively justified, no matter who his opponent was. Wouldn't mind to have the warning log annotated suitably though, something like: "DS later identified to have been a block evading sockpuppet". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Plus, Darkness Shines was not the only sock editwarring and baiting me generally and at that specific article. Specifically at that article, all parties editwarring against me were socks or sock masters proven to be using socks at that article as well. Here's the other guy [49] [50] (his IP as per his SPI). So bad content in the opinion of sockmasters or in the opinion of an editor who expressed it 2.5 years later is purely punitive. Actually we don't block/ban/sanction editors here because in our opinion the content is bad. That's grounds for a content dispute. On top of that, as I showed here DS was just looking to revert me where ever possible. This article was another one where the reverts were only being made because I would have once touched that content. It's funny when only one is proven a sock, but the second one too makes the day. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for all the reasons stated, and to set the record straight. Mar4d (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as stated above. Faizan 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Assistance required in interpreting Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

---

Guys, I need assistance in interpreting two issues in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I'm listing them below:

• 1.The General Sanctions page mentions, "Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." Does this statement mean that if an article already has a page notice/tag/edit notice informing the editors about the presence of sanctions, there is no need therefore to inform a particular editor about the existence of sanctions and log them before imposing sanctions? For example, the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already has a page notice that mentions the presence of these sanctions. Does it imply therefore that any editor editing the page is assumed to ergo be automatically informed about the sanctions?
• 2.The General Sanctions page also mentions, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Does without warning mean that one can block an editor without informing him about the existence of sanctions? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Notifications and warnings are two different things. A notification is simply an informative message that can be issued to anyone. A warning is a sanction that presupposes misconduct. It is unfair to sanction someone without notification, but a breach of the general sanctions can lead to an immediate block without needing a warning. They are very similar, but subtly different. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are mixing up the WP:1RR with the community-authorised discretionary sanctions. To impose a discretionary sanction, editors must have first been notified with the appropriate template, and that notification logged as it says. However, blocking for 1RR violations does not require a notification, as it is not a discretionary sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. RGloucester, while my view is similar to yours, I'm not sure others think so. Also, what do you think of my first query mentioned above? Could other editors chip in with comments with respect to both my specific queries please? Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My position is this: 1RR is unusual and is authorised as a sanction under this general sanction. An administrator would not usually impose a block for a 1RR without first notifying the person that there is a 1RR on a particular page under sanctions, because it would be grossly unfair to block an account of a person who had no idea that a page was under sanctions imposing a 1RR rule. A warning placed at the top of on a article talk page is not sufficient warning of a 1RR as the editor my not have looked at the talk page before reverting for a second time.

The problem is that currently the general sanction states: "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." (my emphasis on must). and the specified template states "An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here."

To rectify this it will be is necessary to alter the wording of the sanctions so a warning on the talk page of a user by an uninvolved administrator, that informs the user of the SCW&ISIL sanctions page through a link, can be taken to be sufficient notification, to allow further action by uninvolved administrators should the user break the sanctions in future. Logging notification/warnings by uninvolved admin should not be a prerequisite to prove that a user has warned/notified (that can be done through the edit history of the users talk page). Also any editor who clearly shows that they are aware of the sanctions (for example by notifying another editor of such sanctions) should not need to be notified or warned of possible administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Guidelines already exist on this matter, and your proposals fly in the face of them. For discretionary sanctions to be issued, the notification template must be used to alert editors that the discretionary sanctions exist, and that notification must be logged. This applies to these sanctions, because they are community-authorised discretionary sanctions explicitly said to mimic WP:ARBPIA. Notifications need not be issued by administrators. They can be issued by any editor as long as he or she follows the appropriate procedure. WP:1RR is not a discretionary sanction. It is separate from the discretionary sanctions, and hence does not require a discretionary sanctions notification. However, like with all edit-warring blocks, a warning should be issued before blocking. Such a warning is not the same as the discretionary sanctions notification. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Let me summon an editor who was involved in the drafting of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree while "Notifications need not be issued by administrators" and they can be issued by any editor, for a user to be notified the appropriate procedure has to be followed. If a 1RR is only in place on a page because of the sanctions affecting editing of that page, then if someone is blocked because of a 1RR then the administrator who issues the block has used a discretionary sanction to make the block. -- PBS (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because the WP:1RR and the community-authorised discretionary sanctions are separate general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions require a discretionary sanctions notice, and various other procedures. WP:1RR does not. It has edit notices in place on the pages appropriate, and there is also this template, Template:Uw-1rrSCW, which can be used to warn editors about edit-warring on 1RR-affected pages. This is why, if you'll notice, the 1RR and discretionary sanctions are described in separate boxes at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe I agree with RGloucester. To sanction an editor pursuant to discretionary sanctions, a notification or alert must be given. To block someone for a violation of WP:1RR, no notice/alert is needed. That said, I generally don't block someone for violating 1RR if they haven't been officially notified/alerted. I've made exceptions, though, to my general practice when I feel it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

With few exceptions (username issues, legal threats), we don't block a user unless either (s)he knows that (s)he will be boocked if (s)he does a particulaer edit or group of edits and does it anyway, or (s)he is trying to be disruptive. In this case, if the user saw an edit notice, then we can assume that (s)he knows about it; otherwise, we can't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again guys for the comments. So for my understanding, can I assume the following for the articles coming under the sanctions?: (a) In the absence of an edit/page notice detailing the presence of sanctions on any particular article, an editor must be formally informed of the presence of sanctions before any sanction is issued against them (b) While no formal warning is required before blocking an editor violating WP:1RR, good form recommends that the editor may be notified of the existence of WP:1RR and allowed to take corrective action before a block is put in place. Wifione ^Message 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If one wants to impose discretionary sanctions, an edit notice on the page is not sufficient. The proper template must be issued to the editor to make them aware of the sanctions, and that notification logged at the sanctions page. Edit notices are only sufficient for informing editors of 1RR, not of the DS. To impose a DS, one must follow the WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts procedure. You are right about the 1RR bit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@user:RGloucester unlike 3RR, 1RR is not project wide. In this case the authority to sanction a person for breaching 1RR is derived from the wording of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (SCW&ISIL). Whether you choose to call that a general sanction of a discretionary sanction, if 1RR is to be invoked from SCW&ISIL then according to the wording of SCW&ISIL notification "must" be given. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23 if it is not a SCW&ISIL sanction to block an account for 1RR then why have you logged blocks for beaching 1RR at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014? About 70% of sanctions recorded for 2014 are for breaches of 1RR if they are not sanctions covered by SCW&ISIL then those entries ought to be removed. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It was this edit on 26 October 2014 by Bbb23 that changed the word "can" to "must" which is what causes the problem with the current wording. According to the edit comment "three changes per discussion at WP:AN" AFAICT this must be the archived AN section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:1RR is a general sanction, but it is not a discretionary sanction. You're getting the two confused. When one blocks someone for violating WP:1RR, that's not a "sanction". 1RR was established as part of the SCW&ISIL general sanctions, but it is not part of the SCW&ISIL community-authorised discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me where in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified. Please point it out to me. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the general sanctions guidelines, and learn what "general sanctions" means. There are multiple different kinds of general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are only one kind of general sanctions. Others are revert restrictions, article probation, and various other things. If you look at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page, you'll notice that there are two separate boxes in the remedies section. The first on refers to the discretionary sanctions, and the second to the revert restriction. Notice that it says "in addition a one revert rule is imposed". I.e. in addition to the discretionary sanctions, a revert restriction also exists. That's why it also says "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted by User:RGloucester, it would be hard to be any more definite that a block for 1RR violation doesn't require a preceding formal notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions. As it happens, you can read almost identical wording in {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Note the phrase "without warning". If you read the full text of the Syrian Civil War sanctions they invoke the ARBPIA sanctions as a model. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester I asked "where in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified" (my emphasis). But in general there are two processes that can be invoked either Arbcom initiated or community sanctions. Your argument that 1RR is not a community sanction because it is a "revert restrictions" is open to another interpretation, because it is imposed via [Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules]] "Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on ... particular pages, by ... administrator enforcement, or by the community ... General sanctions." These are not "administrator enforcement" because the blocks are being logged as a community sanction. So where is it made clear that 1RR is not a community sanction on the sanctions page (which was set up under the auspices of a community sanction)? -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} is the standard way that these sorts of Arbitration Enforcements have been worded for years. The problem is that this particular set of sanctions does not use such simple language. In it there is a difference between warning and notification and if a sanction is to be imposed (and logged on the sanctions page) then the sanctions page has stated since the 26 October 2014 that "Editors must be notified of these sanctions" (see my edit (above 20 November 2014) for the full quote in green). -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I did not say it was not a community sanction. I said it was not a discretionary sanction. The revert restriction is a community-imposed general sanction. The discretionary sanctions regime is also a community-imposed general sanction. However, each kind of general sanction has a different procedure. The discretionary sanctions require that one follows the discretionary sanctions procedure. The revert restriction does not, because it is not a discretionary sanction. That is to say, it is not at the discretion of the administrator, but simply a lower threshold for what is considered edit-warring in the usual way. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: The word 'sanctions' is being used for a variety of different meanings that we hope were clear to those using the word originally. Maybe in the future people who want to use the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' should never abbreviate it to 'sanctions' due to the risk of confusion. The sentence "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." certainly risks a misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that although these are nominally community sanctions and enforced by the community, they mirror arbitration sanctions, which makes everything difficult to word. That said, I agree with EdJohnston and have reworded two sentences at WP:GS/SCW: (1) the sentence "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." has been changed to "Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." (2) the sentence "In addition a one revert rule with the following specifications is imposed:" has been changed to "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed:". I hope that clarifies the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks brilliant. Thanks. I guess we can close the discussion here unless there are some other comments that don't agree with the above change. Wifione ^Message 03:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23's wording certainly cleans up the wording so that the wording is no longer confusing, but under what process was the 1RR imposed? In other words who authorised imposition of a 1RR? Secondly why are 1RR blocks being logged? -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You have an arbitration decision that authorizes discretionary sanctions (with a prior notice/alert) and blocks for violating 1RR (without a prior notice/alert). When you block based on a 1RR violation, you are doing so pursuant to the decision. The same thing is true here. You have community sanctions that continued and mirrored the remedies in an arbitration decision. Thus, when you block here for 1RR, it is pursuant to the community sanctions and must be logged. BTW, in my view, it's not necessary to notify an editor who has been previously sanctioned, as you did. There is language to that effect in arbitration decisions, if I recall correctly, and it also makes sense. I know the language does not exist in the sanctions page here, but when I blocked without notice for a violation of 1RR, I intentionally did not also notify the editor. The block notice made it clear that they were blocked pursuant to the sanctions. I dunno if others want me to add such language or not. Without some encouragement, I won't.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible rangeblock for Ararat arev IPs

An editor using many IP addresses has been edit-warring lately to push his ideas in articles related to Orion (constellation) and ancient Egypt, moving to new articles when the previous ones get semi-protected. The evidence that it's Ararat arev is at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt. See User talk:Dougweller#Ararat again as well. In the past couple day, the IPs have fallen within a range, e.g.: Special:Contributions/166.170.14.15, Special:Contributions/166.170.14.125, and Special:Contributions/166.170.14.88. I don't know whether that range is narrow enough for a rangeblock, but considering that the editor seems willing to evade article protection by moving to any article remotely related to the topic, a rangeblock seems worth considering. A. Parrot (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See for instance Hyksos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

166.170.14.0/24 is definitely rangeblockable, and it doesn't look like there would be much collateral damage. But the range looks to be part of a mobile network, so the block wouldn't be hard to evade... 199.47.73.100 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That sort of depends on how AT&T assigns IP's or proxies. Since he's been editing a lot from the same block, it seems possible and even likely, that it takes some effort to get around it. It's at least worth a try. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis has done the rangeblock. Thank you! A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is overdue again

Template:Did you know/Queue is currently eight hours overdue. Can some admin please update the queue from some of the five backlogged prep areas? And can we please figure out a way to keep this from happening all the time? After all, we're talking about the Main Page here. —Swpb^talk 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK requires a sysop with attention to detail. Many of us don't have that. I've tried updating it, but someone always catches something I missed. A few times, it's been very problematic like copyright concerns or slander. The problem is that we don't have a whole lot of admins who understand the finer nuances of content policy that is required to be placing content on the front page of this very large website. So - that's where the issue lies, despite nearly all the prep areas being full.--v/r - TP 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Prep 5 moved to queue. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there even currently any admins who regularly check the DYK queue? If a few admins became regulars at DYK, they'd catch up on the relevant policies pretty quickly (and didn't they have to be familiar with those policies to become an admin in the first place?) And if any admins are regularly looking at prep areas but hesitating to queue them up, it would be nice if they could share their concerns on the queue talk page. Otherwise, it just feels like the entire admin corps is abdicating one of its responsibilities. —Swpb^talk 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a regular at DYK, but see my comments in "Did You Know main page" above: people have imposed a plethora of rules to follow, destroying the simple idea of "decent new article, and long enough" for the sake of requiring compliance with the finer nuances of content policy, even for newbies. Not interested in helping anymore, unless there are emergencies like this one. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So ignore them; you're an admin. If hooks meet the basics (sourced, not copyvio, reasonably neutral), then they're good to go to queue. We need someone who will do the task, not excuses from someone who won't. —Swpb^talk 16:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Kindly look at queue five and tell us the username of the administrator who updated it in response to your request. Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that you solved the crisis this time. I appreciate that. What we need is a regular. —Swpb^talk 15:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

History merge request

Didn't realize there was some prior deletion discussion history for No Lifeguard on Duty before I created a new article at the full title for the book.

Can an admin please merge history of this article (and its talk page):

No Lifeguard on Duty into --> No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel ?

Please keep article at full title No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel, as there are some other works that start with "No Lifeguard on Duty".

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal of User:Oldpeople330

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

---

I propose that this user is indefinitely banned and am inviting a consensus of editors below to back me up in this as per policy. My case is that they made a far from ideal first edit presumably as a joke here but clearly went onto make another WP:IDHT edit here in spite of having been given an only warning for the first edit here Katie Henry (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

These two edits were two minutes apart, so there is no guarantee they saw the warning before they made the second edit. We don't normally go straight to a final warning for a single silly edit (what I generally view as an "editing test", i.e. the person is wondering if it's really true they can edit Wikipedia however they like) anyway, unless it's a BLP problem or otherwise particularly problematic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning came the same minute as the second silly edit. Editor stopped editing after that. This ban proposal is ridiculous. Townlake (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A ~25 edit account Katie Henry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is calling for a community ban of a 2 edit Oldpeople330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account.NE Ent 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine then I suppose you can consider this closed due to it being a complete mistake on my part. Katie Henry (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

An RfC

In light of this debate, I have opened a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot close. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at TfD

The tireless PlastikSpork has done their best to keep WP:TfD up to date on their own, but a backlog is forming. Some assistance would be appreciated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

1992–94 Crimean Crisis

The article 1992–94 Crimean Crisis is being blanked and redirected to a different page without any discussions. I'm not saying this article for sure has to remain on Wikipedia (if it should be blanked/redirected then it can be) I just want a discussion and a consensus to be made. --Leftcry (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For someone who almost always reverts without actually discussing their edits, it does not seem very good-faithy to go running to AN/I saying "I just want a discussion". Then discuss!  Volunteer Marek  20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The page Novorossiya is also being blanked by the same user. --Leftcry (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not part of the blanking pages conflict, what I did is I prevented a deletion of a well organized article without a discussion (again, if it should be blanked then it can be but a consensus needs to be made first) other users who actually want a blank of the page can discuss this issue as I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should remain on Wikipedia. --Leftcry (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the first one is a POV pushing piece of OR, and the second one is about the same thing as a different article. The first one should definitely be a redirect, while the second one... I'm happy to discuss it. But then discuss rather than just revert!  Volunteer Marek  20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, not sure why you're bringing content disputes to AN/I. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I am not part of the blanking pages conflict - Yes you are. You reverted twice without discussion. If you don't have an opinion then stop edit warring. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Because these aren't "content disputes", users are blanking pages without a consensus. --Leftcry (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's called "redirecting". Yes, these are content disputes. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:BLAR, Volunteer Marek is obligated to submit articles to WP:AFD and not edit war the articles to be blanked and redirected. If there is really no substance for an article, then a consensus at afd should do it, not one editor's opinion that an article should be blanked and redirected. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh... did you actually read WP:BLAR? It says: "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect.". It says nothing about AfD. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(I should also add that I'm getting quite sick of constantly dealing with these SPA most of whom where created exactly at the time that this Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out). Volunteer Marek  21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Support Tutelary here. Volunteer Marek seems to delete almost the whole the article itself without going through the proper procedure. This seems not to be the first time [51], [52]. If VM wants to delete articles, he should follow the correct procedure and discuss this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLAR. The links you provide are also some sketchy-ass pieces of original research. The problem here is users trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies by creating WP:POVFORKs and using an encyclopedia to publish their own highly biased original research. Redirecting problematic articles is standard procedure, as noted above. Volunteer Marek  22:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, these seem like articles on their own, rather than Pov-Forks. If you believe the articles do not have justification to exist, there is a standard procedure for that.There is also a request to redirect procedure AFAIK--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• This does not belong at WP:AN, but at WP:AN/I. Regardless of that, I'm not convinced it belongs here or there at all as it is a content dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• This redirect was created by me [53], clearly annotated (see edit summary), fully explained, and an invitation for discussion was posted 6 days ago [54]. User:Leftcry did not respond at article talk page, but reverted the edit. I asked for discussion again (edit summary) [55]. In response, Leftcry did not respond again on the article talk page, but instead posted this ANI complaint. I believe this a battleground behavior. The filer was already warned. Now, speaking about AfD, yes, sure, no one objects AfD, however it makes a lot of sense to discuss the subject at article talk page prior to making AfD (and that is exactly what I suggested and started). My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

Special:Contributions/188.36.56.163 -- this IP was a month ago blocked with an expiry time of 48 hours for block evasion.. and a couple of days ago he edited again. An administrator must restore the block to prevent further evasion. 195.187.94.185 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it's the same editor? It's a dynamic IP. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Hi there hard-working admins. There is another backlog at SPI with about 30 reports in need of response, the oldest being 10 days old. We also need some clerk magic, too. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another backlog (for all is infinite when it comes to them)

WP:RFPP is again in post-weekend 48 hour long backlog, lend a hand to these clearly overdue requests which might have expired by now such is the way of things. tutterMouse (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting an article on the film "A Nigger in the Woodpile" (1904)

The article List_of_American_films_of_1904 has a red link for A Nigger in the Woodpile. I have secondary sources from which I can create an article on this film. I cannot do so because it gives me a "permission denied" template then recommends I bring this up here, which is what I'm doing. Please unlock this title so I can proceed. Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

When I had a similar issue (I think a film title with Bastard, or something along those lines), I created it in my sandbox and then got an admin to move it to the mainspace. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I put in a barebones stub, only the creation requires admin privileges. You should be able to edit it without issue now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade - would you be able to do the same with the talkpage, with just creating it with the {{film}} project template? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose that the second the article is created, we could go on ahead and put it on indefinite semi-protection? Or at least pending changes? I totally WP:AGF with everyone here, hope for new accounts, and am grateful for the huge amounts of work IP editors put into this place, but we can't even trust the rest of the internet with Cheese. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Earlier this month, a user named Overdtop (now indefinitely blocked) made weird and disruptive edits to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brčko District. The edits to three of these articles were reverted, but a (substantially) identical edit to Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is still present in the lead of that article. Other edits have been made since then. Can someone fix this? 75.44.39.133 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the indef'd sock's edits to that article. There have been some edits since but I don't think I've overwritten them. Someone else can have a look if they want. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas"

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

---

Hello,

It is submitted that the user MelanieN was paid by the subject of the page "John Ducas" to create a promotional profile and maintain it against all edits. As soon as I tried to remove the page for its clear lack of notability, poor use of sources, and general lack of reason for being on Wikipedia, MelanieN immediately edited it back to its previous status within minutes.

The subject is a 16 year old child who was simply given 3,000 euros by his parents to invest in various stocks. The "financial firm" which is constantly referred to throughout the article is in fact simply a blog with some low-quality articles. You can check the source here: http://www.ducascapitalmanagement.com/

The source clearly shows that this is not a notable person, and the firm is in fact not a real firm and does not have any clients, let alone the claimed 150 clients: http://www.ducascapitalmanagement.com/disclaimer/

Please help me to preserve social justice by preventing those with money from promoting themselves on Wikipedia. This website is for educational purposes, not to advertise yourself by paying an editor like MelanieN to create and maintain a page for you.

Thank you,

Floridainvestor87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridainvestor87 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)

You appear to have provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone has been paid to do anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Paid editing is a serious allegation, yet you don't appear to have a shred of evidence to back it up. Also, you failed to notify MelanieN of this posting (though I've now done that for you). As you've been told, use WP:AFD if you think the article should be deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you also don't seem to have posted anything at Talk:John Ducas (investor) about this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This accusation is absurd on its face, as a glance at my userpage or contributions will show. The accuser, Floridainvestor87, is a single purpose account who registered today, apparently for the sole purpose of destroying the John Ducas article. They nominated it for speedy deletion, which I declined because it is not eligible, and deleted large sections of the article while throwing around accusations of "paid editing" and "fake accounts" and the like. Since the editor is new here (or at least the account is new), I think they should not be sanctioned for making accusations they can't back up, but they should be advised about Wikipedia policy in such matters. (Thanks for the notification, Jackmcbarn.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity I should add: I didn't create this article. I encountered it back in September while I was patrolling the PROD list - articles proposed for deletion. I decided the subject meets GNG, so I cleaned it up, added sources, and watchlisted it. Good thing I did, since it made me aware of this attack on the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the replies and the information. Sorry about failing to notify MelanieN of this posting, I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor, my main job is in the financial industry. I have no evidence for the allegations of bribery, which I still maintain are correct, since I am just a third-party here and don't have access to the subject's e-mail records. I'm not the NSA.

Putting the allegations aside, please have a look at the actual article in question and try to justify how it qualifies as something which is notable to the world. Should every child who invests money and gets his family's friends at Business Insider and Forbes to write articles about him get his very own Wikipedia page? I am unfamiliar with the deletion process, which is why I flagged it for speedy deletion. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this person should not have a Wikipedia page. If he does, then millions of other children who have dipped their toes into the world of finance would also get an article, which is simply absurd. Please let me know what evidence I can submit to prove the lack of this article's notability, I apologise for not being familiar with the formal processes of Wikipedia editing, I am acting with best intention, not to destroy John Ducas's page as MelanieN claimed. MelanieN, if you truly aren't working for John Ducas, you will surely want to co-operate with me in proving his notability for Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind replies and for your time.

--Floridainvestor87 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida, I yield to none in my contempt for the spoiled brats spawn of the rich who start with capitol from their parents and decide they are geniuses (Donald Trump started out as a teenager with a mere $100,000 to invest); but there is no such thing as millions of other children who have been discussed in articles in Forbes and Business Insider. It is not a real thing in the real world. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Floridainvestor, as far as I am concerned, I "proved his notability" back in September when I cleaned up the article and improved the references. But if you want his notability to be discussed by the wider community, WP:AfD is the place. Since you were able to figure out, on your very first day here and after only a dozen edits, exactly where to go to file a complaint about another editor, I'm sure you can figure out how to file an AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, I completely understand what you are saying and I am glad we agree on that first point. However, I maintain that the articles in Forbes and Business Insider were simply written because of the subject's connections to people who work at those websites. I'm in the industry, I know how it works. If your know someone working at those journals, you can easily ask them to write about you as a favour. If you look at the actual financial firm which is constantly referred to, it doesn't exist. There simply isn't a firm to talk about. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ducas has made a single penny from his investments other than what his parents have been feeding to him. He has not published any earnings tables, only a shoddy portfolio with some generic investments like Apple and Bank of America. Let me ask you a question. If I gave my daughter 3,000 dollars right now, set up a website for her named Ella Capital Management, made it look all fancy, and then asked my colleagues to contact their friends at Huffington Post and Forbes to write an article titled "Meet Ella: Girl aged 14 who invests in the stock market and has her own financial firm", would she be able to create her own Wikipedia page? I can do that this week if you want. I have a suspicion that it would get taken down for lack of notability. Am I wrong? Can anyone who appears in an article get a Wikipedia page? I've appeared in countless articles about my financial investments in forex and capital markets, should I also have a Wikipedia page? I don't see why Mr. Ducas is exceptionally notable but others are not. This is why my suspicion was that MelanieN had been bribed by him. If you look at his page's edits, they are all made by MelanieN. As soon as I tried to correct the page, she reverted it back, as if it was her duty to protect his promotion on the internet. Please let me know what you think. Thank you again for your answer, I really do appreciate it. --Floridainvestor87 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you either provide verifiable evidence that MelanieN has been paid to edit Wikipedia, or withdraw the allegation. Repeating your 'suspicions' here without evidence is otherwise only going to have one outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Appeal of 30 day topic ban

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

---

Gamaliel's given me a 30 day topic ban on GamerGate broadly construed [56] because my now-deleted user page mimicked the structure of another user's page (Ryulong)

For comparison:

• User Tarc engages in edit warring; according to Gamaliel this is not actionable. [57]
• User Mark Bernstein suggests another editor personally supports raping and beating women, Gamaliel removes the comment but imposes no penalty [58]
• TheRedPenOfDoom [59], NorthBySouthBaranof [60] and others continue to make snarky comments without penalty.

This admin's enforcement doesn't seem evenhanded.

I have 3 requests:

1. That my ban be lifted
2. That my user page be restored
3. That Gamaliel be disqualified as an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to GamerGate general sanctions [61]

Apologies in advance if I've posted this complaint in the wrong area. Cobbsaladin (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The explanation given for the ban was not that your user page "mimicked the structure of another user's page". Instead it states that "your user page, which is now deleted, was clearly intended to ridicule another editor". Why exactly do you think that misrepresenting the reason given for the ban is going to improve your case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to misrepresent anything. I feel "mimicked the structure" is a fair description, the content was correct and my own and I assume the original page is available to any interested administrator. Cobbsaladin (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the semantics—Why did you choose to "mimic the structure" of another user's page, and of the user you chose in particular? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I created my account howevermany weeks ago and having read some user pages thought the combination of sultan and salad was humorous in the context of Ryulong's page. It was cheeky for my own amusement, I've never interacted with him, I don't expect he'd visit my page. If the banning admin had advised me to change it I would have complied without protest. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally just because an admin has blocked you doesn't mean they disqualified from furher sanctions, unless you have a reason why they would be somehow conflicted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you examine this admin's history and determine for yourself whether (s)he's uninvolved. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at this users page and Ryulong's page and I do not see anything mocking or insulting. Mimicking, or creating a derivative work is allowed per our license. The only thing I see wrong is a lack of CC attribution. Heck parts of my user page are copied from other users pages, I put a diff for attribution in the edit history. Is the content of the userpage the only issue here or is there something else? Is there a history of baiting between these users that suggests this may have been done in bad faith? Chillum 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's because a week ago I was doxxed by Gamergate and Cobbsaladin decided to solely edit in the topic area and decided to copy my userpage basically verbatim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't edited my user page for a month so I'm not sure how the "doxxing" is related. But I apologize if you found the content offensive, I thought you'd find it humorous if at all. Wait, can you see my page now or only previously? If only previously it makes me curious about the chain of events that led to my banning. Cobbsaladin (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw your userpage before it was deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cobbsaladin:, from the deleted contributions list, it looks like you created your user page on Nov 18th - which is not a month ago, but instead about a week ago, and just happens to coincide with the 'week-ago doxxing' of Ryulong. Not saying it's related, just pointing out the time-discrepancy. Dreadstar ☥ 15:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Cobbsaladin: You have 36 edits at Wikipedia, starting with an attempt to delete Stop Porn Culture, and continuing with edits like this that removed a relevant quote from a Linux developer about his work—a quote which portrayed gamergaters in a negative manner. Now you would like to exclude one of the very few admins willing to spend serious time monitoring the topic—an exclusion which may allow the army of new editors to overwhelm those trying to apply WP:NPOV to the topic. No, Wikipedia is not like that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can understand deleting the page. He clearly copied it, and without attribution it is copyvio. The source should ideally be given to him, so he can re-add the page with appropriate attribution for where he got it from (our license allows copying with appropriate attribution). What I don't understand is why he got banned from gamergate for 30 days over it. As far as everyone has said, it related to Ryulong and not to gamergate directly in any way. --Obsidi (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused similarly to Obsidi. This can't be about failing to attribute properly, that deserves a deletion and an explanation about attribution. I can only assume that is a red herring and this is a really about POV or SPA issues. Chillum 03:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong has been seriously harassed off-wiki by gamergate people. There have been numerous new or returned editors who have become SPAs dedicated to promoting the gamergate view and/or to poking editors like Ryulong who prevent the undue promotion of that view. In that context, it is very easy to see how an innocent gesture of using Ryulong's user page might in fact be a provocation. At a minimum, that act is saying "I know who you are". Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think I understand. Thank you for explaining it so well. Chillum 04:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's not related to Gamergate, so he shouldn't have been sanctioned. Ryulong edits Gamergate (or used to) -> Suddenly anything done to him is related to Gamergate? Hmm, so can I get people sanctioned for editing stuff that I closely edit that has sanctions endorsed? This has overly broad and vague written all over it and cannot be in range of general sanctions as Ryulong is not apart of 'general sanctions'. In essence, this is about userpage copying, not Gamergate. Now, I thought Wikipedia was licensed under CC BY SA 3.0, and that anybody could use any revision provided attribution was given? So, all that's needed is attribution and the userpage should be restored. I also don't believe that copying a userpage should lead to a topic ban. It's also a bit ridiculous given that I don't believe OP has even edited a Gamergate article. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• What I find most curious is Ryulong, who I've never interacted with and who's "sworn off" gamergate involvement, was aware of both my user page, pre-deletion, and this thread. And coincidental to his discovery Gamaliel discovers my month-old user page and immediately bans me. Coincidences abound. Cobbsaladin (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• The page had my info, not Ryulong's. At no point have I interacted with Ryulong on or off wiki. Could someone advise me as to the process here? I'd rather this not take much more of anyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbsaladin (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 November 2014‎

Okay I don't think I do understand. If this is just about the user page then I think that is not enough to justify any sort of action. Copying a user page is not an attack per sey it just needs attribution.

If this is related to GamerGate then the ban should be based on evidence of that and really have nothing to do with the user page. Is there any prior interaction between this user and Ryulong? Chillum 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What also irks me is what Gamaliel left for the reasoning for deleting the page. Other defamation/personal information issues It's not 'defamation' nor a 'personal information issue' to copy someone's userpage. That he used that as reasoning I think needs to be brought into question his reasoning to delete pages, especially subpages related to GamerGate. Tutelary (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That was the best choice available to me from the dropdown menu. My reason for deletion was made clear to Cobbsaladin on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wanting an understanding of this topic would need to spend serious time following the gamergate-related articles. Doing that shows an inexhaustible stream of ultra-polite POV pushers—insisting on exaggerated WP:AGF for each new arrival is impractical. Cobbsaladin has been here three weeks and has never been blocked so no grave injustice has been performed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic ban and user page deletion are stupid. Seriously, that's all I have to say on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, Cobbsaladin here is full of shit. His user page was an exact copy of mine except he changed the universities, studies, and the languages that allegedly form the meaning of his user name. His user page was made to intentionally mock mine. This is not an issue that he was not attributing my user page as the source. I discovered his presence at WP:GS/GG/E (I only checked on it because of TDA's note of the new discussion at the arbcom page) and noted Gamaliel as participating in the thread and informed him of my concerns with Cobbsaladin's user page. He acted in this manner in his purview as an uninvolved administrator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @johnuniq If I've pushed a POV please demonstrate that in diffs, it's not reasonable to ask these understandably confused editors to take your word for it. If the community decides I should be banned on the merits of my edits I won't contest it; I was honestly not aware derivative user-pages required attribution, but to be banned for that or the similarity between my user page and Ryulong's seems ludicrous. Assuming my ban is reversed the community should consider whether Gamaliel can be trusted to exercise his powers objectively. Cobbsaladin (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq sums up the issue well. A user shows up nineteen days ago and edits nothing but articles about GamerGate and related topics. When he models his user page after a user who is widely mocked and targeted on Reddit, 8chan, and Twitter regarding GamerGate, to pretend that this act is not a deliberate provocation and has nothing to do with GamerGate is to pretend we have no intelligence or ability to see the obvious. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose discretionary sanctions are just that, discretionary. Not what I would have done but seemingly within discretion assuming there is context I am missing. Chillum 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how often some editors get a free pass for A LOT of stuff yet others get the banhammer over the most mild thing. I've been warned twice per NOTFORUM, and another user was topic banned for 90 DAYS by involved admin Future Perfect At Sunrise for talking with MarkBarnstein, agreed seemed to be NOTFORUM, but if that is to be bannable you might as well ban all editors participating in that talk page, and the duration seems extremely off, the same MarkBarnstein has used the talk page lately as his personal venting platform and nothing has happened, as well other disregarding WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:BITE these don't seem to be that important apparently, imagine if a pro-GamerGate forum paid a long-standing Wiki editor and he made pro-GamerGate edits, he would have been banned into oblivion and the servers where his account data account was kept burned. Loganmac (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't use this as a forum to make ad hominem attacks on me, Loganmac.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but note here that 1) Loganmac said nothing about you there; 2) less than an hour before that comment was your other comment in which you accused someone else of being "full of shit". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You have the same ability to post at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement that everyone else does. Gamaliel (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

* Wonderful. If my user page had said "Ryulong is full of shit" I'd understand the ban. Here Ryulong says I am, let's see what happens. To your question Chillum, this thread is my first interaction with Ryulong and as you can see it hasn't been pleasant. Discretionary sanctions specify "Enforcing administrators ... must not be involved." There may be wiki ways of communicating I'm not aware of but I don't see Ryulong's "notification" in the contribs, so it seems he and Gamaliel have an off-wiki line of communication -- that doesn't seem "uninvolved" to me. If the goal was to maintain civil communication with an editor (who again, I'd never communicated with) I could have been told my page was "offensive" or uncredited and edited it. Cobbsaladin (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Any editor is free to contact me with their concerns by using the same means of communication that Ryulong did, email. Gamaliel (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• As someone completely uninvolved in this mess, I have to say the sanctions look pretty lop-sided. On the one side we've got a 90-day 30-day TBAN essentially because Ryulong doesn't like the editor's user page. By that, I mean that even if you accept that the user page was intended to somehow mock Ryulong (I don't know if it was, I haven't seen it), even so, parody is a concept protected in most reasonable systems of law and one which any editor here would leap to defend in any other context I can imagine. Why not here? On the other hand, Ryulong can turn up here and call another user "full of shit" and no-one even comments.

OTOH, all this looks like it's winging its way to arbcom. If this is the standard of DS enforcement, that seems like a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• It was a 100% mockery of me. It copied everything on mine but changed my identifying details to his alleged details. It had a sentence at the end saying "Cobbsaladin" was from the English and Arabic words for salad. It was made to mock me. This guy is not here for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia seeing that all of his edits have been tinged with downplaying the controversy or mocking me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  I take your word for it. But I think NE Ent's advice below is excellent - don't feed the trolls. You don't get to choose who mocks you; you do get to choose how you react to it. I don't know what culture you are from; in most Western, English-speaking cultures, parody (a form of mocking, and one that seems to describe this situation) is protected as a form of free speech. IANAL, but I expect in most jurisdictions it would be difficult to argue that the lack of attribution is a problem, since parody is protected under many copyright regimes, also. People who are subject to it are best advised to ignore it and get on with their lives. That's my advice to you, but you are, of course, welcome to ignore it if you so wish. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong's page is pretty generic looking, it's a white background with text on it. I don't see how copying that and changing it to use the user's name and description would be mocking. Sorry, that's too far of a reach as far as I'm concerned. I'd say Cobbsaladin is correct, the deletion of his userpage was incorrect as was the discretionary ban about gamergate. Both should be removed. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

White background with text? Why would one need a template for that? Tiderolls 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As much as I feel that Ryulong is often his own worst enemy, in this case the copying of his user page with various terms changed to frivolous non-sequitirs was clearly intended to mock and belittle. Regardless of what other people may or may not have done, there ought to be no room for that sort of thing here. The quasi-legalistic and too-clever-by-half justifications for why the ban should be lifted that are being made by some here are thoroughly unimpressive, and I can only endorse Gamaliel's actions in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

• Overturn topic ban Originally I was confused as to the reason for the topic ban. The reason given by the banning admin is that "he models his user page after a user who is widely mocked and targeted on Reddit, 8chan, and Twitter regarding GamerGate" and that is why his action was associated with Gamergate. Having not seen the content I can just go off how Ryulong described how the page was "mocking" him: "It copied everything on mine but changed my identifying details to his alleged details. It had a sentence at the end saying "Cobbsaladin" was from the English and Arabic words for salad." To me this would not be "mocking" at all, and perfectly acceptable (with appropriate attribution assuming he got the structure from Ryulong). Furthermore, even if it was mocking Ryulong, I do not consider the link, as expressed by Gamaliel, between that action and Gamergate to be strong enough to warrant a topic ban. That said Gamaliel was acting only in his capacity as an administrator and as such continues to be an "uninvolved administrator". So far what I have seen, from just this incident, this is not an egregious enough of an abuse of discretion by Gamaliel to show that he is acting in an involved manner. --Obsidi (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse – This topic area is an absolute mess. There is no room for tolerance of this kind of behaviour, given how it has gone. People complaining about "lopsided enforcement" should keep in mind what Gamaliel said: everyone has access to WP:GS/GG/E. If you have a concern with an editor, provide evidence, and they'll like be dealt with. Under these sanctions, uninvolved administrators have the power to do anything they need to do to prevent disruption to the project. Gamaliel used this power, to prevent disruption, and to stop the continual nonsense that has occurred. He was completely within his authority. The topic ban is only for thirty days, so it is much shorter than a standard topic ban. There are many other topic areas for this editor to edit. If he can demonstrate that he's a good editor in other topic areas, he will have no trouble having the topic ban removed. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Trout and support. The Wikipedia policies and customs which have evolved don't really work well for something like gamergate. Gamaliel's not perfect admin overreach caused this disruption (otherwise why would there be this long AN thread?) Path of Least Drama would have been to have simply delete the page with an explanatory note. That said, the best response to an error isn't always reversal. The number one question should be not what "TheRulz" indicate but "How does this affect the encyclopedia"? (Most of the time following policy is helping the encyclopedia, which is why we should follow them most of the time.) Will having a brand new editor unable to edit a full protected article hurt the encyclopedia? Nope. So let's say, hey Gamaliel, probably could have handled that better but they're called "Discretionary" sanctions for a reason. And I'll add wiki raspberry awards to:

• Gamaliel: if you ever post an excuse as lame as "best choice available to me from the dropdown menu." again I'll post the biggest trout-whale I can find all over your user talk page. You can use your own words, can't you?
• Devil's Advocate: I believe it is healthy for a community to have an eponymous Devil's advocate to challenge orthodoxies which too often go unchallenged. But seriously, you have to learn to pick your battles.
• Ryulong: I'm truly sorry to hear you have been doxed, and hope your taking reasonable real life steps, as necessary to protect your health and well-being. However, as far as on-wiki behavior: You might as well replace your page with a giant userbox saying "Hypersensitive editor: For yucks and grins, poke here." WP:DNFTT is sound advice -- your serve up caviar on a silver platter. And stop parsing others' comments so hard to figure out how they're insulting you. This is Wikipedia, trust me, when someone wants to insult you it will be obvious.
• Cobbsaladin: I don't know if you're sock (a Wikipedian cheating by using a second account), a meatpuppet (someone urged to come here by others, likely off-wiki), or a new user who just stumbled into the wrong place. The great thing about being me is I don't care. Assuming the best case, as a new user you've shown really bad judgement by wandering into one of the most contentious areas of wikipedia right now. I sorry you've been hit with a seemingly unfair restriction, but we do "encylopedia" around here way better than we do "fair." There are 6,818,001 Wikipedia articles: you've been restricted from a totally insignificant portion of the project.
• NE Ent: you simply have got to stop logging in and aggravating yourself. NE Ent 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Ping:RGloucester| RGloucester}), you said keep in mind what Gamaliel said: everyone has access to WP:GS/GG/E. If you have a concern with an editor, provide evidence, and they'll like be dealt with Agreed, but' accusing someone of copying a userpage, when the page is a plain white userpage with straight text on it, and that only, doesn't prove that anyone was mocking anyone. It's too generic. That would be like if I changed my userpage to a plain white userpage with "This is Kosh's page" , that wouldn't be an imitation of Ryu's page, it's a generic userpage with no decoration. If I , instead, put up a plain white userpage and said something about gamergate, in any form, or any user, ok then, you just might have proof that the userpage is wrong. Right now, there's no proof and there's a ban on with no proof. Drop the ban, there's nothing supporting it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both pages had the same large initial letter in the user name, both pages had identical text with only the schools and names changed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

🎈 release

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

---

Can you create this page, redirecting to Balloon release? Buffalo Hunter and Gathering (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Buffalo Hunter and Gathering: What page do you want made? Lor^Chat 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing OP is asking for "🎈 release" to be created. Titles containing things like emoji are blacklisted as being generally not useful as article titles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There were already pages like 🎈 which redirects to a page Balloon. It would be nice to let people take a shortcut. Buffalo Hunter and Gathering (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Buffalo Hunter and Gathering: Well, if you want it created. Be bold and create it yourself. Lor^Chat 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He couldn't, hence the request. 🎈 release (and any title containing the 🎈 symbol) is title blacklisted and can only be created by admins. I've now done so as a technical matter. Any editor should be able to edit it now, and that would include a filing at RFD. Courcelles 04:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That character does not even render for me. Chillum 06:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Now at RfD, deserves wider discussion. Fram (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this has gone to RfD, a more appropriate forum perhaps an uninvolved admin can close this. Chillum 08:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Sanction Shortening Request

Moved from WP:AN/I by RGloucester

I sincerely apologize for the drama yesterday. I was upset that someone else doxxed me, and I just lashed out. I took some time to think, drew a bit, and in general took the rest of yesterday and most of today to calm down. In light of yesterday's drama, this will probably be turned down, but I request to have my topic ban shortened. That is all. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:53, Today (UTC−5)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: This is the wrong forum. Move this to WP:AN, and please follow the appropriate instructions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:59, Today (UTC−5)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: I've done it for you, to make it easier. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that User:DungeonSiegeAddict510 wasn't topic banned for yesterday's drama, but was topic banned for disruption. I think the topic ban should remain in place. In the meantime, surely there are other articles this user can edit in a positive manner. Dreadstar ☥ 06:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I commend DungeonSiegeAddict510's apology. It's rough being doxxed and it's understandable that such an act might prompt some poor behavior or judgement. But I think that it's best to stay for him to stay away from the issue a bit and if can be a productive and non-disruptive presence on non-GamerGate articles for a while, then we can revisit shortening the topic ban or consider removing it altogether. Gamaliel (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies are great but they enter into diminishing returns when used often. This is a different issue than the Kangaroo Court thing that brought you a hair from being sanctioned but for an apology? I may be a softy but I am willing to accept a second apology in as many days.

That being said I can see the point of view for those seeking sanctions against you. Chillum 08:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• One editor posts a picture of Hitler to the talk page, and you tell that editor: "You sir, made my day. You'll probably be indef banned, but you will forever have a place in my heart for that edit." [62] Cant you see how that does not help in improving the article? You were banned for WP:FORUM posting, in other words not trying to improve the article with reliable sourced information but just trying to talk about the subject on the talk page. So far I have not seen a reason to believe that has changed. --Obsidi (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not just yet It's been less than a week since the topic ban was enacted, and there is virtually no activity on your account outside the Gamergate controversy (there is some, but it's either ancient or consists of a few scattered minor edits). An apology is a good step to take—it's something I rarely see around here, and as such I'm impressed. But to lift a topic ban like this we really need to see a pattern of improvement in behavior. I would strongly recommend you try finding some topic area you like editing outside of Gamergate. Even if it's all minor edits, even if it's all discussion of improving articles, even if it's discussion of improving policy: so long as there's a pattern of improvement that those reviewing the topic ban can hang their hat on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)