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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 143 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Courtesy ping to Ratnahastin. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 123 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 90 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 58 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 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)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 52 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Done Soni (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read that talk page just afterwards. On second thought, I agree with you. I had mistakenly thought you were involved with the discussion, which coloured my opinion on this. I would have still preferred striking and clearly showing the removed close (given at least one editor disagreed with the revert), but I guess going through Close Challenge just for the sake of it would be pointless bureaucracy.

I still hold to my overall close; that RFC was getting punted to the second discussion no matter which way it closes. Soni (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with the close. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 44 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 44 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 36 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 35 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 34 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 27 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	22	24	46
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	3	5
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	22	22

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

(Initiated 52 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 52 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 128 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 127 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 118 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

 Done. I added a script to help me close RMs, but it failed to mark this as a technical move request(?). Is there a manual way to ask for help on "I closed this RM but the UI did not allow me to"? Right now I used CSD G6 to allow for the move, but I suspect there's a more suitable way. Soni (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? I usually use that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Soni (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 109 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 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 96 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 90 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 69 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cumnock (original) railway station#Requested move 14 April 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 26 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:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 14 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:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 1 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)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 10 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 9 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)

Topic (article) ban

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article protection log
• GeorgeLouis’s article edit history showing 280 edits or 21% of the total edits to the article
• Rhode Island Red’s article edit history showing 456 edits or 35% of the total edits to the article
• RFC about RIR closed with no consensus
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• There are more edit-warring reports, but I got tired of listing them all.
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• There are more BLPN discussions, but I got tired of listing them all.

I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot‎ for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Wikipedia resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?

1. the article was locked as recently as February 13.
2. your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
3. the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
4. the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
5. the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Wikipedia's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Wikipedia dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Wikipedia and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Wikipedia community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Wikipedia's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.

• Wife contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=528829649&oldid=528825896

• Add a subheader for ease of comprehension and editing; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=527573603&oldid=527573383

• Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257

• Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718

• Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• Idaho ballot initiatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545

• Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231

GeorgeLouis (talk)

To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)

• Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban on all "health products" related pages Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is. GL is not involved in that larger area, but RIR appears to be a strong SPA in that area. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My last edit was removal of a blatant copyvio -- which RIR then reverted. [1]. AFAICT, using the exact words of a source without using quotes is a copyvio. And your point is? Ah -- that you also edit the article? I would point out that I noted the first RfC/U in which I made zero edits about articles in which I made zero edits. The fact is that RIR appears to have a strong interest in the topic I mentioned in which I have zero interest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Collect's statement above, RIR has indeed been quite active in other WP articles about companies that sell health-related products.

1. One of them was Juice Plus (in 2009). See these interchanges at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Block_review_on_User:Jackie_JP and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Vicious_Personal_Attacks_by_Dubbawubba_.28moved_from_WQA.29. A check user request was denied in a matter involving this article, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rhode_Island_Red. A WP:Civility accusation was handled at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.
2. RIR was also involved in editing USANA Health Sciences ("a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products") and was involved in a WP:3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Rhode_Island_Red_reported_by_User:Leef5_.28Result:_article_protected.29. Other activity is here and here, where on 8 September 2012 he insisted on adding the phrase multi-level marketing to the article in much the same way he has in the VanderSloot piece. He made a similar change to that article as recently as 8 February 2013, with the Edit Summary "It is an MLM and the primary term is MLM, not 'network marketing.' "
3. Rhode Island Red also submitted a fulsome notice regarding Amway at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Improper_synthesis_and_paraphasring_of_sources_on_Amway) on 14 May 2011.

I agree in advance that RIR may not have been alone in his wrongdoings anent those articles, but am submitting these links to support Collect's statement that RIR has had a history of heavy editing of health-related products. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re. Collect's 'Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is.' Hm. That RfC/U was way back in 2007: Comprehensive, detailed defence presented by RIR; numerous comments in his support; specious SPA allegation totally discredited; result: 'User agreed to take a break from editing the article' following another user's suggestion that he 'take a break from this article. Not as punishment, and not as an admission or acknowledgement that she has done anything wrong at all, but simply to gain experience in other articles and to take a break from this one.' (Emphasis added.) RIR then took a week's break. A six year-old RfC which ended without any critical result, action, punishment or requirement to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all is no more relevant here than Collect's own four year-old RfC/U alleging 'Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith.' (Result: 'User warned and restricted.')

On the face of it, RIR's Nov 2012 RfC/U might have more relevance, for being as recent as three months ago: Allegations: 'Civility [oh please], misuse of edit summaries [e.g. 'please stop removing reliable sources and don't edit war'—dangnabbit, the sonofabitch made a polite request! Off with his summaries!], soapboxing [specious allegation, citing a lone and patently non-soapboxy post [[2]], biting the newcomers [another utterly specious allegation from GeorgeLouis—not least because the "newcomer" in question had already been on WP for over three years]. Result: 'No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration,' And wait a minute, I'm trying to remember who were the certifiers who staged this farce . . . ah yes! None other than GeorgeLouis and Collect (the latter providing copious hot air and absolutely no diffs as 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'). Their efforts to blame, shame and drive off RIR, viewed in the wider context of the concerted, long-running and futile campaign they have conducted against RIR across the VS talk pages and the drama boards, may be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Deal with what I write - now with what you wish. An RfC/U which was orchestrated by a banned user and votestacked with 14 people (including sock masters) from four years ago about an editor who is not being discussed here, is not of much import here. Is there any actual reason why you choose this moment to attack me personally?

[3] shows your exceedingly apparent anti-Mormon bigotry from the start.

Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.

As does [4]

Adding comments and edit summaries that stir shit-storms in teacups is routine for users whose history shows a marked tendency to misrepresent others' comments. As a strategy to discredit others it is doomed to failure (yet its practitioners endlessly repeat the same strategy in the hope of a different outcome). Rather, it tends to discredit the shit stirrer. For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements." User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.

Is quite sufficient evidence of one editor's animus to a specific religion, denigration of those who are members of that religion (unless one can not userstand what MoreYoni is, of course), and then pops here -- discussing an article ... about a member of that religion. And attacking everyone in his path <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not content with misrepresentation, 'one editor' has progressed to a rank lie. I challenge 'one editor' to provide a diff of the alleged 'MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" comment at the VanderSloot article talk page. I have made absolutely no comment there containing any, let alone all, of those words. Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'One editor' 's comments (lulz!). His reply to me has expelled enough hot air for a balloon ride over the Himalayas. One day 'one editor' might try stirring tea in a teacup for a change. (The choices are practically endless. Relaxing chamomile, for example, is thought to combat overstimulation, spasms and flatulence.) I note 'one editor' apoplectically objects to my mention of his RfC/U (which led to findings of EW, TE, DE, 'answering worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors', legal threats, wikilawyering, abusing sourcing policy and unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV, and making accusations without taking steps to find proof; which in turn led to his being warned and restricted), but conveniently misrepresents my comments by omission of their key point—namely the fact that, as I made crystal clear, I raised his RfC only to say that, despite it being more recent and having a much more serious outcome, it's as irrelevant here as his mention of RIR's, which led to neither warnings nor restrictions. 'One editor' objects that his RfC/U was not being discussed here until my comments alluded to it. Yet I cannot find any objection from him (did I miss it?) to his own comments when he resurrects RIR's much more ancient RfC, an episode which, until "one editor" mentioned it, was also not being discussed—for the simple reason that it, too, is irrelevant here.

The sad fact is that 'one editor' and GeorgeLouis et al. repeatedly pile on at the talk pages and drama boards in their vexatious attempts—always unsuccessful—to shut down RIR. It's time they stopped. RIR's resilience to the bullying thus far is highly commendable. A more timid soul would have been run off by now. His suggestion to put up at Arbcom or abandon the campaign altogether seems well-intended and worthy of consideration. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

'Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You have commented here that I made an edit using the words "MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" at the VanderSloot talk page. This is one lie. Another lie is that you have given a supporting diff. How many more toi come, Collect? Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

|}

• Yes, for both. Clearly the article is not moving forward; there is way too much history and disruption here caused and furthered by these two editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As you are already well aware, given that you have long followed the discussion threads, I have on at least half a dozen occasions strongly advised taking this matter to ArbCom. None of the combatants (i.e. the Vandersloot/Melaleuca advocates) on the article have even acknowledged let alone accepted the offer. Hence, I don't need to present any additional evidence that "your side" has cowered form the opportunity to resolve this through ArbCom. Instead, the preferred tactic has been to make sneaky attempts to work around that and hamstring me, such as filing baseless 3RR complaints, a pointless RfC (which you were involved in), and now this current witch-hunt. I think it's pretty obvious why these Melaleuca/Vandersloot advocates would try to roll the dice on a last ditch ploy like this one instead of opting for a process that would bring scrutiny to all involved parties, themselves included, and a long-lasting reasoned conclusion. So once again, I repeat the challenge. If there are any involved editors that still have a problem with the article's content, or user conduct, then let's go to ArbCom for final resolution. Show good faith and sincerity by accepting the offer. If they they aren't willing to do it, then there is no excuse for a resumption of edit warring and frivolous drama-board complaints. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have a "side" :) I'm certain that you don't either as Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view, which should be somewhat universal, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That comment was so light on substance I don't even know how to respond other than to point out that: (a) it could easily be argued, based on your past contribution with respect to Vandersloot, that you do have a side, and quite a consistent one; (b) the point of my comment was that ArbCom is the logical place to achieve a fair resolution and yet no one on your "side" has shown any interest whatsoever in pursuing this option, favoring instead malicious drama board complaints and ad hominem attacks that get us nowhere. Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't have a side :) As far as I'm concerned, the civility issue is the only thing I feel strongly about. The rest of the issues appear to be falling by the wayside with our continued efforts, although more slowly due to said lack of civility and cooperation--something that threatens all progress. So ending incivility or eliminating those who cannot bring themselves to be civil would be immensely helpful here, thus my initial comment. Again, one should not have a non-objective point of view on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you not notice that this thread has nothing to do with civility issues? GeorgeLouis tried that tack already, launching a witch-hunt RfC that you participated in. The conclusion was that civility wasn't the issue but rather content disputes and POV pushing; and ArbCom was recommended. So what you're pining for is to take a step backwards -- clearly not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So you find civility unimportant? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Arbcom was not recommended by anyone but you at the RFC, and POV pushing was not concluded whatsoever. The conclusion of the RFC was that you had tried to become more civil, but that does not mean future incivility will be ignored. My opinion is that incivility is the root of the problems on the Vandersloot page, including a lack of respect for the opinions of others. I also see it as the root of the recommendation being discussed here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red. Do you need support from other parties to file a request for arbitration? I am not very familiar with the arbitration process, but my impression is that people definitely get dragged to the ArbCom against their will. Also, as I get the impression that your primary goal of an ArbCom process, is to get an exposé of some COI issues you suspect are present; have you considered bringing it to the COI noticeboard first? - As for me, I wouldn´t necessarily oppose an ArbCom process, due in large part to the toxic climate between users that I find that the VdS and maybe related articles generate. (As on display in many of the comments above). Regardless of what might be true about the COI issues, I find this super-aggressive and contemptuous atmosphere to be a problem in itself, detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia, which is building an encyclopedia in a constructive cooperation. An important part of an ArbCom case, imo, would thus be to restore some basic civility and a minimum of respect between involved users. (I partly tend to think of Wikipedia as a workplace, and if Wikipedia were a real-life workplace in Norway, I believe the labour inspection authorities would have demanded that something was done to better the workplace environment.) With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, although I can't speak with any authority for all countries, I venture a guess that if Wikipedia were a "real-life workplace" in almost any country, a good deal of what goes on here wouldn't be tolerated. But that's apparently the price you pay for a virtual anarchistic democratic bureaucracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a multitude of issues to be addressed; e.g. POV pushing, tendentious/disruptive editing, sock puppetry, harassment, COI, collusion/tag-teaming, wasting resources/endless debate, etc. No one should have to be dragged to ArbCom at this point; they should go willingly because it's the fairest way to achieve resolution. Those who have issues of any kind can air them before ArbCom secure in the knowledge that the case will be reviewed by the most experienced and impartial WP admins available, free from the contaminating influence of the rabble. It's the logical place to resolve the issues because the drama-boards have, for the most part, magnified the problems. I greatly resent the shifty efforts of a few POV pushers to hamstring me through these relentless backhanded assaults. These actions do not in any way resemble a good faith effort to achieve resolution and harmony; it's simply a case of trying to take out a productive editor who they don't like because their POV pushing is being met with resistance (and not just by me alone but by numerous editors). So there you have it. The invitation still stands, but I doubt know that any of the involved parties will accept it because they are banking on this ad hominem attack to do the trick; knowing full well that they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of prevailing in an ArbCom case and that they would then be out of rope. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite page ban for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red from the Frank L. VanderSloot article and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot talkpage. Conduct by both is poor enough on that article and talk, but I don't currently see any need for a broader topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh I see. So even though this complaint is devoid of evidence, and despite the fact that my conduct on the Vandersloot article has been carefully and routinely scrutinized (due to GeorgeLouis's near weekly complaints on the drama-boards) and I have never been found to be guilty of misconduct, you're suggesting that the outcomes and lack of evidence should be ignored and that I should be banned just for the hell of it? Since when does vigilante justice trump due process on Wikipedia? I'm suggesting that this case go to ArbCom so that a fair decision can be reached without witch-hunters contaminating the process. There's no reason to demand blood and circumvent that the resolution process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to lecture about civility next. Not exactly a shining role model are you?[5] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all editors about Wikihounding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An off topic non sequitur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe he was talking about editors that insist on responding to every single comment on a page, with the intention of either intimidating them or being dismissive of their opinions. Quite appropriate in this case. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy112233. More to the point: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Could an uninvolved admin close this in whatever way they deem appropriate? Frankly, no matter what the outcome, I prefer a closure to automatic archiving.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I do hope it's noticed that only there are only four editors contributing to this discussion who haven't been involved in the article. (I've made my own involvement clear, as have a couple of others -- but some haven't been as open about it.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 hounded off Wikipedia

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

---

Yesterday, Hijiri88, formerly Elvenscout742, announced he was leaving Wikipedia after being told by his employers he could no longer edit during breaks from work. The timing is distressing, as some time ago, now banned editor JoshuSasori threatened Hijiri about editing Wikipedia at work; Joshu was permanently blocked for this, but continues to disrupt Wikipedia with sockpuppets. I post this here to let other admins know what we're dealing with as we continue to handle JoshuSasori.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens... This doesn't look good at all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting off sideshow. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See also this, above, and note that Hijiri (Saint?) would be perfectly free to continue editing from home (as in the past) if his roommate would let him. Also note that he claims that he was "hounded constantly by JoshuSasori and Tristan noir" (he apparently earned an interaction ban with the latter), but maybe Tristan feels that he/she is one of those hounded off Wikipedia. To quote Tristan: "I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this edit to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to five separate articles that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed".  LittleBen (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) LBW, this is not an appropriate thread in which to continue your own low-level harassment of Hijiri88. Beware the boomerang... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Stating the other side of the story in a neutral way is surely not low-level harassment. Did you see this, this, or this? LittleBen (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The other side of the story has been stated, repeatedly, in appropriate venues. Posting out-of-context quotes here in a thinly-veiled attempt to recast Hijiri88 as the villain of the piece looks a lot like harassment to me, especially considering the history between yourself and this user. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The other side of the story that had not been stated repeatedly is that he is perfectly free to continue editing from home—it's the other editors, who are topic banned or banned, who are not. He is free to state his side of the story, whereas they are not. Considering that he stalked me for two or three days, making snide comments, suggests that the young lady's(?) comments about stalking are not unfair. AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness. If he wants a tombstone trophy, let him ask for one himself. LittleBen (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC) AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness And yet here you are, trying to stick the knife in. Look to yourself sometime. And for heaven's sake, grow up. --Calton | Talk 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) It's pretty gross to start a new discussion about the subject right after the previous one was closed by an Administrator. LittleBen (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Who unhatted the closed discussion? I know I cocked up by posting something in it (that was a pure mistake), but... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC) [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.0.96.220 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) What's "gross" here is LittleBen's attempt to blame the victim for being harassed at work, and then reopening that unproductive tangent to gravedance some more. And people wonder why it's so hard to retain good editors these days.--Cúchullain t/c 17:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I'll repeat what I said before (albeit in a stupid place): I don't understand HOW anyone can support JoshuSasori's actions at all. Constant wiki-hounding across multiple accounts and IPs is disgusting behaviour. As to the Tristan noir dispute, well, I'm not party to that one, so I can't comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record: Tristan noir was a COI/SPA who only created a Wikipedia account to promote his own book. I was far too nice to him (AFG and all) for the first TWO MONTHS of our dispute, leading him to harass me across about a dozen articles. He has hardly made a single significant contribution to Wikipedia and mostly confine himself to making personal attacks against me on talk pages. I didn't EARN any interaction ban with him, and both myself and I'm pretty sure Yunshui have already explained this to LBW. The IBAN was introduced on my request to keep Tristan noir from hounding me, but then he violated it and I was forced to come back here and get the ban amended. He is now indefinitely banned from interacting with me or making any edits related to Japanese literature. He's not going to post here, because he is also no longer active on Wikipedia -- not because I "harassed" him, but because if he is not allowed post spam promoting his self-published books and the self-published books of his friends, he doesn't think it's worth editing Wikipedia. A glance at Wikipedia: Editing restrictions will back me up here. (I was also encouraged, by Yunshui and others, to avoid "gravedancing" in this case, but since LBW persists in making in ridiculous personal attacks against me, and neither Lukeno no Cuchullain know enough about the Tristan noir incident to set him straight, I think I'm justified in explaining this here.)

Another thing to explain. The reason I am (at least for the time being) refraining from editing at home is thus: JoshuSasori apparently contacted my workplace after Mysterious Island got blocked. My division chief then called me into a "performance review" meeting with my sub-division chief and my supervisor. He asked me if I thought I was doing anything with my office computer that I shouldn't be. Given that JoshuSasori had threatened to do what he did, I knew immediately what he was talking about. I apologized for editing Wikipedia at work and promised to immediately refrain from editing Wikipedia at work. However, given that the edits that made JoshuSasori do this were all made at home, I figured that if I continued editing at all I ran the risk of JoshuSasori contacting my office again and claiming "He's still doing it." Since Japanese local governments who can't fire their employees care more about public image than anything that is actually going on inside the office, this might have meant a blanket ban on viewing Wikipedia anywhere within the municipal office, even if my superiors believed me when I explained to them that I hadn't been editing Wikipedia at work, and that would have severely impinged my ability to actually do my translation work. (Ironic, really.) Three days later, anyway, my division chief took me to the meeting room again and reinforced the earlier ban, telling me definitively that there had been a complaint from outside the office, and told me not to concern myself with who had made it. Apparently, JoshuSasori (or one of his Japanese friends) posed as a concerned taxpayer in the rural municipality I work in, rather than as my Tokyo-based foreign (i.e., non-voting) cyberstalker. I could have explained this to my division chief, but I'm a contract employee on a one-year contract, and in Japan being a foreigner on a work visa and being unemployed for three months gets you kicked out of the country. This is why I am willing to completely abstain from editing Wikipedia not only from my office computer but also under my own username, apart from a single post to explain that I have wikiretired.

I care about my job (and my ability to stay in Japan) approximately eight million times more than I care about Wikipedia.

The reason I am posting this (and the above 0-word comment) under an IP is two-fold. I want to keep any further edits (I don't intend to make any to the article space anyway) off of my current account's record so I have actual proof that my activity on Wikipedia is almost if not entirely non-existent. I might need this if JoshuSasori isn't happy having forced me off Wikipedia, and continues trying to get me fired by haranguing my employers anyway. I might need to demonstrate to them that I haven't been editing Wikipedia. The other reason is that, yes, today is also a working day in Japan, but I have the day off. If I edit anonymously, my IP is proof positive that I am not editing at work.

Lastly, I need to emphasize that, if I hadn't retired from Wikipedia, I would have been saying that I care more about Wikipedia than about my job and my residency status. This would have marked me as an anti-social psychopath. Now, I may or may not care about my activity on Wikipedia more than the jobs of other people I don't know. However, in order to harangue someone's employers because I don't like their edits on Wikipedia, I would need to have an Ed Gein-like complete lack of empathy for my fellow humans. In other words, I would need to be an anti-social psychopath. If LBW continues to claim that it is my fault that JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath after hearing this, he should be indefinitely blocked. In fairness, he is only posting here because he didn't like my stance on diacritics, and preferred JoshuSasori. Even if he does not specifically mention diacritics here, he has been continuing to violate the spirit of his TBAN, because his attacks on me are all obviously diacritic-based.

Goodbye. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting off sideshow. 219.105.34.145 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone is free to compare the Edit Count contributions of both editors. Add in the contributions of MI if you want to be fair. You don't consider your trashing of his user page, which seems to have started it, to have been harassment? What about the attack on Jeffrey Woodward? The time-and-date stamp on your edits makes it perfectly clear whether you are editing during office hours or not. Nothing is stopping you from editing outside office hours—or from researching work-related topics on Wikipedia during office hours, if you are allowed to do that. If you want to make claims like "JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath" then you should provide diffs showing that he has had major arguments with editors other than you. Otherwise you had better read WP:NPA. Whether your contract is renewed or not depends on your positive and proactive contributions (or otherwise) at your office rather than on Wikipedia, and certainly not on the banning of JoshuSasori from Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Your raw data is all well and good, but how many of those edits were mindless reversions/vandalisms of Hijiri's work? I'm still not commenting on Tristan, as I haven't witnessed that first hand, but what Joshu has done is flat out WRONG, and no matter WHAT mistakes Hijiri made, there is NEVER any excuse for creating multiple accounts/IP hopping just to fuck up someone's edits, regardless of the story about the office (which I'm inclined to believed, based on what I've seen). The redirecting of the user page was probably wrong, but how is deliberately attempting to ruin someone's life (regardless of the work story, it's not exactly fun being hounded anywhere) with such low tactics justifiable? Take a good look at yourself before condoning it. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I honestly didn't want to comment again, but Lukeno apparently missed the complete insanity of LBW's above accusation that the dispute between me and JS began when I redirected his user page. Check the diff. That page was redirected by JoshuSasori, because he didn't want to respond to my comment. And his edit summary was an extremely vulgar personal attack as well. And this happened less than three days before JS got blocked and about a month after he started harassing me. LBW, of course, already knows that the diff he cited shows JoshuSasori harassing me, and and not the other way round. Asking him to look into it further is pointless, because his latest insane remark shows he has absolutely no interest in quoting the facts even if he knows them. He also has a slightly larger edit count than me, but considering that such a huge proportion of his edits are in the talk space, and the vast majority of those are just tweaking the same dozen or so comments ad infinitum, that doesn't prove anything. Can someone please shut this person up? Also, I'm re-hatting this whole section. Lukeno, if you have something you don't want hatted, you can move it. LBW, please refrain from posting here again, and expecially please don't unhat this sideshow. 219.105.34.145 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussions rehatted - since LBW's unrelated accusations require no admin action, there is no purpose in leaving them and the related discussions visible. Click the "show" link if you're curious. I can't see that there's anything productive to be gained from continuing this thread; could someone who isn't me please close it for archiving? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Surely repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks like "JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath" require a WP:NPA warning, and should not be hatted. The closing admin. should note that this is just a reopening and rehashing of the already-closed discussion here. LittleBen (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake. The comment isn't "unsubstantiated" - whilst psychopath may be open to dispute, JoshuSasori's actions have been the very definition of anti-social. And the information about the office report backs up the "psychopath" dispute. Also, this is NOTHING to do with the community ban proposal - this is information about what happened to Hijiri, no proposals are being made here. I think if LittleBen is this clearly unable to let the past go, they need to be blocked (interaction ban, or regular block). I second Yunshui's close suggestion, as leaving this open just leaves a venue for LittleBen to gleefully make irrelevant remarks, gravedance, and generally be uncivil. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the "anti-social psychopath" statement is in Hijiri88's long statement above, which isn't hatted. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I opened this discussion to alert other admins new information about what we're dealing with in JoshuSasori, as I said. As it's served its purpose I'm down with closing it. I'd be supportive of any measure to cap off Ben's tangents involving the victim.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:J._Johnson - hostile environment.

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

---

As noted multiple times, this is not the correct forum by a longshot. The OP has been advised as to where to take it - if they choose to ignore the advice provided, then so be it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicatd it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep the record straight, I submit that the complainant Elvey has weak support from one user (Ego White Tray), and has not "proven to be repeatedly disruptive" any behavior at Earthquake prediction but what has his name on it.

As Elvey wants to invoke a community ban or such, I ask: would this occasion be appropriate for discussing a topic on him? Or should that go to AN/I? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Pages: Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Earthquake prediction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Earthquake prediction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

User being reported: J._Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notices have been sent to J._Johnson, Readin, Ronz, NewsAndEventsGuy, Ego White Tray, J. Johnson.

Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2, (and Talk:Earthquake_prediction).

Comments:

Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of JJ's edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring (though blatant 3RR violation is avoided).

He is aggressively arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that he refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits. Multiple attempts by multiple editors to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed. JJ's apparrent level of comprehension of comments directed toward him is so low I frequently find it indicative of refusal to get the point, that is, WP:IDHT, W:CIR.

An unusually large fraction of JJ's edits are to Talk pages, and an unusually large fraction of those talk page edits are hostile comments toward fellow editors.

Proposed Sanctions

I see imposition of 1RR as a solution; many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted.

If that's not an option available to admins, then a full block indefinitely, or for a while, may unclog the ears, so to speak. WFM. Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The summaries (and links to edit diffs) at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history and comments on Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2 by JJ are hardly anything but example after example of WP:disruptive editing by JJ!

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not justify JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits to Earthquake prediction, and similar articles!

The edit summaries alone at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history show that everyone else is wrong, and JJ is right, according to JJ; you don't even need to look at the diffs:

1. "Removed POV nonsense" - JJ to Readin, who asked for civility. [7]
2. "Bah. Waste of time, collapsing" - JJ to Ronz, [8]
3. To NewsAndEventsGuy's"Battleground alert, again": (post-">20" incidents...so eloquent!): <ignored>, after "where in WP:BATTLEGROUND does it say there is an exception for [a] "little" piling on?"
4. <again> "Removing empty section I don't have time to prepare." - JJ to Ego White Tray - [9], [10] - More evidence JJ thinks this is 'his' article, in violation of WP:OWN.
5. (This requires viewing at least a snippet of the diff.) The comment summary, What is "adequate proof"?: Why? is the best - in response to Inamos and Dave souza, JJ's reply includes, ""adequate" is whether the person addressed is persuaded. Well, your original arguments did not persuade me, so by that criterion: not adequate." [11] This goes a long way to explaining the "logic" behind most of JJ's edits.

(If someone wants to be pedantic and insist on actual diffs rather than the format above, let me know here and I'll add links to the above 5 diffs.)

JJ fails to understand simple things - JJ doesn't believe that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rather, he INSISTs that I MUST prove that "Coren's findings are notable", or allow his removal of them from Earthquake prediction to stand, and even berates me for my belief. He seems to believe that unless he's convinced a change is correct, he should keep it out of Wikipedia, policy be damned. He even goes so far as to insist on keeping out ANY MENTION of this esteemed scientist's published study from being mentioned because its "scientific notability" has not been established (despite multiple news reports about it),and (!) it is not <sic> a reliable source. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ has insisted that it is out of place in an article on the fringe/proto-science of earthquake prediction because of WP:FRINGE - as if the article on the Flat Earth theory should not talk about the main claims in support of that theory either! Please note, I don't see this as a content dispute at all; I happened to find this Coren article interesting, I added it.

Of the last 150 edits to Earthquake_prediction, 68 are by JJ. His edits are in 16 contiguous blocks, 12 of them -that is, all but 4 of his edit blocks contain reverts by him, of half a dozen different editors' attempts to improve 'his' article. (Several are hidden; they are not tagged "Undid revision", but can be found by looking at char deletion counts and edit summaries.)

Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

To understand why my editing is productive, see Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Distinguished_from_productive_editing. And, I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect. --Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ego White Tray

I stumbled across earthquake prediction one day and started a discussion about mostly cosmetic and style changes. I don't know the topic well, so I won't speak to content issues. My notes about inappropriate tone, off-topic content and excessive quote boxes were first accused of being the act of a sockpuppet (since an IP had recently placed the same tags that JJ removed for no reason), and my arguments were pretty much ignored. I faced a whole lot of strawman arguments, some outright ludicrous ("if you are not interested in statements of scientists..." appears in Archive 2). My suggestion to take quotes out of quote boxes and move them into prose was equated with deleting them altogether, something I never said. JJ then removed the tag for no other reason that I hadn't commented in 10 days. My statement that I understood what he was trying to do was equated with agreement (it wasn't).

I hope that JJ can learn to ignore the small stuff and let it be. JJ, give WP:FUCK a good read. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

First, is this the right place for an ANI regarding editor behavior? Last, I note that editors who have voiced negative feedback to JJ were notified. Since it is at least possible that there are many editors on the various article talk pages who might feel differently, but were not notified, one might wonder whether I feel inappropriately canvassed? And I might say that I do.... if I gave a WP:FUCK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS I just noticed Elvey's preliminary inquiry about canvassing, and would just like to thank him/her for thinking about it up front. Like the answer you got said....it is a tricky issue. No worries here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by J. Johnson

In the first place, this does not seem to be the appropriate venue for this, but here we are.

Second, this complaint is nothing more than the extension of a dispute at Talk:Earthquake prediction, and the inclusion of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change is only an attempt to widen the base from which he would pick complaints. Indeed, of the five edit summaries he complains of only one is from Earthquake prediction, where I removed an empty section for the reason stated. (And neither that edit nor the summary support his point.) (He also mischaracterizes the discussion cited in his point #5.)

Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal (but I will respond to any specific requests), the principal dispute is that Elvey is fixated on including certain material, the "Coren dog study". I have opposed this on the grounds that such an inclusion would violate the WP policies regarding fringe, notability, and reliable sources, besides being unuseful and would give one section undue weight vis-a-vis other sections. (See Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2#Coren.27s dog findings.3F for the details.). A secondary dispute regards the quote boxes (and "quote farm" tagging). There I have provided a response I believe adequate for any reasonable person, to which Elvey has not demurred on any point.

The bottom line here is that Elvey wants to include some inherently unsuitable material. And not being able deny its unsuitability he would beat down my objection with these bombastic and unfounded complaints that I am "hostile". I submit that the complaint really should run the other way. I would particularly complain of various demeaning statements. E.g.: "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Just this evening Elvey has intruded himself into a civil discussion between myself and another editor with this. I deem this to be harassment, and a demonstration of bad faith. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note Yup. None of the above legalistic wall-o-texts above belong here at all. Climate change articles are under restrictions, IIRC. ANI doesn't do reams of junk like the above. If the OP has a complaint that is not related to existing ArbComm or AE restrictions, then try less than 2 paragraphs of complaint with diff's. If you're trying to prove a pattern of behaviour AND you love wall-o-text, try an WP:RFC/U. Otherwise, the above will merely fade into the archives unanswered (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I was involved in the content dispute for a short while but dropped out in December. I also mistakenly warned Elvey about 3RR[[12] (see my post at the Village pump technical as the addition of a 'see also' produced an edit summary calling it a revert)[13]. Elvey's response was the templated warning "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" and despite my apology and explanation he maintained his accusation that I'd abused the template and that in fact he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had). I mention all of this not just because he was being a bit aggressive but because he must be aware of my involvement and that I wasn't supporting him in the dispute. If JJ hadn't notified me (neutrally) I wouldn't be aware of this, so I agree that there is inappropriate canvassing. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh. My. God. Your accusation is BLATANTLY false, Doug, as I've explained. You did abuse the template. I thought you finally realized that, indeed, I hadn't exceeded 2RR, and that's why you hadn't responded after I posted the linked-to reply. And, I noticed that you are here after JJ [14] [you twice]. I don't understand how someone - an admin with as many edits as you, to the articles you edit, could possibly not know that it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. If you commented here to show that I'm in the wrong, you couldn't have picked a better COUNTER-example. Thanks! Are you going to admit your wrong, or continue to deny reality, Doug? Or must I admit and love the fact that 2+2=5? --Elvey (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Your post to my talk page then included the statement " I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't break 2RR.".]You repeat this on your talk page.[15]. Now you are admitting to 2RR? Which you did. I never suggested that you violated 3RR and I explained why I thought you'd hit 3RR in detail and enquired at the Vllage Pump (Technical) as to why your 3rd edit said "revert" in the automatic edit sujmmary (of course, if you'd made an edit summary yourself I wouldn't have warned you). Now you've been here longer than I am (although you have few edits), and you were quoting 3RR in 2006), and yet you clearly don't understand the use of the warning template. It's used when an editor reaches 3RR (or perhaps more if they haven't been warned) to inform them of the fact that another revert can get them blocked. It doesn't say that the editor has reach 4RR. The reason I didn't reply again was that it dealing with you is difficult and boring and I had better things to do than repeat myself again. It's been a long time since your were blocked indefinitely for failure to get a clue and creating a hostile editing environment but you really need to start AGFing and being more civil. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh. My. God. I don't believe you read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elvey&diff=541616486&oldid=541608766!! Please read it, Doug. It's written to you. I went so far as to post to your talk page asking you to read it and respond. --Elvey (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit above is my response. I retracted my 3RR warning and expained why I thought you'd made 3 reverts. I don't know what a 2RR violation would be, unless it would be 3RR which I agreed you hadn't done. Frankly I can't make much sense of your post to your talk page. I'm not even sure if you are still saying you didn't even make 2 reverts or that you did, although that really doesn't matter to me. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by _

Reply by Elvey

Ego White Tray,
Thanks, that's a useful summary. I would say that with me, I ALSO found 1)my arguments were pretty much ignored, 2)inappropriate tone was the norm too, and 3)suggestions were misrepresented in ludicrous ways as well - e.g. the strawman arguments where JJ insists that I had said 'WP:WEIGHT is nonsense" when I had (of course) said pretty much the opposite: I wrote, to show that WEIGHT supported inclusion of Coren, "How many people think animals can predict earthquakes? Lots. You are aware that the Chinese have an official [Government] snake-based early warning system?" But JJ didn't respond to that question, but rather, falsely, tendentiously and distractingly, accused me THREE TIMES, of saying WEIGHT is nonsense, even though after EACH accusation, I tell him that I had never said that, rather I quoted from WEIGHT three times, with quotes that show that it SUPPORTS Coren's inclusion in [[Earthquake prediction], an "article on the historical views" of the idea that earthquakes are predictable, because what including Coren does is "discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief"!

Bwilkins,
You seem to be ignoring the reason I gave for posting here; it's in the OP - the very first sentence of my comment: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) " - and I wish to discuss community sanctions, so I started this thread. How can you make me wrong for doing exactly what policy says I may do? Why do you chose to get all hostile and insult my writing, which I tried hard to make readable 'and skimmable', with terms like wall-o-text and REAMS OF JUNK? Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs, and the diffs. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR 5 summaries? No way.

Generally, it's interesting how JJ refuses to acknowledge that the topic is creating a hostile environment in general, but rather attempts to redefine it, to draw attention away from the fact that there's ample evidence he's been creating a hostile environment all over Wikipedia. Regarding Coren, I have responded both here and on the article talk page, as to why my contribution regarding Coren is suitable, citing relevant policy ad nauseum, most recently yesterday but JJ has not replied! Of course, having brought this issue to administrator attention, I expect a certain amount of attention to my comments, such as the ones JJ mentions - "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc. I've cited a number of editors who have termed JJ's edits hostile, and I think my comments which are quoted are measured and I took pains to avoid inflammatory or making ad-hominem comments, but as I said, "I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect." Calling what appear to be ownership-based reverts as such is not hostile, it's appropriate, when the justification is supported with references to policy and JJ's edits, as my comments were. Ditto where policy has been fabricated and mis-represented.--Elvey (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that neither the AN nor ANI are suitable for this sort of discussion. AN as said above is for matters affecting administrators. Your dispute with another editor does not "affect" administrators per se. Normally, I would have also said ANI is the place for this but you've linked to so much stuff that the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U. As for community sanctions, these are such things as topic bans, site bans, interaction bans, ARBCOM or discretionary sanctions etc. JJ has none of these sanctions and generally discussions of these don't occur here until the subject of the sanction has been hauled to ANI or perhaps SPI several times (not really a policy based view but just a general observation). Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackmane,

What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy. It's simply not true, based on "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ", which as I said, is a direct quote from WP:BAN, in particluar the section WP:CBAN. A more extensive quote:

Community bans and restrictions

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions on editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usuallyWikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

So your statement that "the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U" is simply, well, false. Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs and more recently, the actual diffs, and a link to more. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR for 5 summaries? No way. --Elvey (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually did read the whole post you laid out above. ALso your linking directly to the community sanctions section is all well amnd good, but in general that is rarely how things end up happening. It's nice that you tried to make it conform to what you read in the guide but usually admins prefer something short and sweet. That aside, if you wish for an opinion, then it would be that: the environment is no more "hostile" than others I've seen. There are 3 editors involved in the vast majority of the discussion on the talk page archive that you linked me to, yourself, Ego White Tray and JJ. When discussion becomes limited to such a small number then drawing lines in the sand will of course lead to friction. This is probably a dumb question, but have WP:3O or WP:DRN been attempted? Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to determine community consensus. I don't care if you prefer a longer, more drawn out, more-complicated-than-I-can-grok process, because this one is acceptable under policy, and I'm determined to see it through. Just three? I showed that there are multiple editors other than those three who have had lengthy disputes with JJ that are problematic. Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). Where are EWT and I in that? --Elvey (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and 660 of your 1487 edits are to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (605) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[WP] (55). — Blackmane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is uncalled for and suggests you haven't read WP:SPA - or WP:AGF for that matter. You seem happy to template experienced editors and now you've tried to denigrate someone by salling them an SPA. Have you evidence that this editor has been generally unconstructive? A quick glance at Blackmane's talk page history turns up [16] which is an Admin's compliment for a post by Blackmane to another editor trying to help that editor with a problem. I think you owe Blackmane an apology. I'd hate to think you'd returned to old habits - but this sort of comment does "create a hostile editing environment". Yes, that was a long time ago, but some of your recent posts (and your exchange with me) haven't exactly improved the editing environment. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(repost) I read SPA up to where it mentioned the template, then I read the template and used it. AFAIK, there's no rule against identifying a suspected SPA, there is for identifying a suspected SOCK, but apples and oranges. If I'm wrong and there is, I apologize in advance. I'm off to read SPA in full. Please take a moment to respond to my reply to your comment above about 3RR, Doug. --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved user here, but how the hell is 827 edits outside of this "topic" being ignored, and how the hell have you come to the conclusion they're an SPA? SPAs have at most about 10 edits outside of one specific topic - your tagging of Blackmane as an SPA is about as inappropriate and disruptive as it gets. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I had closed this disruptive and improper filing - my close text still appears at the top of this thread. Elvey has very disruptively re-opened this, after repeated directions as to where this complaint belongs. I fear a wP:BOOMERANG may be flying very very soon, especially based on their most recent comments above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Repeating your claim that it's improper doesn't make it so. What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy; see direct quotes from WP:BAN, in particular the section WP:CBAN, that I posted above, to Blackmane. Or are you going to avoid having an actual discussion? --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you seem bent on avoiding actual productive engaged conversation. I wrote

"Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicated it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 10:10 am, Today (UTC−8)"

Don't threaten me when I have made it quite clear why I think that what I've done is do exactly what the policy says I may do, and you've made no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence that I'm wrong (other than to state your opinion, as if your opinion automatically should have the standing of actual policy...)--Elvey (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Time to close this

No one has supported a ban or a 1RR restriction. I don't see a need for Admin action here. Elvey can open an RfC/U if he wishes. As I've said, his behavior is not dissimilar to the behavior (failure to get a clue and creating a hostile working environment) that got him indefinitely blocked before and if he continues in this vein would support some sort of sanction. I'm concerned about what may happen at Earthquake prediction once this is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you don't consider Ronz or EWT's comments 'count' as being in support of a ban or a 1RR restriction.--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2RR comments

Elvey has posted to my talk page about this. I can see my confusion - above at one point where I wrote "exceeded 2RR" I meant to say reached 2RR - I can see that he agrees he's done that but then there's no problem with reaching 2RR unless of course an editor has a 1RR restriction. I've never heard of an accusation that someone has breached 2RR which is what Elvey was talking about - do we make 2RR restrictions as well as 1RR? Anyway, sorry for the confusion - I now understand that he was saying about 2RR. I still read his original posts as meaning that a 3RR warning is a warning that an editor has breached 3RR rather than reached 3RR (eg on my talk page he writes "you had responded with evidence of just 2 reverts - a 1RR violation at most" - which I didn't understand. I'll add that calm, civil discussion would probably have made this whole discussion, including the one between Elvey and me, easier to understand and resolve. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You advise 'calm, civil discussion' so, I've gone back to the beginning to review my attitude-and yours, to be fair. Please go back and carefully read my first post about all this, right after you accused me of being "engaged in an edit war". And take a look at how YOU responded too. If you hadn't "ignored the bulk of my post" (your words) in December - including the stuff about JJ, and more carefully read what I wrote about 3RR, things would have gone a helluva lot better. Or at least Ronz would think they'd have gone better, I'm sure. See what I'm saying? --Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for FINALLY 'getting a clue' after falsely accusing me about half a dozen times of having violated 2RR, even though I eloquently defended myself each time, quite calmly considering I had been falsely accused once, then twice, then three times... Clearly the "failure to get a clue" was yours, yes? Would you mind explicitly retracting the false accusations, which you made here:"denying 2 reverts" and here (2): warning retracted, but "you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR" isn't and here (4-7, depending on how you count repeats):"he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had)", "Now you are admitting to [violating] 2RR? Which you did.", "clearly don't understand", "need to start AGFing", and finally "My edit above is my response." - which is a restatement of the last 3 false accusations)? An apology would go a lot further than a futile and defensive (and ongoing) attempt to deny or justify ~half a dozen false accusations. How 'bout it, Doug? --Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, I said "sorry for the confusion" which I am - I don't like being confused and I particularly don't like being confused when it impacts negatively on others, in this case you, however you expressed yourself. You didn't violate 2RR which is why I deleted my 3RR warning. I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote[17] "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and " So even if I had violated 2RR <sic>, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this? Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd still like to know - do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times long after I'd shown I had NOT violated 2RR (as I believe the diffs above show) or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?" I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction. Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say it to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine. I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link. You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion. Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?) --Elvey (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is posting a request at the Village Pump (policy) for input here forum shopping?

Here[18] saying " I could use some input from uninvolved editors (you?) at W:AN#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment to review some diffs and such and help achieve consensus on action against a disruptive editor." He denies it is forum-shopping. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruptive, which this editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In that context, this request by a previously-unregistered account at the Third Opinion project might ought to be taken into account. (It's been reverted as not being within the scope of the project.) I suspect that it was a misguided attempt to preserve neutrality, as is encouraged by that project (requests are not signed, but this was not suggested), so I've not filed an SPI report but thought that it ought to be mentioned here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I love " Disagreement about whether the user violated 2RR by making 2 reverts.". If the IP isn't Elvey he/she is as confused as Elvey. I've gone into this in a bit of detail above. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPA has now stated on my talk page that the use of the alternate account was not for neutrality but to avoid alleged edit stalking. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) And in light of that statement, I've now filed an SPI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've explained above, this was confusion on my part. so I've struck my statement. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Readin

The same notice that was given to me should have been provided to the talk page where the problem occurred.

When I attempted to contributed to a page related to climate change, I felt like I was being ambushed rather than having a discussion. The comments were almost uniformly unconstructive, for reasons such as assuming that I had nefarious motives, not bothering to consider what I had written or said, personal attacks on my intelligence, strawmen arguments, etc..

J Johnson's comments stood out as particularly hurtful and deliberately poisonous to the discussion, so much so that I quickly stopped responding to him even as I tried to get a contsructive discussion going with other editors. This happened some months ago.

However there was more recently a discussion in which a different editor encountered similar issues. I attempted to help him. Eventually, with the help of NewsAndEventsGuy and a couple others, the conversation eventually became constructive and J Johnson did behave civily to me in part of that discussion. Readin (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I can't find the latter discussion; link? Does it suggest admin action is unnecessary? If so, great - and, I'd love to see it. The last interaction I can find is the one I linked to - this snarky revert of Readin's comment with the edit summary, I kid you not, of "Removed POV nonsense."--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I doubt you'll read this because you steadfastly refuse to read ANY of the help provided to you before this, "Removed POV nonsense" is not blockable or actionable in any way. It does not discuss the editor, it discusses content, which is a hallmark of this project. Indeed, most of your original post was full of similar non-actionable phrases. Those may have possibly come across as uncivil, but not personal attacks. Try reading WP:WIAPA for once in your life. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Climate Change sanctions/restrictions

I could use some help understanding the comments some have made about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content, in that if JJ is violating Arbcom sanctions/restrictions, which ones? I'm trying to figure out what means. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions means that if JJ has been warned, admins can impose whatever sanction they choose, if he violates a policy he's been warned of? Yes, No, sorta? If I read correctly, the warning doesn't count if it's from a regular user or an involved administrator, or doesn't reference the sanctions; is that correct? Yes, No, sorta? If so, I wonder if JJ has been or should be thus warned re. OWN, CIVIL, etc., W.R.T. global warming.--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

massive suppression on Cla68's talk page

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

---

I notice that every edit made between 06:12, 4 March 2013‎ and 16:29, 5 March 2013‎ on Cla68's talk page have been redacted. As a normal editor I have no ability to determine if the edits were supressed or deleated by administrative means. Given the context surrounding Cla68's talkpage, I suspect it was oversighted under critera one (Removal of non-public personal information). There are ~57 consecutive revisions to the page redacted. The redacted content includes replies by ~9 sysops, including multiple functionaries and members of the arbitration committee. There seems to be a contridiction here. If the users (both administrators and other long-time contributors) were posting non-public personal information all of the users involved should apparently be subject to sanction. If they were not, this appears to be a gross misuse of the the supression tool. If there is a vaild rationale would someone please explain why there was supression but no action taken (even a warning) to the users whos edits were supressed? This was posted to the AN after much thought, as I believe that an action of this nature requires community review. Regards, Crazynas ^t 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The last revision deletion was performed on 12:47, 16 August 2012 [19] as such, I must assume this was an act of supression. Crazynas ^t 07:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The way it works is that individual revisions have to be suppressed/revision deleted. So that would include all revisions from the time the material entered the page until it was removed. --Rschen7754 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What Rschen said - this is the way the software works. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much the way the software works, it's the way oversighters work - in that intermediate revisions also have to be suppressed because they all contain the problematic material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At 16:11, 4 March 2013‎ Fluffernutter made a (currently supressed) edit to the talk page. When searching the page, there is no timestamped signature (by Fluffernutter or otherwise) at that time, since I suspect she knows how to sign her posts, unless she posted something inapproprate why was her post not re-instated on the page (as in fact Cla68's unblock request was, in an redacted form)? (This timestamp was chosen at random, but a sampling shows that none of the edits examined so far have been reinstated). Crazynas ^t 07:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see straight away what got suppressed:

06:12, 4 March 2013‎ Mathsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (287,581 bytes) (+1,485)‎ . . (→‎More eyes?: copied over from wikipediocracy)

It looks like someone posted a link to the thread on redact that has been the root cause of all this controversy. Unfortunately, removing it from the history has meant that a lot of subsequent posts had to be removed as well - you can't just suppress the original post, you have to suppress every post in which it subsequently appears. Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But if those posts do not contain objectionable material they could be copied and reposted by the OS right? Crazynas ^t 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Suppressing the intermediate revisions does not remove the actual contributions, as they are still there in the revision after the last one suppressed. Fluffernutter's comment is still there, tagged "A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)" - there can be a minor time difference between the tagging in the talk page and the record in the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that is a big self trout on that one, although now I'm questioning why we have logs at all if the (sever generated) timestamp and the (sever generated) log don't agree. Crazynas ^t 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "timestamp" in the talk page is just a piece of text written into the actual page content as part of a signature, and the actual logging can't see that and just logs the time - and that is inevitably a tiny bit later than the talk page content was generated, occasionally spanning a minute boundary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, each individual edit may not contain enough personal information but taken as a whole, it does. I only came upon this after blocking had already occured. It took only about 2 minutes to piece together the website and the user people were talking about. I had heard about neither of them before that. Oversighting of the talk page should have removed all website and all username mentions. Once the decision was made that it was a violation of WP:OUTING, oversighting should have been vigorous and thorough. Previous discussions serve no purpose and future discussions only make it worse. --DHeyward (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• User talk:Cla68 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• The history of the user talk page shows lots of struck-out timestamps, including the four comments that I made. However, the talk page shows my four comments, and they appear to be intact (perhaps they were copy/pasted?). Someone with a suitable paygrade might explain the technical issues involved, but I support the removal of any comments linking to OUTING, despite everyone knowing how to find the outing if they want. The community needs to choose between (a) support for free speech (where editors can post links to show that they can post such links), or (b) support for the WP:OUTING policy. Free speech is great, but that's not our role, whereas the community absolutely must know that all forms of outing are prohibited. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  That's because those comments were still there in the revision after the last suppressed one - suppression does not revert the comments or change the state of the current revision, it just removes the old revisions from the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Something else that might help clarify - it was not the suppression that actually removed the offending material from the talk page, it was the "16:29, 5 March 2013‎ Enric Naval" edit commented as "remove offending link for the same reasons are original links". All the subsequent suppression did was prevent anyone looking at the previous revisions that contained that link - it did not remove anything from the contents of the talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Johnuniq, the problem is the community is not 100% behind 'all forms of outing are prohibited'. Thats not what outing policy says. Its quite specific. Where someone has voluntarily posted info that leads to their identity being disclosed on wikipedia, thats a massive grey area and OUTING is regularly ignored in those circumstances (especially at COIN) And even apart from that, its certainly not cut and dried as to what constitutes outing. Jimbo himself says that posting publically available WHOIS info is not outing. The problem at the moment is that its practically impossible to get a discussion going without it being shut down/oversighted even with the barest of particulars as I have used. I could make a two-word edit to the outing policy that would pretty much completely invalidate any arguments that what Cla did was outing, while leaving the policy intact. Thats how murky it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. Connecting the dots to out an editor (where they have not revealed the personal information on Wikipedia) is prohibited. Please do not make claims about a named editor such as Jimbo without a link to verify the claim, and to allow the context in which the statement was made to be examined. ANI and many other noticeboards shows numerous examples of editors who misunderstand standard procedures every day, and while disappointing, it is not surprising to find that some editors do not understand that OUTING is OUTING. As an example, if someone were to find a whois record linking my username to my real name, do you really think they should be entitled to post that on Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think the use of whois records is clear cut. For example, we frequently use them to identify the geographical location of IP editors, and that is not treated as a violation of Outing policy as it is obvious public-domain information. But if, for example, you used your Wikipedia username as a domain, and a whois on that domain revealed your real name, I'd expect that to be covered by Outing if you had not disclosed your use of the domain name on-wiki. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You would need to go through Jimbo's archive to find his quite clear view on publically available WHOIS data. It was regarding a certain problematic high profile banned editor. I wish you luck with that. You missed my point however. I wasnt disputing what OUTING actually currently says, but that its far from clear that certain actions are outing in line with the current wording. If you make no attempt to hide your identity on the internet, then make disruptive actions on wikipedia that directly bring attention and scrutiny to your identity because its linked to the problem, saying that because you have not directly said 'I AM X' on Wikipedia the links cannot be drawn is ridiculous and far from the intent of the outing policy. If a banned editor has openly identified themselves on other publically viewable wikimedia property (Commons, meta, public mailing lists etc) frankly the outing policy as written is not equipped to deal with the issues this causes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a little late to this dramafest and spoil everybody's fun. Unfortunately the oversighting of User talk:Cla68 has a rather boring explanation. In including Cla68's off-wiki response to Newyorkbrad, I gave an external link to his response in a thread on the external website. Enric Naval noticed that going to that off-wiki thread might tempt readers to go elsewhere on that site, where all manner of evil lurks, so redacted the link with a message in which he unfortunately said exactly that. He also added the edit summary mentioned above. He then contacted oversight and then me by email. I then responded to him and wrote also to arbcom-l. I then redacted my message by removing the external link to the response (simply labelled "here") together with Enric Naval's commentary. In my message to arbcom-l (as part of the oversight team) I said they could remove both diffs (I misplaced Cla68's message initially) or just the word "here" with its EL. Given my later redaction, they chose the option all can see now which seems fine to me. Although it's not particularly obvious even now, Enric Naval had stated in his email that Cla68, when unblocked, had drawn attention to external link[s]—possibly meaning my link to his message—on his user talk page. I assume this was discussed by arbitrators and/or oversighters and I certainly haven't had a reply to my post to arbcom-l (note that Roger Davies had changed the settings so that any post from me would go directly onto the list, bypassing the moderator). I should also explain that Enric Naval is a wikifriend of mine. I know that he is not a native English speaker. That is reflected in the slightly odd phrasing and tone of his edit summary that various folks have tried to dissect in gory detail above. Anyway that is what seems to have happened. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I know for a fact that there wasn't anything infringing on policy in my contributions to the discussion on Cla68's talk page. So would someone with oversight permission kindly rescue them from the diffs I can't view - it should be easy enough - and drop them on my talk page. If that's not possible, I'd appreciate knowing why not, as it would strike me as unnecessary collateral damage. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. My preferred option would be for the whole lot to be restored, with as many (Redacted)s as need be, but I'm sure somebody will come up with a reason why that can't be done.

  I don't think anybody has removed any of your contributions - they're all still in the current revision, aren't they? (Suppression does not remove the content - it takes an actual edit/revert to do that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't quite sure if the remaining visible text was all of it, what with being unable to view the diffs. Snowolf has pulled them out and it seems I didn't lose anything - thanks Snowolf! (This strikes me as something of a software failing; it should be possible to allow diffs to remain visible, I think, in isolation from the actual page content.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  That wouldn't be good because you'd then still be able to see the genuinely problematic material in the diffs too, which would defeat the purpose of suppression. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  By "diff" I mean the indicator of modified text. Around here the word diff is often incorrectly used (assumed?) to mean "specific version of a page", because diffs are displayed by MediaWiki in tandem with the result of their being applied to a previous page version. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it's the same sort of thing that happens on a fairly regular basis on WP:ANI or here. Intervening edits are affected which explains why they suppressed the diffs (but not the added content) between my initial and final postings. Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda

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

---

There is an ongoing conflict over articles relating to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which arose out of this FT/N discussion. The problem, from my perspective, is quite vexing: Sarkar and some of his organizations/theories are influential in India, and there were some political scrapes he and they got into, so the frequent FT/N "delete all of it" response is not called for. What we have, though, is a mass of promotional articles written apparently by followers from primary sources within the movement, and attempts to get some of these articles deleted or merged (e.g. those for each of the books Sarkar wrote) brought on a very strong backlash from a few editors, plus responses from a bunch of new SPAs. This led to the above SPI, which was inconclusive, but which hasn't been closed; instead, it has turned into a clearing house for keeping score on the various articles and people on both sides. This seems to me to have become utterly nonconstructive, and I ask that it be closed ASAP. But I could also use some advice/criticism about taking this forward. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I can say I was literally haunted by some users that seems closely connected with the above user:Mangoe: user:bobrayner, User:Garamond Lethe, and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for them but I have my suspicions. I expressed, however my strong complaints in some of the AfD's proposed by them. I suggest you all to take a look at this interesting table on "Deletions and AfDs" (made/launched by those users) here. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints (unfortunately it has not happened yet). I emphasize that the activity of some of these users seems strongly focused in trying, with persistence, to remove everything that is connected with the Indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar under the pretext that they are promotional items. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page on the sandbox of the user above, containing all the links related with this author. We have clear evidence of the follow-up of their agenda in the revision history here of the page and from some of their thalks. A clear example of that is the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe that after losing this AfD he deleted almost the entire article as you can see from the history here. I reverted but after a while the user User:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition. I could quote here several cases of improper behavior of the user user:bobrayner that seems magically connected with the users above. Are these behaviors adhering to the rules of WP?--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking this to AN/I since their seems to be no admin interest in closing and we're heading for this to blow up again. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

userification please

I requested the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbourne Street to userify it and its talk page to User:Geo Swan/Sherbourne Street, Suffolk. But they have retired their mop and suggested I ask here. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not terribly relevant to your request, but Cirt did not "retire the mop", their admin rights were removed by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth restoring, but here's the full text of that article: "Sherbourne Street is a hamlet and a street located inbetween the villages of Edwardstone and Boxford, in the Babergh district of the English County of Suffolk. It is in the Parish of Edwardstone, although it is more like a part of Boxford. The hamlet has a 30 mph speed limit. For transport there is the A1071 road nearby." There was one reference, Philip's Street Atlas Suffolk (page 93). All that wording was by User:Crouch, Swale, the formatting, categories etc. were by other users. Fences&Windows 12:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞)  FREE KEVIN  13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating interwiki links

• In the old system, if a page is moved, it carries its outgoing interwiki links with it, and incoming interwiki links can find it via the redirect that the page move leaves.
  • With the new system of keeping the interwiki links in Wikidata, if I move a page, say from Shrdlu to Cmfwyp, the interwiki link for en:Shrdlu is in Wikidata and its entry there still says "en:Shrdlu". When acting as a link to a Wikipedia page, it finds that page via the redirect left by the move. But when acting as a link from a Wikipedia page, there is nothing telling readers of en:Cmfwyp to look at en:Shrdlu for its interwiki links, and the user must remember to go into Wikidata and edit the interwiki link himself. This is going to cause a lot of extra work when moving Wikipedia pages, and a LOT of broken interwiki links due to people who do not know about going into Wikidata for the interwiki links. Please make it that, when a page is moved, its inter-language link in Wikidata is automatically updated to match. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Moved articles. A bot is now running at Wikidata which reads the move log of each wiki and makes the appropriate fix to Wikidata's records. See the recent contributions of the bot. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete an article I created

Hi, I created this article, while there was a much larger one already. So, there is no need for it any more. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Next time just add {{db-a10|article=existing article title}} to the top of it (✉→BWilkins←✎) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

I have some serious concerns about this AFD and I'm sure admins will quickly see why. More eyes would be good. An early close might be better. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like things are more-or-less under control. I don't see any reason for an early close at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I had privacy concerns about some of it and then there was the obvious (but obviously not bad-faith) off-wiki canvassing. DGG's note should give people enough to discuss to keep things on track for now. But thanks for looking at it - much appreciated. Stalwart111 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a shame that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rotary Club of Milton on Twitter will likely remain a redlink. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... with WP:AFC the way it has been of late, that might actually pass. Ha ha. Stalwart111 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Close an RfC

3 Editors appear to be holding an article hostage by ignoring an RfC which went against them hereTalk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Proposal_to_replace_current_content. Can an admin close and summarize the consensus of the RfC so that an edit war is avoided (see Talk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Comments)? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note argument is overflowing into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhidevananda. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Mariadomican

This account seems to have been marked as one of mine. I hate to flog the dead horse but could someone do a CheckUser on it? It isn't one of mine and I'm not sure why it's been marked as one of mine.--Launchballer 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser is inappropriate here, and besides would be stale anyways since the account was last blocked in 2008. That said, I cannot dig up any evidence tying that account to you (no edits under that account, no mention of it at your SPI case, no mention of CheckUser in the block reason), I have deleted its user page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Launchballer 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That account, along with 36 others, was CheckUser confirmed as a sock in this case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

The Wikipedia:Copyright problems is backlogged to the point where the page is now breaking, even after moving all the 2012 noms to a subpage. I don't have the time to do this nearly single-handedly, and even tackling a week's worth would be a big help. Wizardman 04:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Help still needed. Cleared one day and see one other person helping only... Wizardman 18:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Oversight-related blocks

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy.

While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Which also means to keep an eye out for {{Oversight_block}} (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I need a daring administrator

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, and as a result several editors involved in the AFD and in debates about related articles have started asking me for assistance. I reproduce messages that were left on my talk page (section "DRV") over the last few days, while I wasn't editing due to lots of travelling:

Could you take a look and if possible review a DYK entry I started[20], which WhiteWriter decided to "review" too. Personally, I consider it disruptive when someone decides to join such a debate only to accuse the nominator of POV-pushing, although content has been written per the sources and mention ARBMAC. Note that he joined another DYK entry I had nominated in January and kept stalling the proper review with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and accusations until I asked from an admin to review it, which of course led WW to stop disrupting it[21]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, read this very carefully. Other users already commented the same info on article's talk, while user Zjarri was informed before that presenting sources like that is misleading. I didnt review it, i just stated the problem with it. This kind of reporting to admin is very bad faith toward me, as user didnt even talked to me, and presented you falsely that i stalk edits. But you, Nyttend, as involved in all of this, can see that problem actually exist, and it should be fixed. Please, Nyttend, read this with care, as that info is actually unsourced, violation of agreement, and at the end questionable info, and all of that in DYK, and on the main page. Also, Zjarri added this person on Đakovica page, while moving only Serbian on that list down below everyone, based on what criteria? Head of central national television is more important that some minor folk singers. You are welcomed to join article talk and say your opinion in this. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. That "disruptions", as presented to you, on former DYK article was fixed and corrected in current version by other users. It looks like those were not disruptions, but wiki guidelines. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. Unfortunately, i will not be at home and near internet in the next seven days (or maybe more), so i will not be able to check your respond, as i will soon have to go... Please, look at that discussion for more info, and i hope that everything will be solved in the meantime. I doubt that this will stay opened question until then, anyway... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not familiar with the field, and I'm not sufficiently informed to make good judgements about things like WP:ARBMAC; I closed the original AFD because the results of the discussion appeared clear-cut and because issues such as ARBMAC didn't appear to be major parts of the discussion. Could someone else take care of the situation? If nobody else will sign up, I'll do my best, but I can't do as well as others. Finally, note that I'm not asking for sanctions or the absence of sanctions on anyone; this is purely a message saying "Please help, and here's the context". Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a willing admin is needed. Like I mentioned in the original message I've stuck to the sources and have been accused of POV-pushing by WhiteWriter because I used the term "Serbian" that as you can see is the one used by the sources. On the same page, user Evlekis is commenting on users who "like to tarnish the Serbian name" and during the AfD debate that Nyttend closed he was accusing users who supported deletion as "denialists". Of course Evlekis has been edit-warring on Bardhyl Çaushi and has breached 3RR so admin intervention will definitely be needed on that field(1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th) given that he has a history of "final warnings" as regards edit-warring[22]. Personally, I find his disregard for sources (on the talkpage he's accusing the Helsinki Committee as "poorly written and POV-fuelled (pro-international position)") unacceptable. As for that edit on Dakovica, the list was arranged alphabetically based on personal names so I listed alphabetically based on last names as is the norm. So to sum up, I'd like an admin to review my DYK entry and evaluate if the content corresponds to the sources as has been done in the past when WhiteWriter again decided to comment/review my DYK entries (only that stopped him from stalling it any further) and also admin intervention on the ongoing edit-war.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)