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. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 143 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 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)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 30 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days ago on 16 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	23	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	5	7
RfD	0	0	22	50	72
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 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 106 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:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 99 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 92 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:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 29 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)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

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

---

This debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was closed last night at 8:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) less than 24 hours after it was opened on 10:43, 26 January 2015. Arguments were presented on both sides.

I'd like to challenge closure on the basis that the debate wasn't given enough time to reach a consensus, or for editors to respond to criticisms of their comments. Also it didn't leave much time for other uninvolved editors to learn about the debate.

The closure was not decided on a policy basis, or on a careful, considered review of citations.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Apparently the most of the same editors who recently participated on the the supposed article talk page were now arguing on the noticeboard. Such discussions should be avoided but quick closure without that included lack of policy based rationale cannot be justified. Closing admin could've commented in place of closing after adding his point of view. VandVictory (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A complex discussion like this needs more than 24 hours to reach a valid consensus. --John (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why wasn't I, the closing admin, notified of this? Anyway, discussions get closed whenever the situation has become clear and it appears unlikely that it will shift further. This was the case here. Buried in the vast volume of talk from a few highly entrenched editors, there was a clear situation that one group of editors had reliable literature to cite in favour of their view, and one or two other editors simply didn't want to hear about it. It was a WP:GREENCHEESE type of situation, it was getting highly repetitive, and it was producing more heat than light by the time I closed itc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could be closed with a different summary, you could tell that the users must try somewhere else, like Rfc, DRN, in place of copy-pasting same discussion. VandVictory (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. My apologies. Though I'm a long term wikipedian I am not well up on protocol and didn't realize that I needed to do this. As soon as you said it I realized my omission. Robert Walker (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also - both sides had citations in support of their claims which at least fulfilled the usual criteria for citation sources for wikipedia. This is an example of a paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics by one of the authors BladesMulti cites - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Robert Walker (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where this paper was brought up during the noticeboard thread, but then, I also don't see how it would serve to cast doubt on the finding in question, of general academic acceptance of Indo-Aryan migration. Judging from its summary, the results of that paper appear to be fully compatible with it. Where exactly was this paper discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that he gave an earlier citation by the same author. I thought better to link to his latest results here, The relevant part of the paper is the Discussion section starting: "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown" but this is not the place to discuss the content dispute itself, I just mentioned it to show that there are citations on both sides of the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not an overturn vote, because in my opinion the basic decision was probably correct. However, the close seems to be mainly based on a judgement that one side consists of "knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature". I don't think this is an appropriate way to close because, for this type of discussion, the closer's assessment should be based on the evidence put forward, not on which side gives the best impression of knowing what it is talking about. If the close is overturned, it would be good for editors to concentrate more on sources. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Those sources are clear: the IAMt is mainstream theory, whereas the "Out of India" is not even rejected in mainstream academics, but simply ignored. The issue is highly contentious, since the IAMt is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Robert came here by following me, and started to participate, acknowledging that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Which is clear from the sources he's referring to. No hint of any knowledge of the relevant sources: Mallory, Witzel, Anthony. If the closure is to overturned, focus will be on those sources. Two sources:

• Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115):

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage [...] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Future Perfect's closure note may not have stated it overtly, but the "knowledgeable editors" (of which I was one) were using and citing the most recent and most reliable sources for the topic at hand. The religio-nationalistic argument that was being made was based on a profound repetition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using the WP:GREENCHEESE tactic. There was no discussion occurring since the opposing editor's sole argument consisted of "this hypothesis [the Indo-Aryan migration] is completely false", despite the fact that it is accepted by virtually every scholar in the field. His sole position was to reject 200 years of scholarship in favor of his thinly-veiled religious viewpoint. Since there was no discussion, there was no need to proceed with the pointless exercise of burning through bandwidth. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, my objection was only to the rationale of the close. Regardless of whether the effect was correct, this matters because, in other circumstances, we may get editors eloquently spouting nonsense and favoured by a closer solely on basis of how their jibe-cut looks. I don't think we should be satisfied with closes that leave open the possibility of having reached the right decision only by happy accident. And there certainly were arguments and sources put forward by the other side. They may have been junk, but that's something that absolutely must be addressed in the close. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support boxing of thread - As noted below, the closure was not a formal closure, since there is no procedure for the formal closure of WP:FTN threads, but the boxing of a disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Though contentious subjects requires wider discussion, I further agree with FormerIP that it could be closed without any results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The neutrality of the article Vedic_Period was being disputed Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute when the debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was opened by closing the debate too soon before other editors could participate including me since I had disputed the neutrality. Many of the points raised in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute were not even raised or debated. A total of 7 editors in 24hrs debate decided that scholars who do not agree with the Kurgan_Hypothesis are 'fringe'. This is not a fair process of debate. Using the hastily arrived so called 'result of this debate' User:Joshua_Jonathan deleted the WP:NPOV banner and also reverted some of his own previous edits which he had made to bring about some amount of balance in the article as a result of the debate we were having on Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Thus closing the debate should either clearly say that there were no result so that we can restore the deleted edits in Vedic_Period and restart the WP:NPOV debate there, else we should reopen the Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is grossly unfair to have a discussion for less than 24h and generate a "verdict", either let it run for others to participate or purge it entirely. I am an active editor, with good reputation and I must say I didn't even know of the discussion's existence and it got closed right away -- with a "clear verdict". Now, that is sheer mockery of a discussion and is against the the idea of collaboration! --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original thread that was boxed was not a Request for Comments or any other sort of thread for which formal closure is used. Talk page threads that have no formal status are often boxed when they become excessive. I agree with other editors who suggest re-opening the discussion, not because the closer erred, but to permit further discussion, but that the topic be re-opened as a Request for Comments. I note that, in that case, it will run for 30 days, not for a week. If the topic is re-opened, an admin will need to watch it so that any irrelevant comments or personal attacks can be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting maybe better. I also think that the better place for an RFC would be the article's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I seriously expect a fuller discussion would reach the same conclusion, a minimum of a week is what is generally required. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

In looking at the thread whose closure is being reviewed, I see that the thread had been open for only 24 hours, and that it appears to consist of one author supporting the fringe "out-of-India" on Indo-European languages theory and multiple editors, citing established scholarship, dismissing the "out-of-India" theory. However, the discussion was lengthy and heated. The discussion was then closed by administrator FPaS. The thread was not an RFC, and was not in any other way a thread having any sort of formal status, and so it is not clear to me whether closure review applies. There did appear to be a snow consensus against out-of-India, but the discussion was not one for which consensus needs to be identified. If anyone thinks that consensus does need to be determined as to "out-of-India" as opposed to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis (IAMT), then the mechanism to do this would be a Request for Comments, for which formal closure is appropriate. I think that FPaS was justified in boxing the thread, not so much because consensus had been determined, as because the thread was becoming disruptive in itself. For that reason I support the closure, and am not sure what the requester wants to have overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the originator of this "closure review" thread did not participate in the original thread. Why does he want the closure reviewed? What does he think needs to be discussed at more length? The thread was noisy and unproductive. If the requester wants a longer discussion of IAMT vs. "out-of-India", RFC is available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest reopening the debate. There's nothing wrong with Future Perfect's close in itself, but the close hasn't stopped the argument. It's just moved the argument here. Send it back to the appropriate place, let them wrangle for a week and then re-close it. Sure, the close would very likely be exactly the same, but if we go through fair process, users will no longer be able to argue that the close was arbitrary or premature.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. But then a RfC, at the FTN, with notifications at the relevant noticeboards (India, linguistics, history, etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fair process" is mandatory not optional. A "clear conclusion" and closure in less than 24h is undeniably premature. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be at Talk:Indigenous Aryans, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea because that wasn't even a question in the FTN section which I had started. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti the original question raised by him was "Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.". This has been turned in this RFC to is "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Which was not the original question at all.Indoscope (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Bladesmulti asked a question at the Fringe Theorioes board has no bearing on whether or not a different editor can propose an RFC on a different (albeit related) question. Why do you think it should? Paul B (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a different, though related, question to me - original question was about mass migration and had the Indo-Aryan migration theory article as its prime focus. Since Indo-Aryan is a language group if I understand right - and since languages can spread without mass movement of people (examples include trade, temporary conquest by a numerically small group with superior technology, missionaries, many other reasons). I am saying that not to re=open the debate here - but to say how the two hypotheses are clearly independent. Logically they could be both true indeed (you can have simultaneous mass migrations in two directions at once, or at different times), or both false, or one or the other true. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Review Block of DarknessSavior

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

---

I'd like to request a review of the block on DarknessSavior. DarknessSavior made these three edits: [1], [2], [3], and was subsequently blocked indefinitely.[4] There was no attempt to communicate with the editor, no warning, no prior misconduct not even a temporary ban/block. The reason given for the indefinite block was WP:NOTHERE. The user then made an unblock appeal which was denied[5] for the reason: "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." and was then blocked from editing his own talk page without notice.[6]

I fail to see any evidence supporting WP:NOTHERE. He seemed polite, his edits were minor translation issues that had minimal prior discussion and he has a history of translational edits. WP:NOTHERE itself seems very subjective in general. To use this as cause for an indefinite ban after only 4 edits would imply at least a lack of WP:FAITH. This block does not seem reasonable. TyTyMang (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• All the gamergaters are remarkably polite—they have learned their lessons well. Arbcom have left an ugly mess by banning the editors who were defending the encyclopedia, and gamergaters are now picking over the spoils and enjoying attacking Ryulong. Welcome to Wikipedia, good block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an attack on Ryulong? What criteria is required to label an editor a "gamergater"? Are editors labeled as such, topic-banned from editing anything Ryulong has touched? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block is absolutely unreasonable as I see it, bordering on malicious. User:DarknessSavior did many good faith edits in the past. Sure they stopped contributing at some point, but have you considered that it could've been because of editors like User:Ryulong who WP:OWN articles and prevent reasonable edits from coming through? User:DarknessSavior's change of "Condol" to "Condor" is reasonable to anyone with a minute knowledge of Japanese and was, in fact, implemented after a short Talk discussion. The admins who banned DarknessSavior (User:Courcelles and User:Guerillero) have committed a grave and glaring WP:FAITH violation in this case.  Grue  06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of this editor's motives that you shouldn't even be speculating on per WP:AGF, being indeffed for these particular edits is ridiculous. Even a short block would have been overly harsh. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• I thoroughly agree. If fixing language translation isn't attempting to build the encyclopedia, what is? Where is any evidence of disruption in January? And even if the previous edits were problematic (I've not checked them), the January edits demonstrate that a WP:NOTHERE block is completely out of place. Then, he requests unblock by saying "I was just doing this helpful thing", which gets him immediately shut down. I thoroughly endorse the "bordering on malicious" bit: Courcelles and Guerillero have completely failed to assume good faith, so blatantly that they have done a good job of demonstrating bad faith here. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is against procedure, but while you are at it could you also look into User:Fidsah and User:FlossumPossum which were also blocked indefinitely for related incidents, but even less action on their parts. User:Fidsah was blocked for this [7] shortly before the editor that reverted him agreed that this is a sensible change and did it himself [8]. From what I can tell User:FlossumPossum didn't even make any edits to any articles, but was solely banned for his interaction on related Talk pages. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:FlossumPossum was blocked Indefinitely by the same admin citing the same reason as above. It appears Flossum did post on the talk page of the same article that DarknessSavior had been blocked for editing. Again, I can't find any WP:NOTHERE evidence. In fact, I have no idea what edit(s) might have given any cause for action.

User:Fidsah was a blocked a long time ago as a vandalism-only account and hasn't been active since 2011. Though it may be of note that the only edit made since then by this user was on the same article as the above 2.[9] And, as noted in this dif [10] ended up being in line with the consensus. However, this user was blocked without any notice or reason. This appears to be a big deal in WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Is this article under some sort of Secret Sanction?TyTyMang (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the admins are providing short leashes on articles Ryulong has edited in the past. They are basically running on the rule "If you have edited GamerGate, haven't been really active lately, and then edit and article Ryulong has edited, you're gone.". I am not sure I agree with that as while Ryulong was a prolific contributor the articles he edited should not be treated differently than any other editor. I don't see articles edited by other editors that have been banned treated with the same respect as his. I think it isn't calming the situation at all post-gamergate. Hipocrite also seems to be fanning the flames as well patrolling the GG area. My two cents. Not worth much. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• endorse block. The off-wiki coordination on 8chan, reddit and elsewhere makes clear that there is an intentional effort to focus attentions on Ryulong's former articles in an effort to irk him; the increased sensitivity around them, as a result, if entirely sensible. I really don't care if gamergaters are being "polite", and anyone who does needs to look up the term "sealioning". Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So everyone who uses those websites are equally guilty, are they? It is far more likely that this user is from a particular 4chan board that has nothing to do with GamerGate whatsoever. Your argument is as ridiculous as assuming all Wikipedia editors are the exact same. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: why would a user from board that has nothing to do with GamerGate be posting this in October, after taking a two-and-a-half year break from editing? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The board in question has had run-ins with Ryulong completely independent of recent events, and the subject of this particular article is of interest to them. I'm not even suggesting the edit is correct, the correct response is to revert and raise it on the talk page of the article, which is what you did. Why then does an admin have to steam in and indef block over such a minor edit. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying this user spent those 2.5 years just quietly watching Ryulong, and when they saw him do something questionable they sprung into action to oppose him - it wasn't about gamergate, it was about defeating Ryulong, who they let their hate smoulder for 2.5 years without a single edit? Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They let their hate burn for an editor they had never interacted with prior to the edit smoulder. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The user has spent 2.5 years doing things that are none of my business. They've decided to edit this article for reasons that are none of my business. The edit included changing the romanization of the word "condor". This is enough to warrant an indefinite block, apparently. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Never edits, returns to edit gamergate articles, shifts from there to an article notable exclusively for being written by someone off-wiki coordinators around gamergate have encouraged people to screw with? Yes, that is enough for an indefinite block. The host of supporting characters appearing in this thread reinforce that it was almost certainly the right call. Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I had a group of Wikipedians going "YEAH, LET'S GO TO HIS BLOG AND LEAVE TERRIBLE COMMENTS", I'd probably treat Wikipedians commenting on my blog with extra scruitiny for a period. DarknessSaviour hadn't edited since May 2012 and then suddenly cropped up to chip in on specific, pointed discussions around GamerGate topics. Are you really telling me "oh, well they're clearly not involved in any of the gamergate discussion areas, it's all just a COINCIDENCE"? I'm not advocating for "all 8channers are bad people" or "all redditors are bad people"; I'm saying that increased sensitivity around articles which have been targetted by off-wiki groups for coordinated attacks is perfectly understandable, and that DarknessSaviour is not so much fishy as he is a bagged and tagged Smithsonian specimen. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the article isn't "Gamergate related" and Ryulong was a well known entity among said communities [11] [12] [13] for a long time. Even if the editors were what you call "GamerGaters" though, is it some sort of crime or does it impinge on any Wiki policies to hold a specific opinion on a contentious topic that immediately requires an indefinite block of any editor editing any articles upon finding out? You are arguing for overturning WP:OWN (you are explicitly stating that Ryulong "owned" said articles and editing them constititutes some sort of harassment) and overturning WP:FAITH on all articles Ryulong has ever touched in the past and continuing to enforce the very reason he was penalized and blocked at ArbCom for with a zero tolerance policy by proxy. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a firehose of SPAs who are being pointed at the obscure articles that Ryulong used to edit in an attempt to bait him into socking. Admins should be able to use reasonable means to deal with off-wiki disruption; AGF isn't a suicide pack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of blocking Ryulong exactly to get rid of his chronic edit-warring and battlegrounding in the places he edited, so that new editors could come in rework things? It seems to me that this kind of administrative action after banning Ryulong is about the worst possible outcome for the pages in question-- their zealous caretaker has been removed, and now users who make entirely innocent edits to improve them are summarily banned for their temerity. I don't get it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It is predicated solely on the argument that conducting minor edits to a page amounts to harassment of an editor who previously conducted edits on the same page. Given that said editor has been banned for a minimum of one year, for acts which cannot be described as other than harassment towards fellow editors, the charge is doubly ridiculous. Triply so with editors attempting to drag GamerGate drama into the discussion, given that there is no connection between the two articles save the aforementioned banned editor having made previous edits to both.Calbeck (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  You're right, there's no gamergate or off-wiki coordination going on here around it! Hey, so about that "not edited for years, then suddenly turns up on gamergate-related discussions" thing. Soo... Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The article in question isn't a "gamergate-related discussion", aside from your insistence on invoking that controversy... and that, strictly on basis of who one of its previous editors was. Your entire argument for defending said editor is that several minor language-related edits are supposed to comprise harassment. These claims do not become any more reasonable by your above citation.Calbeck (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm interesting claim. The only people here using the word harassment are you and 79.247.112.157.©Geni (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I don't understand how indefinitely blocking someone for fixing basic translation errors is fair or called for. Even if there is off-wiki discussion of the page, can these edits not be considered based off their own merit? Furthermore, predicating this on the idea that this is "dancing on someone's grave" implies that the person in question WP:OWNed the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflyingkitten (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse straightforward WP:NOTHERE block. Trout complainer. Wikipedia isn't anybody's battleground. --TS 14:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block 1. Draconian solutions to non-problems do not seem wise. 2. If there were a suspicion of socking, then a pro forma note should have been made at WP:SPI or the like. 3. The edits at issue do not appear to be prima facie evidence of much of anything at all. 4. The edits do not appear to be evidence of "battleground behaviour" as far as I can tell. 5. If evidence is later found otherwise, then do a block - right now there are four solid reasons not to block. Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, as the user doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. When you are blocking someone for making a good edit, because you think that good edit, while superficially innocuous, might somehow, due to some convoluted background of past petty arguments, be intended to antagonize another editor...you've just lost the plot completely. This isn't what admins are supposed to do. If the user causes clear disruption and will not stop when warned, then you block. Antagonizing other editors is bad, and when it's really bad we can block, but the antagonizing needs to be clear and straightforward. You can't take a normal, uncontroversial edit and twist that into evidence to support a block. To put it another way—if you have to read tea leaves to justify the block, and other people can't see what you see in the tea leaves, then you made a bad block. Everyking (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Let's get something straight here; if the block had come when DarknessSavior posted in the AN thread in October, or when they posted in the GamerGate topic in December, then this block would have a point. However... their return this time around came to an article that had a translation error. An error that was pretty obvious, and even someone with very little experience in that area (namely me) could verify that this was indeed a mistranslation. The block itself was understandable (wrong, but understandable)... but Guerillo's decision to revoke talk page access and email access after ONE good faith unblock request, with no other commentary on their talk page at all from this user, is frankly disgraceful. What is the evidence that this user was going to vandalize Wikipedia, or generally detriment it? Answer; none. This block is clearly punitive, not preventative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is that they are behaving in a manner entirely consistent with a group that has continually acted to the detriment of wikipedia. It is fairly preventative because when the gamergate activists next swing through they will have one less account to be detrimental with.©Geni (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not really valid. Again, had this happened in October or December, you'd have a point. This time however, there is evidence that they were 100% right in these specific edits, and given that they were blocked for actually doing the right thing, in a topic area that had fuck all to do with GamerGate... we have a clear punitive block on an account that was almost entirely positive in its history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will unblock DarknessSavior because because of the pretty clear consensus that this block was unjustified/overly long (12-4 by a quick count). I did not give much weight to the argument that this is gamergate-related since the articles concerned are about Japanese TV shows, and the blocking admin themselves said as much on AE. — east718 | talk | 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

General questions:

• Do we assume that every edit on one of Ryulong's pet articles is automatically meant as harassment towards said user?
• Do we spefically agree that changing "loid" to "roid" - which is totally justifiable if you know japanese kana - is worth a perma ban?
• Do we assume that every edit made by Ryulong is representing community consensus and his pet articles must be defended at the cost of banning users in disagreement with his edits?
• Is it in agreement with guidelines that blocked users may control article content via unblocked users?
• Have we thought about the possibility that many users wishing to edit japanese culture pages are now coming back because they previously tried to avoid clashes with someone showing tendencies to own pages?
• As far as i am concerned, every article is open for consensus-based changes. If people can convince the community to change content, then they are free to do so. Let the community decide what to do. If vandalism happen or edits are made in bad faith, then correct it afterwards.

On a different note, people wishing to start editing japanese culture pages again might have wanted to wait a little bit until the dust had been cleared of course. But anyway, to sum up, i dont think its contributing nicely to the creative atmosphere of a wiki, that is interested in acquiring new editors, especially with the vacuum Ryulong leaves behind, if editors are blocked by default if they dare to put hands on former pet articles of a former editor. Just my 0.02. Rka001 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to "automatically assume" anything, but while there might be people who come to edit in good faith, there are also people looking to "fix" stuff just out of spite and being distructive.GreggHamster (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That statement requires an automatic assumption. The actual proof remains in the pudding: edits which are clearly of merit belong in the Wiki and are inherently not destructive, and are of benefit to the page. Ascribing malice to such edits is both presumptive and a breach of good-faith tenets, which are particularly something to be considered regarding accounts believed to be SPA in nature (per WP:SPA).Calbeck (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No assumptions are being made, action is being taken on the basis of previously determined behavioral problems.

WP:AGF doesn't mean "Assume good faith now and forever, amen", it means "Assume good faith until there is a reason not to". For any subject area in which the editing has been contentious enough to have become the subject of ArbCom sanctions, reasons have already been found to mitigate normal AGF procedures, and admins can therefore make judgments without having to jump through the normal hoops. In doing so, they are simply acting to protect the project from behaviors that have already been found to be harmful. BMK (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles at hand had nothing to do with GamerGate, but Ryulongs previous behavior on Wiki and his tendency for ownership and edit warring. The very reason for which he was just recently penalized and blocked by ArbCom. Since he is gone, the Power Rangers Dino Charge article could for instance be created and worked on, and there is a recent Arbitration request linked to his previous behavior [14]. While User:DarknessSavior might have edited GamerGate related topics, nearly none of the other blocked users, including User:FlossumPossum, User:Whymy and User:Fidsah have or have objectively done anything wrong, even more so two of them haven't even made any attempts to edit any articles but just engaged on the Talk pages of said, the third was blocked because of a single edit attempt to correct the spelling of one word. What is the basis of ignoring WP:FAITH and WP:BITE entirely while trying to enforce WP:OWN on Tokusatsu articles by proxy? It kind of looks like jumping at shadows and continuing to enforce Ryulongs reign over his domain beyond his time, the very reason he seems to be so infamous among said communities [15] [16] [17] [18] by involved admins. 62.157.54.253 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The specific articles in this instance may have nothing to do with GamerGate, but they are an obvious extension of the GamerGate behavioral problems which ArbCom laid down sanctions for. BMK (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know off-wiki behavior is generally not considered but I just wanted to bring up that on some pro-GamerGate forums, users have suggested reverting Ryulong's edits on every article he worked on. Since he was a very productive editor (over 200K edits), this is an unrealistic goal (especially with intervening edits) but admins should be aware of SPAs who are focused purely on undoing work that has been done, not on improving articles. I realize that these general statements aren't particularly helpful but it is not unwarranted to question accounts targeting articles that some users believed Ryulong "owned". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an important point hinted at above, but I think it should be made much clearer: GamerGate is far from the only controversy that Ryulong was involved in. He has managed to annoy a lot of people across a range of subjects in the past. Would it be so surprising if some of those people now returned to get on with their work, as they see it, now that a very argumentative and sometimes disruptive editor is out of the way?

To take a random example pulled from Ryulong's edit history, have a look at this discussion. Ryulong dominates this discussion, dismisses the contributions and opinions of other editors very brusquely, admits that his opinion is contrary to policy but pushes on with it anyway, and basically wears others down until they give up and he gets his way. Would it be so surprising if those editors now started to return to do what they couldn't while Ryulong was around?

I'm not saying the influx of editors organized off-site to harass Ryulong should be given any consideration at all; I'm saying that it might be very hard to tell the difference between them and editors who Ryulong has driven away in the past, now returning to edit. Since we cannot make windows into the souls of men, we shall know them as we know others; by their fruit. If they are making constructive edits and engaging in consensus-building, let them go on and prosper. If they are damaging the encyclopaedia (and that's actual damage to the encyclopaedia, not vague suspicions of poking Ryulong with a stick), then deal with them via the normal processes. GoldenRing (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

We have recently seen a significant number of dormant but autoconfirmed accounts suddenly appearing to make edits in various controversial topic areas, and in particular in topic areas the accounts had not edited in their earlier incarnations. This has been happening frequently enough in recent months that it is probably time to start treating these as possibly compromised accounts. Does anyone have other thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Compromised indicates that the initial user is not the current user. I think that's a jump. With that being said, it would appear that an outside influence is encouraging editors who left WP for one reason or another to return. Personally I don't think we should treat them any differently unless they actually cause a disruption. They might not be considered "new," but WP:BITE should probably still apply. If there is reason to suspect malfeasance on a case-by-case basis, that should be acted on then. Ries42 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure these are compromised accounts; I suspect many are just sleeper accounts, saved for a rainy day. I've blocked one such account recently, but am considering modifying it to a permanent topic ban. The problem is, if 19 out of 20 of these are weasels gaming the system (compromised or sleeper), what do we want to do with the 20th out of 20, who left for a long while but came back and picked the wrong subject to get involved in? A topic ban seems a slightly more reasonable injustice to do to that 20th person, even if 19 should be blocked. If they really are being used in an organized way to dive into a contentious area, the people behind them aren't as likely to be willing to edit other things instead, so a very quick topic ban might be as useful as a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of these accounts are following a pattern that makes it extremely difficult to believe they've come from anywhere but where editors are being urged to follow that particular pattern for disruptive purposes (for instance, two sections up we have sleeper accounts that resurrected suddenly to edit gamergate, and then just as suddenly jumped to obscure anime episode lists connected to gamergate only through Ryulong, coincidentally at the same time as a subreddit began urging its users to go to articles Ryulong had edited and make just enough edits to antagonize). I don't see these accounts as compromised so much as acting on an outside impetus for reasons other than building the encyclopedia, but both compromised accounts and accounts not here to build the encylopedia are handled by doing the same thing: blocking the account until a reasonable and plausible unblock request is submitted. We should be open, however, to unblock requests from that one or handful of people who really did hit the bad-luck lottery and got taken to articles following an off-wiki pattern by hitting "random article". In those cases, I agree with Floquenbeam's suggestion: they're welcome to return to editing if they're willing to operate under a topic ban from [gamergate | anime | echidnas | blizzards | whatever area they appeared to be operating disruptively in]; the specifics of each topic ban could be handled by the unblocking administrator as an unblock condition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people with have web activity have registered accounts over the years then left. Thanks to various plugins they can probably still enter their passwords as thus bring the account back to life.©Geni (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would any of this even be relevant? Who cares if they were dormant, or which topic they go to upon return? Why don't we just judge editors by the quality of their edits? (Also: "Gamergate" didn't exist in years past, so it's pretty meaningless to say they didn't edit about Gamergate before they disappeared in 2011, or whatever...) Everyking (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I take no position on GamerGate-related silliness (other than a world-weary sigh) but I'd like to refer to my own "dormant" account history. Very few edits in the first 3-4 years of using my account, then I got properly into editing Wikipedia, helped with AutoWikiBot jobs and eventually became an admin. Ah, but I'm not like the bad people whose dormant accounts have been reactivated to cause trouble? Maybe not. But the way that is judged is by reference to their current behaviour, not by how long their account has been dormant. Not just on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of people who register for accounts which they leave dormant for a long time and then dive in only when they feel they have something to add. Being a lurker is something we should allow: there's a camera forum I lurk in because I learn interesting things about my particular brand of camera by reading the posts there, but I don't feel comfortable posting. Getting comfortable in a community can take a long time, or it can take meeting other people who are involved in the community who help induct you into the community's practices and ideas. I'd rather we not harm gentle, well-meaning lurkers in an attempt to chase out alleged wrongdoers. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is something going on, whether they are compromised or not. Other than running a SPI with cause, we are left with what ArbCom gave us. This mess isn't going to go away, and will now change Wikipedia. Or whatever is left of it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA, even without the recent ArbCom addition, the standard is "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." For some of the recent bans handed out for minor infractions, on the assertion that these were conducted only to "antagonize" a recently-banned editor, these have failed good faith, fairness and civility altogether. While we are mainly speaking of dormant accounts reactivating, the only real concern being levied is whether or not these (including mine) are here solely to conduct advocacy, which is a case-by-case matter and not the blanket-condemnation some appear willing to leap to. The reality is, there had to be an ArbCom because virtually everyone involved was advocating for one side or another, and both sides were organizing both on and off wiki to do so. For some editors, it seems this decision and its basis may not yet have sunk in. Calbeck (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If editors start showing up to tendentiously edit articles in which a editor has been recently forcibly topic banned (or worse) it is reasonable to assume that they came with the purpose of antagonizing the restricted editor. It becomes a domino effect of how far do we extend the heightened scrutiny of edits in related topics from an initial topic of disruption. In this case (with the evidence presented) I would give one formal warning to any editor who has recently come back from an extended period of idleness only to concentrate on edits of questionable value to topics that were of interest to the editor in question. It seems a reasonable assumption that these editors are moving to pages that the editor had extensive interest in a form of retribution for the editor's own actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and off-site coordination in this area, this point is especially true. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and on-site coordination in this area, its a bit pot calling the kettle black at this point. Especially given the outcome of the case. I'm with Everyking, follow policy, judge the editor by the quality of the edits *NOT* by crystal-balling their possible motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry in setting up and selling accounts on sites such as Wikipedia. They may be compromised, they may have been sold, but frankly to assume good faith any editor arriving out of long hibernation to pile in at a controversial article would go beyond the optimism of Mary Poppins. Of course they are not here to help, banninate them promptly and be done with it. We used to be good at fighting off the /b/tards, we need to re-learn our old robust behaviours. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another area where mystery accounts are appearing is Landmark Worldwide, which is now under Discretionary Sanctions. A number of accounts have come from nowhere, and yet have detailed knowledge of a subject and sources that spans 30 pages of archives. One recent editor managed to expand the article by 50% and use a dozen sources without ever commenting on the talk page and having never worked on the article before. I guess, I'll just AGF and assume some editors are just that good. Otherwise, I'd have to think some of them might be any of the many editors blocked or banned or topic-banned over the years at that article - in which case it sure would be nice to see Guy fighting the /b/tards :) --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report them, and let's have a look. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interject (I'm just following a link from a page I was mentioned on) but i feel that Tgeairn is being less than honest in his motivation and comments here. As the editor that allegedly expanded the article by 50% (it was 25%) which was a reduction in size by 40% of a section that was being deleted/reverted in and out of the article. It was my third edit on the article. I have replied elsewhere in more depth on Drmies

There is real life outside Wikipedia, I was active for a 5/6 month period 2009/10 and occasionally thereafter until I lost my password in a hard disk partition crash (windows & programs). I have never had any other user account other than my old and new replacement account and have linked them on the user page so anyone can see. As a graduate of the 70's and a professional I have to admit to having gone from a right wing viewpoint to left. I trust that when people return to WP that editors and admins should AGF. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban them even if the edits are good? Why? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play whack-a-mole or pretend detective. (Also, let me observe that our resident detectives suck very badly at "detecting", but they are excellent at building ill-will and driving good people away.) Another point: controversial things are popular editing topics in general, and returning from hibernation to edit one of them is meaningless as evidence. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea abut the Gamergate activity, but in the EE editing areas (‎in particular, Russian-Ukrainian conflict) there are too many suddenly resurrected dormant accounts, editing disruptively and often supporting each other. There should be some way showing them the exit at the early stage, before they manage to disrupt the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let's stop pretending it is a wiki-tragedy that Ryulong was site banned; their chronic failure to contribute in a manner consistent with our WP:CIVILITY pillar was such that I suggested to another editor they start a RFC/U almost a year ago, long before gamergate [19].

Pokes at articles previously edited by Ryulong are being suggested off-wiki. That should not cause us to abandon our principles, including:

• Main_Page: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
• Wikimedia:Privacy_policy: we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement
• Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use: You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
• Edit buffer banner: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—
• WP:PERSONAL: Comment on the content, not the contributor.

The best solution, is to simply monitor the new editors for disruptive behavior. FlossumPossum exhibited uncollegial behavior very early in their edit history [20], so I don't have a problem with the block per se; but it would be better if, except in the many cases of obvious vandalism / trolling account, blocking admins cite specific reasons for blocks rather than a vague WP:NOTHERE. DarknessSavior, on the other hand made no recent edits justifying a block. They briefly and calmly participated in a prior AN request for a Ryulong topic ban, a discussion that well illustrates Ryulong's unsuitability for Wikipedia as validated by arbcom's subsequent site ban. DarknessSavior edit history suggests they simply took the rather reasonable approach of waiting until Ryulong inevitable separation from the project before attempting to improve Kamen Rider OOO (character) -- an article which hardly approaches the BLP importance of actual Gamergate controversy articles.

The well meaning but flawed suggestion we simply block all the SPAs and make them prove themselves via unblock request only makes sense from the Wiki-insider point of view. A reasonably self-confident adult who inadvertently stumbles onto a unmarked "forbidden" article is not going to jump through hoops, they'll simply say: Huh, I guess these Wikipedia folks are a bunch of assholes and go find something else to do. Remember, the con is to try to get folks to work for free writing the encyclopedia. Continuing to put up every narrowing wickets -- too clueless and we WP:CIR block you, and too capable, like maybe someone who RTFM, and we block per WP:DUCK -- is not healthy for the encyclopedia.

If this all too much, if we simply must "protect" Ryulong's legacy, then simply pick some number -- a month?, identify the sacred Ryulong articles, and full protect them. It's an abuse of wiki policy, of course, but at least it's least it's less damaging than blocking any new editor who shows up. NE Ent 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. GamerGate is a big ball of mess, but it doesn't justify throwing away our policies and procedures. Editors should be sanctioned for disruptive editing, to prevent further damage to the encyclopaedia. Not for making constructive edits to articles that happen to be controversial for reasons that will be completely unclear to someone who doesn't follow the WP arcana. GoldenRing (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MFD backlog

WP:MFD is horribly backlogged. More than half of the nominations are over a week old, with at least one dating all the way back to December 24. A lot of them seem like they can be closed as delete without opposition, such as this one. Can some admins kindly get to work here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it requires more attention. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Banning policy

About a month ago, I made a post on the policy village pump basically asking Wikipedians on their opinions of the banning policy, whether ban evasion can ever be excused, etc. I did not receive as broad of a response as I had hoped for, and seeing as we're in the midst of discussing reforms to the BASC and UTRS, I figured there shouldn't be much of a problem in reposting this to a wider audience.

I'll basically repeat what I said at the time, but in simplistic terms. Let's say someone was banned for particularly egregious offences, such as death threats or doxxing another editor. They subsequently make a new account and begin editing constructively for the next ten years, amassing several thousand edits throughout that time. Their past identity is later exposed to the community. As it turns out, they were around 12-13 at the time of their initial ban and have expressed genuine remorse for what they've done. Would it be appropriate to immediately block their account indefinitely without any further discussion, and should they be required to appeal their ban through the proper channels just like everyone else? Is their age a mitigating factor, even considering the behaviour for which they were banned?

The last question is the one I'm most curious about, seeing as it calls into question the editor's maturity at the time of their actions. This all boils down to one central issue — does age matter in dealing with cases of unbanning or ban evasion? I'm of the opinion that it ought to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to uphold a ban from so long ago, but I may be in the minority there. Thoughts? Kurtis ^(talk) 09:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe not age in and of itself, but time passed? Sure. Someone banned years ago and who managed to (unbeknownst to others) come back and prove he's an asset to the project shouldn't be automatically shown the door when his past is "uncovered". At the very least, it warrants a new discussion to see whether editors agree to overturn the ban or are adamant about enforcing it. But strictly speaking, age is less relevant (and more personal) that personal growth over time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that in a case such as described here, discussion is warranted instead of instantly perma-blocking. Blocks and bans are meant to protect WP from harm. If a user has secretly been evading a sanction literally for years and has not caused any more disruption of the sort that got them sanctioned, that's a win. It's a rare scenario indeed but it can happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with above, but. I've observed over the years that Wikipedia doesn't do abstract well -- we have a WP:IAR pillar that strongly implies policy isn't absolute, anyway. So I don't see any benefit to discussing the hypothetical, but if / when an actual case occurs there's just going to end up be a very specific discussion about that particular editor. NE Ent 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Some folks have such a strong agenda that they are prepared to play a long game, others are banned for going nuclear over a single incident. There is a difference. Consider a spammer who has learned how to do referenciness so is now a less controversial spammer, or a proponent of a crank theory who is prepared to spend a long time waiting to quietly weasel his crank theory in. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific case in mind? As I said in my response to the original discussion,

Such cases seem to be sufficiently rare that they can be handled as they are now: on a case-by-case basis. Circumstances vary so much from one banned individual to the next...that trying to create a firm rule now will either result in an unsatisfactory outcome when we try to apply it, or require us to create a complex and over-engineered policy to try to capture every single possible hypothetical. And even an over-engineered and hyper-detailed policy might still break down when today's hypothetical discussion crashes into real circumstances (and an evolved community) some years in the future.

Further to that, if we identify one specific mitigating factor – say, age – in policy will we then be inclined to over-rely on that, and to disregard other mitigating (or aggravating) factors? If we try to enumerate a complete list of mitigating factors, are we creating a checklist or too-rigid framework that will lead us to dismiss valid (but unanticipated) classes of appeal? (Or worse, creating a framework to guide future gaming of the system?)

We already seem capable of having discussions (citing WP:IAR or what-have-you if need be) when a case of ban evasion is discovered that isn't cut and dried, and where returning the individual to good standing on the project would be in line with the community's values. Trying to codify specific exceptions and loopholes seems to be inviting problems in an area where we don't actually seem to have a problem now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, imagine that DGG, registered in 2006, is a reincarnation of Isis, permabanned in 2003 for making legal threats. We aren't going to go off and get rid of the guy because he's a banned user! It's never right to apply the policy without thinking of its ramifications: in most cases, the encyclopedia benefits when we get rid of the guy that's already banned, but there can be exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is to spur discussion. I was thinking about proposing an overhaul of the entire banning process, but my ideas are probably too convoluted to gather any real support. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• So if i can paraphrase your question: "Should there be a statute of limitations?" I believe the answer is yes. Of course, the hypothetical you proposed has some issues regarding the current status of a block. But then again WP:INDEF says "Indefinite does not mean Infinite." In fact to further quote that section: "As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future." Which means, if the user has learned from his block, has been contributing, and has not been disruptive then, by the spirit of the policy, the block has been carried out successfully. Remember it's not Punitive. However, in the case of death threats and doxing, there may be more to the issue than just WP policies. In any case, it appears the current policy already covers issues like the one you brought up. Unfortunately, like most policies, this one may be up to the personal interpretation of an admin. But that's why we have AN.

I actually do have a recent example of something similar to this, and I'm a little torn about it. Here's the block log [21]. The user was banned twice 8 years ago as a vandalism only account. They came back and made one edit. And they were blocked. Now there's a few things to note that makes it a hard call. 1st: The article did become a source of contention and controversy, but this edit and ban were before that started. 2nd: Their edit was made at 1:33, it was reverted at 1:39, they were banned at 1:44 but there was no discussion started about the edited content until 3:54. 3rd: The edit ended up being in line with the consensus, so there was actually no misconduct. 4th: The editor was given no notice or reason. They were not contacted, they were not allowed to dispute, there's not even a note on the block log.

In this case, the editor does not have a good history. But the admin's actions don't seem to be exactly justifiable either. What do you guys think about this one?TyTyMang (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ban ≠ block. Also, the edit was Ryulong-related, which is as you can imagine a very touchy subject with the ArbCom decision and all. ansh666 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do edits being "Ryulong-related" give cause to make such actions? Do all edits by Ryulong have special rules/sanctions. You know though, it really does go to show you. Even after him being blocked the amount of influence (as noted by you and others) he has on WP is amazing. TyTyMang (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise—another SPA attacking Ryulong. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty ironic to me that you assume I'm attacking Ryulong by merely asking questions or by making the statement that others have alluded [22][23][24],including you[25], to his continued influence post-ban. I had made no comment regarding him in any way. He was brought up to me. And frankly I don't care about him. Though I very much don't appreciate being accused of attacking someone.TyTyMang (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You all allowed Ryulong to WP:OWN these articles for years, driving away countless new editors. Now that his reign is ended you're once again shutting the door to these editors, not just reverting as he did but abusing your admin powers to ban them. It's disgraceful. The reason for policies like WP:BITE and WP:AGF is that new editors are essential to the encyclopedia's survival. It seems you've lost sight of that. Lincoln T. Logs (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure that the two (or it might be as many as three) examples that exist, can be handled on a case by case basis. Absent credible evidence of a problem demanding solution, I see no point. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: I blocked TyTyMang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a drama-only account. We have enough shit-stirrers who have substantive contributions to the encylopaedia, we have absolutely no need of new ones who don't. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ought to be under a ban that lasts years and years anyway. This shouldn't even be worth thinking about. Holding someone accountable for some purported wiki-crime that happened years ago, when here and now they are doing good work, would be simply insane. The fact that such situations are so common just shows how badly the spirit of Wikipedia has been distorted. The real troublemakers on this project are the admins who pretend they are cops and detectives and prison guards, and the arbitrators who back them up—we should be holding them accountable for the things they are doing right now, today. Everyking (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The reality is that if someone really does turn over a new leaf, stays away from past problems, and manages to stay out of trouble for a reasonable period of time, no one is ever going to make the connection to the previous block or ban. Once the technical evidence expires, and we should be way past that time in the type of situation the question asks about, the only way the new and old accounts will be linked is if the new account falls back into the old patterns, which probably means they failed at turning over the new leaf, or the new account reveals it. In the case of revealing their own past, and assuming we are talking about multiple years of uncontroversial editing under the new account, I see no point in punishing the person for their honesty. Scrutinize the new account, see if there is a reason a block is still necessary, but if you can't come up with one, it means the block/ban has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Monty₈₄₅ 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about proposing a de facto expiration for all community bans after a specific period of time, particularly in this case of editors who are known to be minors at the time of their initial ban. I doubt it would gain community traction because such a process would open up a whole new can of worms and create more bureaucracy than most would be able to handle, but I agree with Everyking's point above; no one should be banned for life. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Courcelles, DeltaQuad, and Thyrduulf. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RFA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 1 February: Request for candidates to apply.
• 17 February: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 17-27 February: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 28 February: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 1 March
• 4 March: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited
• 18 March: Community comments end.
• By 31 March: Appointed candidates announced

At the same time, the coordinating arbitrators will undertake to contact inactive functionaries, encouraging them to become more active or alternatively to resign if they are unwilling to commit to increasing their activity levels. If individuals do not respond, or respond in manner that is not indicative of increased activity, removals will be announced at the same time as the new appointments.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Wikipedia to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected. What this particular proposal needs is a bit less sourness from Antidiskriminator and a bit of good faith from the rest, esp. the ones who wanted him banned in the first place. One of the things they should say, given that AD has been out of that area for six months, is that editing in that area has gotten easier. If they cannot show progress, or state with hand on heart that it's gotten better, then AD's topic ban wasn't much use in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Lift ban. And expecting someone to agree with you that you were right to ban them is pretty dumb. Nobody ever actually believes they were justly banned, so this is really just a demand for kowtowing, and it's petty. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've lifted the ban. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did Lugnuts do that? NE Ent 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pixie dust? Magic wand? Touched by an angel?

  In point of fact, Lugnuts did nothing except type the words "I've lifted the ban. Happy editing!", and the ban has not actually been lifted. There was no closing statement with an explanation of the closer's rationale, the topic ban is still logged at Editing Restrictions, and presumably admins will enforce it if there's a need to.

  In theory, there's nothing wrong with a NAC closure of a ban appeal, but in general NAC closures should be reserved for cases where the outcome is obvious and indisputable. There's also the problem that while the community imposes the ban, admins are the ones who have to enforce it, so imposing or lifting a ban without an admin close may or may not be effective.

  Were I Antidiskriminator, I would not start editing in the topic ban area without getting this question cleared up. BMK (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• And can we have some due process here, please? The discussion has barely lasted a day. Despite relatively low participation at that ANI, I don't think Antidiskriminator was banned lightly, and the decision came after years of WP:TE and WP:CIVILPOV. To quote Fut. Perf from that debate, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. and that matches my impressions in relatively limited dealing with AD perfectly. I'm not against second chances, but I have significant reservations about AD's determinations to reform and be a net positive for the project. No such user (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban I have some recollection of all the issues from last time around. But I get the sense this user is going to take an honest shot at being a good editor in the area. I would prefer the topic ban removal be with the condition that it can be reimposed by an administrator at any time if his editing in this area again becomes problematic. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal

IAW the discussion above, let's modify AD's topic ban from A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed) to A ban on Antidiskriminator editing articles in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed), but allowing edits to talk pages of such articles.

• Support as proposer GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can some one investigate this?

Can an admin see if it was correct for the article on pornstar Tory Lane to be deleted when it was nominated by a known sockpuppeter. This was the second time it was put up for deletion, the first time it was found in favor of keep (not even no consensus, it was keep). I don't like any article (even porno related) being put up for deletion more than once, especially if the first one was not "no consensus" which at least would mean maybe a second one eventually would be ok. It smacks of sour grapes of "losing" when a keep on deletion is nominated a second time. Add in the known sockpuppeter who is "retired" around the same time as the nomination closing... Just think some investigating is warranted.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Camelbinky, the problem here is that there is no way Czar could have closed it in any other way. The two keeps have no argument to propose, and the deletes do have policy-based arguments--plus, it's people who sound like they know what they're talking about. As for the socker, I had a quick look but there is no SPI? Postdlf should be able to tell you more. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:PORNBIO has evolved since the first deletion discussion, the article did meet the old criteria, and clearly does not meet the current criteria. I could see some room for a good faith, rather weak, WP:GNG argument against deletion, no such argument was made, and even if it had been, deletion would still have been a reasonable judgement call given the relative strengths of the arguments. It was a solid close based on the state of the deletion discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see I was pinged because I blocked the account that nominated this AFD. The nominator was not yet a sockpuppeteer at the time of the AFD (or at least not yet known as such), but in any event this was their original account. Though their mass nominations were widely considered disruptive on the whole, the ANI discussion that came to that conclusion was subsequent to the nomination being made, and there was never a consensus to speedy keep the AFDs rather than close them on the merits of the discussion. In other words, I don't see any reason to question or overturn this AFD just because of who nominated it, even notwithstanding the fact it later became clear the account merited blocking (and boy howdy, did it ever).

@Camelbinky: In the future, please provide links to the discussion you're referencing so we don't need to spend time digging it up. More seriously, I can't find any indication that you've even attempted to ask @Czar: about their closure of this AFD, nor to notify them of this thread despite it raising a question about their admin actions. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. I didnt link to the deletion. Oops. Sorry I made work for everyone. As for pinging the admin- I've never used the WP:AN before and did not realize the rules about pinging involved parties were the same as WP:AN/I, because I was not meaning to get the admin in "trouble" or have him investigated, he/she was doing their job, no need to get an admin in the mode of- "omg why am I and my actions being questioned?!". Oops. Which brings me to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a slur against the admin that they did anything wrong, and questioning an admin about their actions 99% ends up with "how dare you!" and condescending attitude. Sure, Czar may not be one of those admins, I don't know that and the fact that I'm scared to go directly to an admin to question "why?" speaks more to the reputation of admins than to the fact that I broke minor rule that has no consequence to the outcome of this discussion. The point is- I saw the closure of an AFD (America's Funniest Deletions in this particular case) that involved a nomination of some one I had recently seen declared to be a disruptive sockpuppetter with many many many edits (involving tagging and removal of info) on porn related articles, almost all of which were reverted by admins. Given that so many of the editor's other actions were removed, I felt it was prudent that people look into it. Frankly I don't know why the questions you, User:Postdlf raise are found so "serious" (Really? My actions were so serious? They affected this discussion about as much as Indiana Jones affected the outcome of the Raiders of the Lost Ark). So... Nope, I can't correct you that you're wrong on the facts, just about the meaning of those facts and that you needed to bringing them up on here in a bitey commentary instead of politely letting me know correct procedure on my talk page for future reference. As if you are chastising me for being an ass or doing some thing deliberately wrong? If you think I acted in bad faith, I think you need to look in the mirror as to your comments.

Administrator attention requested for User:Instalok's edits

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

---

• Instalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#User:Instalok's edits to tropical cyclone articles. In a nutshell, I'm seeing major failures to communicate about the concerns others have brought up to his talk page. The fact that he's continuing problematic edits, such as here, makes me think a block may be the only way to get him to respond to my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ah. so that you planned to blocked? just incredible! i'm always believe that i'm blocked. 4:52, 2 February (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instalok (talk • contribs)

@Instalok: I didn't want to but you never addressed my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like an English language competence problem to me. Squinge (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• This sort of situation is no fun for anyone, but I am leaning towards issuing a block here. His reply in this very thread is indicative of the problem. I have no idea what message I am supposed to get from the phrase "i'm always believe that i'm blocked" and unfortunately every other time he has contributed text to articles or comments on talk pages it has been similarly incoherent. This project is in English. If you can't understand and be understood in English you can't help build an encyclopedia in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• The user recreated User:Instalok/2014 Pacific typhoon season after it already was deleted by User:RHaworth as an improper copy and paste (since there is no attribution of the source page). I've tagged the page again as a result.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment on this user's overall history, and whether there's a problem or not, but users copy articles to their sandboxes to fiddle with all the time. I've added a note in the article history giving attribution; there's no need to speedy it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly I think we have to declare a case of CIR here. At the end of the day Instalok's English is so poor that he should be encouraged to leave en.Wiki and edit his home Wiki instead. A block may be the only way to do it, but I would test the waters with a very short block first. It might not improve his English but it would get our message across. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Review block of TyTyMang

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

---

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

I'd like to request a review of the indefinite block on TyTyMang, and the conditions set on the user by JzG (talk · contribs) for removing the block. From my observations of TyTyMang and a short review of his contributions, it appears to me that the user has been contributing meaningfully on talk pages and in project space; perhaps not directly contributing to articles but there's nothing that would demonstrate a need for the conditions or incivility presented by JzG when the latter issued the block on the former. Besides, I've never heard of "drama whore" being a blockable offense before.

The block does not seem reasonable at all, and JzG's attitude discussing the block both on TyTyMang's talk page as well as JzG's own feels incompatible with the level of civility and decorum we expect from admins. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the user should be unblocked. An indefinite block doesn't seem reasonable to me, and in reviewing a sampling of the user's contributions I couldn't find anything that seemed to warrant a block of any duration at all. JzG's approach in dealing with this user is simply wrong; it was not only a hasty and inappropriate thing to do, it was communicated in a very uncivil way. This is, in fact, a long term problem: he has a long history of questionable blocks combined with uncivil behavior, and I can't understand why nothing has been done about it before now. Everyking (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about JzG's past history blocking others (and honestly cba'd about it) but if you feel that something needs to be done, why not make a report on ANI? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of Guy's history — if you're interested (yes, I know you already said that you "cba'd about it"), please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3. I was under the impression that these kinds of overly aggressive blocks were a thing of the past, and that Guy had since gone on to become a major asset to the encyclopedia. If this is a single lapse in judgment after several years of virtually spotless conduct, I'd suggest unblocking TyTyMang and letting Guy off with a warning to avoid these sorts of preemptive actions. On the other hand, if there is still a continuing pattern of incivility and misuse of adminship despite all of the past attempts at dispute resolution, then there's a serious question as to whether he's even suitable to be an administrator at this point. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see how an indefinite block can be justified. There is no justification for a short block, or even a warning, yet we seem to have skipped several stages for no reason. And what the hell is going on with that talk page message, since when did we blackmail editors as a proviso for getting unblocked? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above that the ban should be lifted. I would have proposed a topic/page ban instead but I think the situation didn't merit it. Avono (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Did he even do anything warranting a topic or page ban? Primarily, his edits have been made in AN, RSN, and the talk pages of several users. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a new account whose only contribution lies around gamergate without Mainspace edits but that doesn't merit any sanction at the current moment only future scrutiny for the possibilities that this is a sock as pointed out by Hobit. Avono (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the other thing to note is that TyTyMang is essentially being blackmailed with this block to volunteer for the GG case topic ban. If TyTyMang had actually done anything to warrant that, why not just apply that t-ban straight up? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats way I said no sanctions are merited. There is no threat in warning the SPA to follow policy. Avono (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

<ec>I understand the block. The account feels a lot like a sock. A lot. But I don't think that's enough of a basis for a block and I don't see any basis for a block barring an SPI hit--WP:DUCK doesn't quite get reached IMO. That said, I'd suggest the user stay away from Gamergate. It's not a place Wikipedia needs more partisan voices. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IMO, this "independent" attempt to circumvent the appeals process should be closed as out of order. Not 20 hours into this indef block we have editors calling for the head of the blocking administrator. Being that they were warned under the previous GS (which has subsequently been upgraded to ArbDS) I can only surmise that the indef may be too harsh, but that the block should stand as it's clear that the "campaign to neuter the ARBGG decision of anything that is directed to GG supporters" is clearly underway and should be stopped in it's tracks right here. No opposition to lowering to a 48-hour block but all these "independent appeals" of blocks are only showing the hand that more voices can be recruited from partisan sites to shovel FUD on the site to muddy the waters. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Making accusations of POV pushing & Harassment (FUD/partisan accusation) is a personal attack and is not constructive to this appeal without on-wiki evidence Avono (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling for someone's head, and I've been recruited from a partisan site? Do explain. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As ad hominems go, that's particularly lame in this particular thread: Edit count for Everyking, Edit count for Xezbeth,Edit count for Avono,Edit count for coldacid NE Ent 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, Hasteur, do point out where I am demonstrating a lack of independence. While you're at it, please also point out where TyTyMang was warned in GS/GG, because I have not seen that for myself. Otherwise, I say take back your accusations. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or immediately retract them if you can't back them up. Avono (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to lift this block. This is without prejudice to Jzg, who I believe is trying to help out in an area that desperately needs administrative help, but the arbitration case that was just closed superseded community-based sanctions with arbcom sanctions. This was intended to reduce exactly these types of debates. Arbitration enforcement is the proper venue for this decision to be made as the community sanctions for gamergate are deprecated, so this can be considered a procedural unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support lifting this block outright as completely unjustified. There is absolutely no evidence of misconduct on TyTyMing's part. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a slight error here, the actual process is that admins may issue discretionary sanctions, including topic bans, at their discretion. If the user then violates the sanction that's when you go to WP:AE for enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible vandal

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

---

I suspect that user SAJ 2 is intentionally masking their vandalism. All their edits are marked as minor, and they focus on changing the listed developers and publishers, but in most cases, the changes they make are false. Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted several dozen changes to game publishers in the infoboxes of game articles: all were deliberate and obvious factual errors. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would just take this to WP:AIV and be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AIV is better. Still, this isn't a wrong place to go; because of your notice, I've deleted his page creations (some were hoaxes, e.g. one that began airing next year!, and the rest were A3 speedy candidates) and blocked him indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AIV is the best place to go for obvious valdalism. If a user is masking it, here is probably better. And here isn't the wrong place for any issue which needs admin handling and contains no personal information or other content which needs to remain hidden, except when procedural issues require discussion about it elsewhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting review of close of RfC

Nyytend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. His close itself was somewhat questionable to me, as it did not deal with the issues at the intersection of [[WP:BLP}} and WP:PSCI (conspiracies theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring.

Three troublesome things, that have led me to request review of the close: 1) When I asked nyttend about the issue at the core of the dispute, nyttend's response made it clear that he/she was not even aware of the conflict that we were trying to resolve. 2) If you review the !votes, the raw count was the other way from Nyttend's close - granted that the weight of policy based arguments is more important than raw count but; Nyttend's close didn't even acknowledge the closeness of the discussion nor the concern on the "other side" about fringe/PSCI. I really don't think that nyttend arrived at the discussion grounded in the issues that arise at the intersection of PSCI and BLP; again I appreciate the effort - we are all volunteers here - but I think it was poor judgement to take it on.

I'd like the close to be reviewed.

3) the biggest problem is that the RfC was carefully tailored to address the first sentence of the article. However, nyttend's edit to the article implementing the close rewrote the entire lead. And that has set off an edit war, in which Nyttend has participated. Nyttend seems unaware that the RfC did not address the entire lead and there is no consensus of the editor at the page, nor of the part of the community that participated in the RfC, for the changes he made outside the first sentence. This too is poor judgement in my view, and the implementing change should not be allowed to stand.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)