Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

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

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 94 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 62 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 61 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 48 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 47 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 38 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 38 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 31 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 56 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 55 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 113 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 107 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 100 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 93 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 13 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)

Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon#Snorlax_Merge_Discussion

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

DRV treatment of porn-related content

This thread was severed from a "Harassment from an admin" thread to discuss whether DRV is being unfair on porn-related content -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well now. What's this open can doing here, and why are there worms wriggling around all over the place?

I think the first issue here is that Erpert, Rebecca1990 and other members active in WikiProject Pornography are not getting satisfaction from DRV. That's a major issue from my point of view. DRV is the end of the line: there's no appeal from a DRV. Therefore users have to have confidence that the process is fair. It's essential: this is an editor retention issue.

Now, there are a very small number of users who regularly attend DRV, and Spartaz is at present the main closer, so if you clash with the DRV regulars in general or with Spartaz in particular, there's not much chance of getting any input from others. So for this kind of situation, where it's alleged that the main DRV closer and/or DRV regulars are showing bias, the only fair answer we have is for previously uninvolved editors to review DRV's recent discussions and Spartaz' closes, and decide for themselves to what extent the accusations of bias are well-founded.

This pretty much has to happen. As soon as it's alleged that this small number of users is biased, our formal processes come to a crunching halt: they just don't allow for that possibility. Therefore we're left with the default Wikipedia way, which is for independent, unbiased editors to read, comprehend, think, evaluate, and comment. It's really important that this is happens. Even though I'm a DRV regular and I think we're doing things right and that Erpert's complaint is unfounded, I'd nevertheless encourage anyone reading this discussion please to look closely at DRV's recent decisions and weigh in with their view.

I think the second issue is that DRV takes, and has taken for some time, a very dim view of PORNBIO, and to a lesser extent most other SNGs. We see the GNG as the arbiter of what should be included and will happily overrule SNGs if there's conflict. This is surprising for some editors who have a basic expectation that their WikiProject's favourite SNG will prevail.

In this particular case a further issue is that at least some of us (including me) openly question the reliability/independence of AVN and XBIZ as sources. This questioning is extremely corrosive for WikiProject Pornography, because if AVN and XBIZ aren't reliable/independent sources, then what valid sources do exist for porn articles? If consensus moves in that direction and we do collectively decide to eliminate those sources, then a really high percentage of our pornstar articles are headed for the dustbin.

As a third issue, and this might just be me, I've also wondered whether BLP applies to pornstar articles. For example, is it best to treat that Deuxma article as a BLP? Or is it best treated as an article about a fictional character portrayed by a nameless porn performer? This seems important to me because it helps us decide where the bar for a pornstar article should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• About AVN and XBIZ, IMO AVN is pretty more "journalistic" than XBIZ, second I distinguish between the printed magazines and the websites, the websites are actually 85% made of press releases while at least AVN Magazine in its printed form is 85% made of original content including feature length articles, insights, biographical portraits, reviews, interviews, editorials and opinion pieces. XBIZ publishes several magazines, but the ones I checked were very poor of original contents. About BLP Vs. fictional characters, I think it is a mixture of the two things, like for wrestlers or even artists like Lady Gaga, it is an editor's duty to weigh the elements that belong to the one or to the other, eg statements by pornstars who say they are nymphomaniacs, swingers and/or bisexuals should be, in general terms, almost always kept out from the articles. Cavarrone 12:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• It would be hugely helpful if we could somehow draw a clear line between parts of AVN and XBIZ that are or are not reliable. Is there an easy way to distinguish press releases that have been (at most) minimally changed from actual articles? Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• What I said above. Short articles published by AVN/XBIZ in the section "company-news" or marked as "company press" are very likely to be press releases. On the other hand, the printed AVN magazine includes some easily identificable "secondary" journalism (reliable is not the correct word, as a primary source is not automatically unreliable), eg. the 6-pages-article used as a source in Fashionistas, the 10 or 12 pages article about female porn published this month, the columns by Clyde DeWitt, the "editorial desk" column or the yearly June special issue named "The Fresh Issue" are exemples of valid journalism. A different question is if they are sufficient for a claim of meeting GNG, but frankly I have no record of discussions in which anyone claimed a subject passing general notability on the sole basis of his/her AVN/XbiZ coverage, we are generally extra-cautious about that. Cavarrone 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're having a real conflict between GNG and SNG (rather than just SNG providing specific guidance or recommendations for how the genre sees itself), that's more signifiant and needs to be resolved first. Otherwise we'll forever be having different DR mechanisms picking whichever one suits each editor's preference. That's no less arbitrary than just scrapping the whole process altogether and relying on individuals to edit-war on each article itself. Or if we generally give deference to "keep" (AfD process requires consensus to delete, vs lack-of-consensus for a del-nom leaves an article existing). Get Wikipedia talk:Notability to put their own house in order. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that, since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD. What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose. As Spartaz noted before being driven into a wikibreak, DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language, but it was reinforcing the AFD consensus, not overturning it. It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group, but from three editors who have joined it relatively recently and dismiss previous discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that this "trio of editors" consists of Rebecca1990, Guy1890 and me, but if you were paying attention, HW, you would notice that I clearly stated that I am not even a member of WikiProject Pornography. Anyway, you can't use the "dismissing previous discussions" argument because an uninvolved editor (finally!) split this thread. And Equaczion and Guy1890 made a good point a few days ago: about the applicability of WP:PORNBIO apparently working differently in AfD than it does in DRV. Why would the same guideline work differently in different venues? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I was not aware of the apparent fact that DRV is not frequented by a large number of editors or closed by a large number of Wikipedia administrators. That could very well explain why "since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD."
      • "What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose." No, that's not what I am saying at all. I've never brought a single article to DRV while on Wikipedia, and, if I've learned anything at all about what happens at DRV, it's that DRV is not a "do-over" of a particular AfD. "DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language"...look, all I have said above is that we need consistent standards. Tell me what the standards (that apply to both AfD & DRV) are for whether or not we can have a pornography-related article on Wikipedia, and I'll try & live by them the best that I can. Don't change the game when we go from AfD to DRV and don't pretend like there aren't some editors out there that have an axe to grind when it comes to pornography-related articles. "It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group"...I've actually noticed that the Pornography Project does not seem to operate in a "team environment". There don't appear to be that many truly active members, and I don't see much cross-colaboration unfortunately. "and dismiss previous discussions"...which, again, you never seem to actually refer to Mr. Wolfowitz. There is unfortunately a lot of, IMHO, unsubstaniated opinion tossed around in AfD & DRV pornography-related discussions (from the delete at pretty much all costs POV) without much else backing them up. Guy1890 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Like S Marshall, I'm a regular at DRV. Like him, I usually agree with the decisions there on this subject, and greatly respect Spartaz's closes. I do not necessarily agree with the decisions, but that's when I disagree with the consensus. The reason I and other regulars tend to let him do most of the closes is very simple: he does it best. Consensus at DRV is much more complicated that at AfD , because it involves determining several layers of possibilities: not whether an article should be kept, but whether we should argue the question of whether an article should be kept, and what is likely to happen if we do, and what an article will become in the future. Everyone has a different idea of what considerations to treat as more important: the interpretation of WP guidelines is , after all, whatever we want it to be, and the relationship between them is usually what we want to make it.

If you hang around there or AfD, you'll know that I in general differ from the current consensus about using GNG: I would apply it only when there is no plausible alternative. If we were drifting to use it more , it would be a direction I would deplore, but I don't think we are--it varies with different subjects: It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get. The reason I disagree with relying on it is indicated by the discussion above; the actual decisions in anything but the obvious depend upon the exact interpretation we want to make of the 3 key words "reliable", "substantial", and "independent". For any closely disputed article, I could interpret them in any direction. Which direction I choose depends upon what I think reasonable and in accordance with the purposes of Wikipedia. From what I've seen, even those who claim to take them as precise words and follow the GNG literally decide the hard cases just the way I do, whether or not they realize it. This is specially true of the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs. There is no fixed relationship: In some cases, like WP:PROF, the SNG is explicitly accepted as an alternative. In others, it seems to be accepted as a limitation. In some, it seems to be accepted in practice as the only guideline, though we've usually found some way of wording things to pretend it follows the GNG also.

For Pornobio, the question is what the community wants to do. Ultimately, the consistent trend of decisions at AfD makes the practical rule, and when there is a consistent trend , the general practice at Del Rev is very conservative, as befits an appeal process: we endorse it. What we overturn are decisions we think aberrant or unreasonable. None of the regulars there uses Del Rev to change or defy consensus--even consensus we individually dislike, though we may use the occasion of a dispute there to enter a protest. The reason for the conflict about it is that the community is apparently divided in what it wants to do. As I interpret it, the community is moving consistently towards a narrower interpretation of notability there. If it is, the results will inevitably show it.

And , as with most WP processes, the way to make Del Rev better is for more people to come there, and discussion other issues than the ones they are personally interested in DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The only times I ever see porn-related articles at DRV at all is when a user wants to re-create a deleted article and the deleting admin has reservations about it...but then the admin suggests that the matter be taken to DRV (recently, it has happened with Sabrina Deep and Elexis Monroe). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So what this boils down to is that a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV, regularly personalize the relevant discussions, continuously press their own relaxed interpretations, which are incompatible with the GNG (the only demonstrated inconsistency raised in the current discussions), and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012. The community is divided and the details of PORNBIO, on points I identified here [1], but the trio of editors pressing these discussions rejects the consensus achieved on other issues, which has been persistently, and pretty consistently, applied at AFD and DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, hang on, HW. I'm personally responsible for this particular subsection of AN. (Actually Jreferee created it, but he did so in response to my concern.) What I hope it'll "boil down to" is a sanity-check on DRV's recent porn-related decisions, in which previously uninvolved editors give us a bit of welcome scrutiny. If we're going a bit wrong then they'll set us back on the right track. If we're doing things right, then the problem is with WP:PORNBIO and we'll probably end up with another RFC about it.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• HW, I'm not exactly sure what you want here. This is actually the most objective discussion I personally have seen about the situation because as I stated before, uninvolved individuals are making comments. It seems like you have a problem with that, so rather than the "trio of editors" (you really have to stop saying that; this isn't a battle) rejecting consensus, you actually seem to be rejecting outside viewpoints that might disagree with how you personally feel. Also, if the community is divided as you say, that means a consensus hasn't been met, doesn't it? I even clarified in a previous discussion that when a consensus hasn't been made about what to do with an established guideline, the guideline is kept, not deleted. (I welcomed anyone to present evidence of the latter happening and no one did.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• "a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV"...where we apparently apply PORNBIO at AfD and basically ignore PORNBIO at DRV. I can understand how this current situation might satisfy those that might like to see less coverage of pornography-related content on Wikipedia, but, as I've stated several times already, I don't see how this status quo is especially fair or reasonable. If PORNBIO is actually the problem & needs to be changed, then so be it.

"which are incompatible with the GNG"...I've already addressed "concerns" of how meeting PORNBIO does somehow "not" meet GNG in this discussion here on September 13th. There's no need to re-hash that here now. I would also say that I basically agree with what was said recently above about GNG: "It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get." If that's really what's going on at DRV with respect to GNG, then that also doesn't seem especially fair or reasonable as well IMO.

"and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012"...which, once agin, you never seem to link to to back up your arguments here (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter). An American President, that I actually voted for, appropriated the phrase "trust, but verify", which I think very much applies here. Guy1890 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion. Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear to you? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion." Physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HW, you really need to just accept the fact that people are being more objective to the situation this time around (you're the only one who doesn't seem to be). If you can't, maybe it would be best if you just recused yourself from the discussion (or even the subject). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And, once again, Erpert, you're improperly personalizing the discussion and casting aspersions on an editor who disagrees with you. Why don't you reply to the question I raised: Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not taking the bait. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reality is that there really isn't any "bait" to be taken here, since the vaguely-referenced discussions above (from 1-2 years ago...which I've read through BTW) have virtually nothing to do with the topic of this thread ("DRV treatment of porn-related content"), since those discussions barely mention DRV at all. Consensus is not defined as one person continually making a claim that isn't substantiated by the community as a whole. For instance, various editors continually dismissing PORNBIO as an "invalid" guideline merely by re-stating one's only sole opinion isn't the way that I understand consensus to work here on Wikipedia. In any event, dismissing PORNBIO doesn't negate the basic & inconvenient fact that ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER are extremely similarly-worded to PORNBIO. In fact, one could even argue that those other guidelines are more expansive than PORNBIO's current (which again, I'm not married to) wording. Guy1890 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • One other thing I've noticed lately (well, not lately, but other editors are starting to notice too) is that there are some users who seem to want to delete pornography-related articles and WP:PORNBIO, but instead of commenting here like they should (and have been advised to do), they just clog up AfDs about porn and thus push everything off track. More than that, the rationales they have are inaccurate, and I suggest simple methods for them to justify their claims...with no results.

1. I stated that a "no consenus" result for the validity of PORNBIO (in this case) defaults to "keep" rather than "delete", and it was argued that that meant that the guideline wasn't a guideline after all. I asked for proof of that ever occurring; nothing.
2. It was argued that consensus showed that MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year isn't a valid award category, and I asked for a link to that consensus; nothing.

Basically, if you're going to argue something, at least be able to prove your claims. And repeating the same unsubstantiated claim several times won't make it true. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PORNBIO is an odd duck. I ran a couple of RfC's on it a couple years back (to reform it, not delete it). It was clear that practically nobody liked WP:PORNBIO, but because of all the myriad ways to reform it and various subdiscussions over details (or perhaps because the RfC's themselves were poorly formed and run) nothing happened. The result is pretty much as expected: since WP:PORNBIO is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards, it's mostly ignored. That's what happens when you try to make to rules that force the community to do things it doesn't want to rather than codify accepted practice. You can push the community to some extent by crafting and pushing through a rule, but only to some extent. Sorry. What people unhappy with that need to do is instead advance the proposition "We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film, and this would enhance the Wikipedia because ___________", and you fill in the blank with cogent and compelling arguments such that people go "Oh, yeah, of course!" That's where you need to direct your energies, I think, and good luck. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "'We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film". I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. No one that I can tell is asking for any kind of special exception to anything or that every single actor/actress from any genre have an article on Wikipedia. If PORNBIO really "is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards", then why are ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER so similarly-worded? This entire thread is going nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• One thing that needs to be remembered is that there are some areas, such as porn and, by my observation, webcomics, where WP:GNG fails as "traditional media" makes a point of not giving significant coverage, in the former case because of 'morals' and in the latter case because of a 'it's not real media' attitude; in the latter case, this ends up with some of the most significant, and well-known, webcomics getting rung up at AfD (and deleted) for "lack of notability" when the problem is a - deliberate - lack of coverage; I'm quite sure the former applies to entertainers who fall under WP:PORNBIO. Now, that's not to say the gates need to be open willy-nilly, but it does mean that we need to remember it's the General Notability Guideline and not words carved in stone handed down from Mount Ararat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban Removal Request

In this thread, I was topic banned on all matters related to the Falkland Islands. This is an area of editing in which I had made a significant and prolific contribution. I am requesting that topic ban is revoked.

The basis of the topic ban proposed by User:Dpmuk was that the constant back and forth between us was making consensus impossible. At the time, I did really defend myself as I was utterly despondent after nearly a year of harassment from User:Gaba p.

As shown here the animosity stemmed from a block as a suspected sock puppet of User:Alex79818. You will please note that one of the factors in unblocking him, was that I gave additional details to User: JamesBWatson. As a result, he was given another chance to edit. Please note that both the original blocking admin and User:JamesBWatson considered the original case for sock puppetry to be compelling.

As a result of this Gaba p continued to follow my edits attacking me personally it was constant and unremitting. He was incapable of commenting on content but was constantly pointing fingers [2], a good example is the archive.

The thread was opened on 13 May. Please note that I agreed to a self-imposed moratorium [3] on April 30, in which I agreed to stop commenting to allow others to comment. An agreement User:Gaba p broke almost immediately [4] wikilawyering to claim it was only on one thread. The only reason I had in fact commented was at the request of User:Dpmuk.

The basis of the topic ban was the allegation of a constant back and forth. As I have noted I had in fact ceased to be active in the talk page for a period of two weeks before this was started. On my talk page [5] User:Dpmuk acknowledged that "my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause".

I ask it to be noted that I remained civil, I discussed content not personalities, I went to WP:ANI to ask that an editor repeatedly warned for incivility and blocked for personal attacks simply be stopped from bullying me. A number of false allegations were made and diffs falsified (I even demonstrated this was the case). By using smoke screen tactics he got away with it repeatedly.

Can I ask that is the message you wished to send was that remaning civil and discussing content, when faced by an editor that was uncivil and commented on editors not content, is a complete waste of time. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As requested ANI threads, [6], [7], [8] (please note and forgive a certain frustration on the last diff).

Attempts to resolve at WP:DR eg [9] (Note who walked away) and [10] This was a bizarre occasion where I was accused of blocking something I never commented on. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• First, I note it hasn't been six months since the topic ban was imposed, which is the general "ask for a review after this time" line. Secondly, I note that this sure looks like a violation of said topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Firstly, a topic-ban cannot remove an editor's right to complain to AN/I for redress, and secondly, the six-months period is effectively imposed on those who wish to show they have understood and appreciated the reason(s) for the TB. If the TB was unfairly / incorrectly given, it should be dealt with immediately. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Except that's not a complaint to AN/I for redress - that's an interjecton into a discussion other editors had been involved in on the topic-banned subject, about issues that had arisen after the topic ban was imposed, in which he had not even been mentioned prior to his interjection, and for which the diff he gives that alerted him to a discussion on ANI was for another subject entirely. Although we've sniped a bit in the past at times I like WCM's editing style and honestly thought the initial topic ban was a bit OTT myself, but a topic ban is a topic ban and I'm having a very hard time seeing that as anything other than a violation of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, my comment that you refer to was not about the topic ban but that the two guys I mentioned should be banned from anything to do with WP:MOSNUM relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it, another example is Munro (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft) where User:Michael Glass edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). It also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at WT:MOSNUM with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus.

As I commented above and amplified by reference to my attempts to use WP:DR, I consider the topic ban to be both punitive and unjust. Hence, I am asking for it to be removed. When I had problems in the past I have always acknowledged my faults and have not had a problem with editing restrictions being imposed. In this case it is decidedly punitive, treating me as the victim of a bullying campaign as equally problematic as the perpetrator. This is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Following WCM's topic ban I offered to help them in a mentoring role. If WCM is interested, that offer stands. During the discussion of the topic ban I suggested that WCM take a voluntary three month break from Falklands-related topics, a position which did not win any other support. While I don't endorse all of WCM's conduct (especially the edit warring), I think that he or she genuinely means well, so it would be a positive if an arrangement was in place which enabled them to edit Falklands-related topics again - I would suggest that a 0RR or 1RR restriction for six months or so would be particularly helpful. However, I'd be interested in the views of other editors who work on this topic as it's not one which I follow closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I keep hearing the comment it takes two to edit war. Such comments are a rather trite response to something I kept asking and never got a reply to. If you're editing in an area where one editor constantly edit wars to impose their views and you as a good content editor don't revert, then they always win and article quality suffers. If you try WP:DR and WP:ANI and you're constantly told to work with a disruptive editor to get a consensus, with an editor whose idea of consensus is to edit war their views into the article what the hell are you supposed to do? If it were an area of general interest then you do get a number of editors interested who will pitch in but if you're editing a niche area there isn't the wider pool of editors. Then you're left with editor behaviour and I will reiterate I remained civil and focused on content, which was supported by sourcing. You would find it difficult to claim the others involved reciprocated, where their behaviour was uncivil and has remained uncivil and despite repeated warnings to desist no one did a damn thing about it. The lack of action on warnings only emboldened them to escalate their disruptive behaviour and even then I didn't reciprocate.

If you wish to convert this topic ban on me into a 1RR restriction fine, I don't edit war, I was simply placed in an impossible position. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty much the problem. Curry Monster's use of the word "win" is un-PC on Wikipedia, but the fact is that that's the way it works in practice. An editor - Gaba - puts their version on. If you revert, they revert back and start abusing you on talk. If you stop reverting, and no consensus is reached for the point on talk (which is unlikely because they're stonewalling and abusing you), the non-consensus material remains on the article regardless - because if you try and bring the article back to consensus after the end of the discussion, they just revert you again, and start accusing you of edit warring. You take it to the boards, and admins won't do anything, which emboldens those who are stonewalling. Or if they do, they punish you (as they did Curry Monster) for not being able to reason with someone who refuses to be reasoned with.

As Curry Monster says, if there were a few dozen regulars, more than one person can deal with it. But when there are (say) three or four, this no longer works. The article just gets worse as the consensus process is subverted. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I see Wee Curry Monster is sadly attacking me once again, this time for no apparent reason (not the first time since the topic ban either [11][12]). I won't bother posting long comments about the other side of the story that Wee is obviously leaving out, if some editor/admin wants to hear that the ANIs are a good place to start and they are more than welcome to ask me for anything that needs clarification. That said I'll just make two minor comments: first, when the topic ban was imposed we were told that in order for it to ever be removed we should spend several months outside of the disputed issue editing WP in other areas as a sign of good faith. If anybody cares to look at my contribution history they'll see that I've made quite an effort to start editing on a great number of new topics, which I do to this day whithout a single issue. Wee on the other hand slapped a "Retired" banner on his user page (at least the third time he's announced his retirement from WP) and edited as an IP a couple of Gibraltar articles[13]. It isn't fair that he gets to ask for a removal of the topic ban based entirely on making me look once again as the disruptive user and himself as the victim (which he has been doing for the good part of a year now), something he is forced to resort to since he has absolutely nothing else to show for. Second, The topic ban violation that The Bushranger points to is actually his third one [14][15] as I pointed out at the time.

Before the accusations of WP:HOUNDING begin (or continue actually) I was notified of this post since Wee used my full WP user name which triggers an immediate notification. Wee apparently didn't think it was necessary to post a notice in my talk page about this ANI (something he is required to do, specially since it is is 90% based on me) but he made sure to do so at the talk pages of anybody that he thought could stop by to help him. Had he not resorted to lambasting me as the center of his request I would certainly not be here. Anyway. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[16] This edit was reporting user misconduct of concern to an admin, without violating my topic ban. Please review the full topic and [17] someone having the last word in the usual uncivil manner.

[18] This edit should be read in context with this one [19], where I advised Marshal I would not accede to his suggestion to circumvent my topic ban off-wiki by email. An example of User:Gaba p quoting a diff out context. Please note I don't think, in fact I know, Marshal did not intend anything untoward with that suggestion.

Pls note I edited occasionally as an IP as I did scramble my password and I made sure my edits were identifiable, I reset my password via email and disabled the wikibreak enforcer. I may remain retired as I am still not sure about contributing again. But I want the topic ban lifted as it was and remains unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong 'Oppose I believe that Wee Curry Monster's topic ban should not be lifted. One reason is this foul-mouthed rant. WCM changed this rant - after I called him out over it. However, the fact that he made it in the first place demonstrates the appropriateness of his banning and the desirability for his banning to continue. Michael Glass (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For information, refactored my comment because the language was inappropriate. The tit for tat nature of Michael's opposition, demanding I provide evidence knowing that I can't reply because of this topic ban. His strong oppose should be read in that light. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Agree to Topic Ban lifting User Gaba p thinks he is clever in what he writes here. He perceives that many administrators are often too busy to go back and look at the entire history of these articles. Gaba p's irrational vendetta against Wee and anyone who disagrees with him stems back to a very old disagreement. When, as an editor on these articles, I agreed with Wee, a sexest and vial remark was put on Gabap's page about me in the form of a question by his alter ego, Langus txt, to the effect that I had some kind of inappropriate relationship with the subject editor whom I have never met nor worked with. I will be happy to provide it for anyone who asks. If he thought to run me off he was disappointed in that it made me all the more determined. Apparently he still does not realize that this kind of talk is no longer tolerated by women or Wikipedia. I should have reported him at the time but did not. Now I am sorry I didn't. He has obviously not learned his lession. There is something very strange about this editor's motivations and I, unlike him, will not specualate except to state that it is my firm belief that he sees Wikipedia as a "game" and anyone who comes between he and his "game playing" is shot down in the most vulgar terms. He will act the "innocent" when he reads this as he has before.

The important fact is that the articles have suffered significantly as a result of the departure of Wee and editors who agree with Wee's unbiased POV on these articles. A short read of the Falkland articles will show they now show a significant Argentine non-neutral POV.Mugginsx (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

God Mugginsx please not this again. Every time you make the accustion of "a sexest and vial remark" I am forced to go through the history of my talk page to provide the diff (because you won't) showing how ridiculous it is. Here's the diff with the comment Mugginsx refers to in my talk page. You'll immediately notice two things: 1- it was a completely sensible and reasonable question brought up by the aggressiveness with which Mugginsx both defends WCM and attacks anyone who she see as his "enemy"; 2- the comment was not made by me but by User:Langus-TxT. The fact that it was another editor who made that comment has been pointed out to Mugginsx not only by me but by an admin in a previous ANI but that apparently hasn't stopped her from trying to use it as "evidence" of me being sexist. There's really not much more to say about this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the remark has been amended to make it less offensive. The "relative" question was not originally in there. Nice try though.Mugginsx (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Amended?? Mugginsx for the love of god I can't believe after all this time editing you still don't know the basics of how WP works. That is a single edit made in a single block. See how before there was nothing and then the comment was made? That is the same comment you referred to and it has been since the moment it was made. If you have any doubts then please go though the history of my talk page and convince yourself that it of course was not refactored ever. Whatever you do please let this be the last time you accuse me of making a sexist remark since the fact that you are wrong has been explained to you over and over again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You changed it to make it seem harmless. Mugginsx (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to Mugginsx that I can not change what's archived in the history of a talk page? She will clearly never believe me for some reason. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"She" doesn't know, after five years, how things work here in general, I'm afraid. You may be wasting your breath... Basket _Feudalist 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What's this? another one of your "friends" Or perhaps another alter-ego? You sure can pick them. This is an ANI about whether or not the topic ban should be lifted on Wee. Try to focus.Mugginsx (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I give up. Please remember this thread for future reference Mugginsx, because I really wish that this is the last time I have to withstand your ridiculous accusations. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support lifting. The ban was always wrong. Curry Monster has long been an productive editor on Falklands topics, and his knowledge and understanding of the topic have been sorely missed over the past few months.

I said at the time that if we had just banned Gaba and nobody else, the page would have carried on exactly as it has done. Other than an outbreak of the units debate, things have been broadly peaceful. OTOH, if we had just banned another editor (including Curry Monster) and not Gaba, the page would have carried on exactly as it was before, with continual confrontation and no possible progress. No other editor who did not start at Gaba's position was having any more success with reasoning with him than Curry Monster was. It was just that Gaba seemed to have it in for Curry Monster.

I understand Curry Monster's frustration on the current dispute; while the way he put it originally was not the most appropriate. It is certainly frustrating that editors who have done so much damage to the topic - continually bringing up the same points, over and over again, week after week, month after month, year after year - are allowed free reign with no admin willing to do a thing about it, while he, a good content editor with a strong interest in the topic, is topic banned. It is frustrating for me, let alone him. Curry Monster should be allowed to edit on these articles, for the good of the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More attacks on me by Kahastok, who would've guessed. Please note that Kahastok has been topic banned in the past for teaming with Wee Curry Monster in Gibraltar related articles. He'll do and say pretty much anything to have Wee's ban lifted and since Wee has nothing to show for in terms of editing (except for the "Retired" banner announcing his "retirement" from WP for the third time), attacking me is the last resort. This is exacerbated by how things are turning out here, where Kahastok is rapidly losing the firm grip he and Wee use to have in all things units-related regarding the Falklands. Gaba ^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That comment is little more than a personal attack, ironic seeing as mine was based around why Curry Monster should be un-banned, as a good editor who has contributed greatly to Falklands topics over the course of many years. I don't think Gaba should be un-banned because the above - with an additional dose of stonewalling - is pretty typical of his contribution style on Falklands topics. All we'd end up with is paralysis. Kahastok talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support lifting Irrespective of the "political" nnd personality background of which I am well aware, I think the original ban was excessive. I've always tried to be neutral here but editors with great subject(s) knowledge and productivity, such as WCM are sorely missed by the project. I would say that of any bloody good ed. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have participated actively in discussions that led to the topic ban, and I think that I can confidently say that:

• User:Wee Curry Monster has not made a "significant and prolific contribution" in this topic in regards to history and the sovereignty dispute, but rather entered a biased version and then defended it staunchly, aided by a systemic bias that exists on these topics due to language, and resorting to indiscriminate reversals, misrepresentation of sources and straw-man arguments that resulted in the obfuscation of talk pages.

• User:Gaba p did not bully him but simply persevered in his opposition to these actions, demanding proper grounding and discussing content all the time.

This behaviour can be seen by carefully examining talk-page archives (e.g., starting here) and you can visit this page for hints on how biased WCM's version is, although I just scratched the surface there. This is a sensible subject, which WP should not falsify. I never felt that banning WCM would solve the root problem, but it will probably make matters worse if his ban is lifted without there being any signs to expect more-productive behaviour. On the contrary, his latest feat was to ignore his ban and intimidate User:MarshalN20 from requesting sources from me in my user space. in what I see as yet another disturbance to an attempt to improve reliability. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be a bastion of NPOV from your input. I think kettles calling pots black applies here. Your pro Argentine POV is palpable. Irondome (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

His pro-Argentine POV is valuable. Furthermore, Andres has demonstrated to aim for NPOV when editing. The Argentine slant at times does appear, the same which happens to pro-UK POV editors, but it is nothing the community cannot balance. Not only that, but the contribution of quality material and display of academic honesty makes Andres an editor worthy of respect. Regardless, he is entitled to an opinion different from ours with regards to Wee.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that academic personal expression is inviolable. However, how is any POV valuable? In the context of the projects NPOV mission? I am not attacking, merely exploring an idea. Maybe this is the unsaid elephant in the room that needs admitting, by all sides, if we are to go forward. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

POV is valuable because it provides a context and starting point (much like a hypothesis prior to experimentation). I think Wikipedia is wrong in trying to censor editors (or sources) based on their viewpoints or beliefs. What should be evaluated is the content contributions, which should aim for the five pillars.

Yes, the unsaid elephant you mention is always present (throughout Wikipedia, not just here), but its presence is always silent because its taboo to speak of it. This causes situations where non-neutral editors masquerade as neutral, increasing distrust among contributors and preventing the possibility of balance by forming a false NPOV standard.

Moving forward just requires that editors acknowledge their own bias and stop pretending to have a NPOV. Andres is a fine example, and I consider myself one as well. Of course, using myself as an example is pretty poor since the current incoherent system has punished me with an excessive topic ban on Latin American history. But, if there was a solution to the problem, then it would not exist. Pessimism at its finest, I know, but undeniable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome:, did you read, for example, this review that I'm writing? Why would you disregard that work? Are the sources unreliable, my arguments silly, or what? I see no substance in your criticism and I hope readers will visit the review before buying it.

Of course I have my POV, but I have read a lot on this subject and I'm caring to debate properly and provide the most objective position that I can. What makes you think that WCM or whoever's version is not a POV? I am not criticizing WCM for having a POV, please read more carefully.

It's better to avoid personalization like in "You appear to be" or "Your Argentine POV" and comment on work instead. And let's not fall into a middle-ground fallacy. The fact that I'm opposing a view that I deem biased (occasionally with passion because I'm facing harsh opposition and I'm human) doesn't mean that my position is also very biased. Don't disregard so easily the possibility that it is the published version that is very much biased and I'm simply trying to correct it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support (with some restrictions): There is no good reason for either Wee or Gaba to be topic banned from Falklands-related articles. The problem here is that both of them have clear irreconcilable points of view, and neither of them can properly interact with each other. Moreover, both editors also find it difficult to distance themselves from discussions (in other words, matters become very personal, very easily). As a result, discussions eventually become long, boring, pointless. But, to be fair, most Wikipedians behave that way...and Wee is certainly nowhere near the worst of them. In fact, Wee's knowledge on the subject is (as Irondome states) important, and his editing is (with rare mistakes) rational, well-intentioned, and positive for the project. That said, I recommend that the following restrictions be placed for the sake of stability:

1. Interaction ban between Wee and Gaba. If they can't behave well with each other, regardless of where they edit, there is no reason they should interact at all. Also, Wee's harassment concerns need to be addressed, and this is one way to do it.
2. 1RR rule in all Falklands-related topics. This suggestion is mainly to diminish the margin of error from the above analysis (assuming I am missing something in the analysis). Plus, it's a good way to protect users from edit-warring accusations.

What would remain an outstanding issue is how to prevent talk page discussions from reaching a WP:TLDR point of no return, but this is an issue which Wikipedia has yet to resolve in a comprehensive manner. Perhaps taking up Nick-D's mentorship offer would not be a bad idea, but another good option is a suggestion for Wee to make better use of other venues (Third opinion, Noticeboards, etc.) and let community consensus work its magic.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with 1/ above. Clarify please, are you saying WCMs accusations of harassment should be officially investigated? 2/ totally support until situation is finally stabalised. In terms of talk page interaction, WCM from his talk page history has clearly requested that he not be the receipient of any messages by G. Both parties should be mentored, or none. Gaba is deeply at fault also, if we are discussing behavioural issues. I think taking up other venues should be for both parties. Or neither. Irondome (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ideally Wee's harassment accusations should be investigated. But, who really wants to spend time on that? I doubt even Wee wants to revisit matters he considers uncomfortable. The point here is that there is a clear interaction problem between Wee and Gaba, and the best solution available is the interaction ban.

Therefore, assuming the lack of a benevolent harassment analysis, the interaction ban is also a good way to address Wee's harassment concerns. It's also a good way to address Gaba's concern about being accused of harassment. Win-win at its finest.

Removing the topic ban for either Wee and Gaba should have, as requirement, both of the restrictions mentioned above. I would also add the mentorship as a requirement, but trust Wee's final decision on it. Of course, additional venues should certainly be for both parties...but I have the irksome feeling that the community banned them because they were tired of their discussions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That it did. An acute point. Irondome (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Support both and encourage WCM to accept offer of mentorship. NE Ent 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would dearly love the WP:HOUNDing to be investigated, I have had enough. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: I don't think you are summarizing the trouble between Gaba and WCM well. Consider, for example, this discussion. We are still waiting for WCM to point out where in Destefani he believes those statements to be, so that he justifies his reverts. (Hint: they are not there!) As you can read there, the source he does provide states that Port Egmont was founded before other settlements, which we know isn't true as zillions of sources (official & independent) clarify, but WCM believes it to be encyclopedic material anyway. Or take a look at this other discussion. WCM keeps saying that Argentina rejected uti possidetis juris in 1848 and I am left begging for a source. Apparently he offers Metford 1968, so I ask him where in that paper does Metford say that. Again, silence. Hint: Metford doesn't say that! The discussion continues here, where Metford 1968 becomes a magic paper that contains several claims imagined by WCM. I request precision from him but obtain nothing. I could go on and on. Apart from the citation fraud, many straw-man arguments are presented and practically all of the edits I attempted were reverted, often with no justification given. This is not just a matter of irreconcilable opinions. Please examine those talk pages more carefully.

Interaction bans will only serve the permanence of the status quo, which is extremely poor. There is a systemic bias in this subject. If those few who can counteract this bias have their possibilities diminished due to interaction bans, then the systemic bias will become stronger. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Academic dishonesty is quite serious, but Wee (and Gaba) were topic banned for other reasons. If you want to make a case for dishonesty, the matter should be addressed through a RFC/user or maybe even ArbComm. However, my suggestion here is to keep things calm (stop the "war" between Wee and Gaba in a positive manner). Interaction bans are meant to stop users from commenting/interacting with each other, and that does not mean Gaba is not allowed to work in Falkland Islands topics.

It's also important to understand that much of the problem is a result of dispute intensification due to lack of community contributions. Third opinions are often either not asked or ignored, "consensus" is attained with insincere intentions, and dispute resolution is resolved through blocks/bans instead of comprehensive solutions (so, going that route is inherently discouraged).

Ultimately, what other solution is available than this one? Keeping Wee and Gaba topic banned has only stopped discussions, but is that good for the articles? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: I believe the ban was due to their general behaviour, so I wanted to point out that there was more than a confrontation of opinions. I wouldn't say that @Wee Curry Monster: was mischievously dishonest. I can imagine him believing, for example, that Destefani's narration of two British invasions on colonial dominions of Spain during a war, plus its assertive mercantile interests in the region, is support for stating that, according to Argentina, Britain wanted territorial conquest in the emancipated Americas 25 years later. But that is absurd on so many levels! Yet he wants that statement to remain so he disrupted any question that was raised. I would rather classify it as a case of bias-based lack of competence amplified by a systemic bias. That's not good for the articles. As I imagine it, an interaction ban will simply mean that I will have to deal with this nonsense by myself. And now he wants free reign by banning Langus's interaction and mine too? How would the mechanics be if he edits in something that I find questionable or vice versa? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how Wee's suggested interaction bans with either you or Langus has any strong justification. The ban simply needs to be between Gaba and Wee. In any case, this is not about giving Wee free reign over the article. The lesson we all have to learn from this situation is that using resources such as Third Opinion, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, etc. should be a standard (rather than an option), and the community must be allowed to freely contribute in such cases (instead of filling up the requests with more of the same arguments and fights).

As bothersome as it may be for some, a good example of the community's effective "invisible hand" is the current dispute over the metric units.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Wee Curry Monster has been contributing greatly to the Falklands topics articles for quite some years now, developing in the process an extensive and deep knowledge of the subject matter, and keeping a fair NPOV balance in his WP activities too. The topic ban was misguided and should be lifted, I believe. As a matter of fact, we now see an effort (the metric/imperial units affair) apparently aimed at placing in a similar situation another important contributor to the Falklands-related articles, Kahastok. That is not beneficial for WP and ought not to be encouraged. Apcbg (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Apcbg: I run the risk of sounding confrontational but I need to say this. Please think of this. @Kahastok: is here saying that he believes that a clause in the 1849 Arana-Southern treaty stipulated that "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas" (England got the Malvinas). This is a gross mistake, but I want to point out something else. If the treaty really said that, it would change everything. The dispute would be settled, full stop. Can someone who is inquisitive and informed on this subject make that mistake? Wouldn't she or he at least bother to look up this all-important clause in the text of the treaty? The treaty can be easily found on the web. To my judgment, Kahastok's frequent vehement arguments on this subject were rather poor, and now this. Would it be too crazy to claim that he has been infringing WP:COMPETENCE and simply opposing the edits of someone who didn't share his opinion? Can we really say that he is "another important contributor"? Just think of it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) I misunderstood what Kahastok meant, please read below. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

First point of fact is simply not true. I was quoting a reliable source, which says that there was effectively an eighth clause. That, while the clause may not exist in black and white, it was understood as existing by the parties.

The rest is little more than a personal attack and I see little benefit in responding to it further. Kahastok talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: a clause in a treaty is a written thing. You're even using the item numbering used by that author as if it were something pertinent to the treaty. What the author you cite actually does is interpret the treaty, and he does so in a singular way. If you wanted to mention this interpretation by an author, you should have spoken of a secondary source instead of affirming 'that there was effectively an eighth clause to the Arana-Southern treaty: "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas"'. That means something completely different and the difference is crucial. WP:COMPETENCE requires entering a personal level, sorry about that, but after months of senseless diatribe it is about time to raise this issue. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And more personal attacks. Need I point out that you are quoting me out of context? Here is the full sentence:

I find it ignores sources that are inconvenient to the Argentine POV - including Argentine sources that have been raised on talk in the past that say (for example) that there was effectively an eighth clause to the Arana-Southern treaty: "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas".

It is clear from the quote that I was citing a source. It is clear from the quote (and particularly the word "effectively") that the source was not claiming that the quote was written into the treaty. That said, the source I have in front of me - an Argentine source (Pereyra) - does actually put exactly those words as the eight clause of the Arana-Southern treaty, with nothing to distinguish it from the others but the bracketed words at the front "no escrita" ("unwritten"). The source I was referring to when I wrote the text above cited Pereyra and noted that the point Pereyra was making was accurate.

When it comes down to it, just as in the RFC at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands, you don't get to discard evidence just because you don't like it, and the ability to cite reliable sources accurately is not a sign of incompetence. Kahastok talk 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok:, Pereyra uses the Spanish word bases (translates as bases or foundations I guess), which unlike clauses does not imply writing. However, I see your point with the usage of effectively and I understand that your original comment doesn't demonstrate that you thought this "clause" was in the treaty. I exaggerated my previous criticism and I apologize. What I meant before is that you should have written that an author (i.e., secondary source) said that Inglaterra blah blah, not that the treaty said that, as I was interpreting from your words. It may be due to my limited English but I still think that there are clearer ways than "there was effectively an eighth clause" to express that. More so considering that I did mention that interpretation in the review that you were lambasting due to this hypothetical omission.

Regarding your last comment, please think of this example. You present Pereyra as reliable (actually you wrote that "reliable sources" said that, although it is only him as far as we know).(I made a mistake, please see my next comment. Kahastok mention of an "eighth clause" is taken from Pereyra but he extracts the citation through Pepper & Pascoe. It's them who he considers reliable. They aren't, but that's a different story. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk)) Pereyra, who was not Argentinean but Mexican, was a nationalistic politician and a controversial revisionist. It is not just me saying, he was an influential figure, mentioned in literature. I don't know if you are familiar with Latin-American revisionism, but I am quite sure that you don't want to be seen as someone who calls their work reliable, where every single word is god-spoken truth. Thankfully we are not sharing this conversation with a certain editor that MarshalN20 knows, whose nick begins with L. :)

Just as in the previous conversation you refer, you are cherry picking a singular statement from a dubious source (probably indirectly through P&P, who present this whitewashed citation) and then exaggerating it (this time, at least by transforming Pereyra into "reliable sources"). As I told you before, this is not how one seeks accuracy. Even the best sources contain subjective interpretations, ambiguous statements and factual errors occasionally. A comprehensive process is necessary, where many sources are read critically and compared. Particularly if we are using controversial, politically-laden material. Anyone who has properly delved into published history with a cold head realizes this. I could analyze Pereyra and this particular issue in length, but I'm afraid that, once again, nobody will seriously read that much and you and some other editors will obfuscate the material with lectures to me on how I'm "discarding evidence" because "I don't like it". Even though I was wrong about believing that you thought the treaty included an "eighth" clause, I honestly don't think that those kinds of remarks constitute competent participation in constructive discussion. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I later realized that, according to your comment, the reliable source is not Pereyra but Pepper and Pascoe, which presents the Mexican as simply a "diplomat and historian" and borrows his statement. Of course I disagree with calling P&P reliable. I gave you hints on this in the past and you ignored them. As you're now ignoring that I did mention Pereyra, though he's hardly worthy of a mention, but still you keep lecturing me for supposedly having omitted that "evidence". The quid of my comment remains, but I'm ammending it. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I don't like edit-warring, particularly when it is ideologically-motivated, but WCM was a productive community member. The one thing I would note is that the articles which formed the subject of previous edit-wars (e.g., Self-determination) have been very quiet since WCM and Gaba were banned from editing Falkland islands-related topics, and that perhaps this quiet should be respected and previously discussed issues need not be re-opened - if you look at what was being argued about, it was normally a fairly minor issue of word-choice anyway. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I'm sorry to have to vote this way but WCM left me no other choice. His request for lifting the topic ban is based entirely on me having the absolute fault on everything, he takes no responsibility whatsoever for what happened. By supporting the topic ban lift as it is WP is sending the following message:

1. You don't have to work hard and show good faith to have a ban lifted. Just announce your "retirement" (even if it is the third time you do so), lay low for a while and then WP:CANVASS as many old friends as you can to vote yes on your proposal, making sure to leave out every editor who could possibly raise a concern, including the one your whole request is based on, as Wee did, which in itself is already a serious offense for an established editor. Even for a brand new editor the "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." notice on the top of the page would be pretty hard to miss.
2. You don't even have to follow the terms of the topic ban. As has been pointed out here by The Bushranger in this thread and here by Lukeno, WCM violated the terms of his topic ban just yesterday. As pointed out by me, that was his third violation: [20][21]

I do take responsibility for my share of the blame and I have been making a real effort to have the topic ban lifted at some point. In my contribution history you'll see that since the topic ban I started editing at least half a dozen new articles, as instructed, to show that I am genuinely interested in contributing to WP. In Wee's history you'll see nothing.

I would understand (and even give) support if this was his first offense. It is not. Leaving aside the topic ban on Gibraltar related articles imposed on Wee a couple of years ago, I am not by far the only editor he's had trouble with: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. How many second chances will an editor be given before he truly admits to have at least some of the guilt and agrees to modify at least a little bit his problematic behaviour?

To make myself absolutely clear: if this request was based on actual merit instead of the other editor (me in this case) being the one to blame for everything, I would vote Support. As it is, I can not. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And now Wee is asking (off Wiki of course) for me to be blocked. Yet again. But surely I'm the one who's out to get him. Stricken as per James' comment. Note that, as Wee keeps complaining about me not leaving him alone, this request on ANI plus that message shows that the exact opposite is true . Gaba ^(talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The above message links to talk page content referring to an email that Wee Curry Monster sent me. I don't know how Gaba p thinks that he knows the content of the email, but I can assure him that he is mistaken. Wee Curry Monster's email does not ask for Gaba p to be blocked. My talk page post refers to the question of a possible block, because that is what I, not Wee Curry Monster, suggested nearly a year and a half ago, when I last had dealings with the issue, not because WCM is asking for it now. It would be as well not to jump to conclusions about the contents of communication that you have not seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I will ask James to comment here but my private comments to him by email did not ask for a block. My email was of a more personal nature, hence email. I do things openly.

Any editor who has edited in a controversial area will attract a fair share of abuse, I am no exception. Once again User:Gaba p attempts to abuse this as evidence I am the editor who is the problem. Its yet another example of abusing diffs to give an appearance of misconduct where none exists. This is one of the smokescreen tactics he has used for a long time.

• [30] Kai445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [31] refers to JohnValeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his block for personal attacks and harasment [32]. Occupy Marines was one of a whole series of Occupy articles, most on non-notable subjects where wikipedia was being used for self-promotion of various groups. The encyclopedia content was preserved and moved to Occupy movement in the United States#Veteran participation. Many content editors will recall that these was a problem for a while, where any attempt to bring Occupy articles into line with wikipedia norms led to some quite vicious personal abuse.
• [33] Is simply irrelevant, the editor misunderstood I remark I made to User:MarshalN20 (an editor I respect immensely) but what is interesting from that remark is his reference to the fact that I am being discussed off-wiki by a number of editors.
• [34] Hudicourt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please check the contribution history, this was an editor actively disruptively recreating deleted material and making some fairly unpleasant uncomments about User:Nick-D see [35]. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The discussion referred to is here Talk:Falklands War/Archive 12#WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Mabuska was aggressive but I did keep my cool and remained civil. Are my comments problematic?

Do I need to continue? Because if investigated with an unjaundiced eye, you'll find I was quite reasonable, remained civil and followed WP:DR. I was once topic banned from editing on Gibraltar, can anyone point to me whining about it? The difference is this stemmed from a period in which I was suffering from problems related to PTSD. I was uncivil at the time, I accepted my edits were problematic for a time but the behaviour that led to the topic ban has not been repeated. Again I repeat, this is another example of User:Gaba p abusing diffs to present a picture that is misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, what that is is a perfect example of you assigning the blame to others all of the time. Another good example of that is you now asking for an interaction ban with Langus and Andrés accusing them of producing "false allegations" (?).

If you had only followed the advice given to us (as I did) and contributed to other articles in WP like any regular editor would, you'd now have something to show for in this request instead of having to resort to once again attack me (and every other editor who dares disagree with you, like Michael, Langus and Andrés). This shows you have no intention whatsoever of modifying your conduct in the least and that my friend is truly a shame. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Frankly, Gaba, this isn't/shouldn't be about you. This is about Wee. If you want my opinion, I'm for you being unblocked as well, but only if both you and Wee commit to an end to the arguments or an interaction ban is in place. This thread is turning into an example of why some people supported the ban from editing FI-related articles in the first place. FOARP (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, FOARP. This was supposed to about a proposal to remove Wee Curry Monster's topic ban. Gaba p has been trying to make it about his disliking of everything to do with Wee Curry Monster. Wee Curry Monster says that Gaba p has been harassing him. I looked, and failed to see evidence that this had been happening recently, but Gaba p has now very conveniently provided evidence here, in this discussion. Way back in April 2012, I warned Gaba p that if he continued with his "aggressive and confrontational" approach to other editors, he would be likely to "be blocked ... and stay blocked". Really, if I see a little more of this then I will be likely to decide that the time has come for that to happen. (Note that I say this purely on the basis of what I myself have seen, not because anyone has asked me to block Gaba p.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson that's an incredibly unfair thing to say. Did you read the request Wee posted? It's based entirely on trashing me all over the place. Am I not allowed to defend myself? How am I the "aggressive and confrontational" one after all of the accusations he made above? Did you read the part where I said that if this request would have been based on actual merit instead of assigning all the blame to me I could have even considered supporting it? Did you read the part where I said that had he simply not mentioned my name I wouldn't have found out about this and thus not commented? Have you nothing to say about his three violations of his topic ban, his canvassing on this very thread, his refusal to post the appropriate and mandated ANI notice on my talk page, his request based 100% on attacks directed at me...? Seriously, this makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. It looks as if I rubbed you the wrong way at some point and now you are just waiting for an excuse to block me, no matter what. If this was "supposed to about a proposal to remove Wee Curry Monster's topic ban" then how come you say nothing about the fact that he resorted exclusively to throw mud at me to accomplish that? Would you have been so lenient if it was me posting a similar request? Am I wrong to assume you would have considered that "aggressive and confrontational"?

I was not the one who made this about me. In case you haven't noticed Wee made it about me from the very beginning. Gaba ^(talk) 23:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that that post is your defence against a charge of being "aggressive and confrontational" speaks volumes. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Gaba, twice in this thread you have made veiled accusations of canvassing or "friends" joining in this debate. Remember this is where we came in when you accused me of being canvassed when I had no previous interaction with either you or Wee before in an ancient FI dispute thread? There you had the grace to aplogise voluntarily when the reality was clear to you. For the record I can state that since WCMs ban I have had no interaction whatsover, and zero communication to this moment. I wish you would stop doing that. I thread stalk, and have tried to work with you all. The subject and talks interested me since I have been on WP. It just doesnt help the atmosphere. Ok. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Irondome from our past interactions I know you are an editor who acts in good faith and I always thanked you for interceding between me and Wee when things started to get out of hands. After Wee called you in back then, he admitted that he had made a mistake and was actually trying to get an admin of a similar user name to close an RfC. He was not trying to canvass you but actually an admin and if I apologized to anybody it must have been you who entered a very heated discussion the wrong way; which was not your fault at all.

When I refer to canvassing I do not mean you Irondome, I'm referring to this: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Not even Wee could deny that he hand-picked those editors he thought would intercede in his favor. You know what makes it 100% certain that this is canvassing? The fact that he did not leave a notice to me, something he is required to do and something he of course already knows. This was done deliberately and I make a point of this because it amazes me how no admin here thinks that this, along with the violation of the topic ban and his request composed in its entirety of attacks towards me and nothing else, is something to be concerned about or even mentioned. Had it been me who did even one of those things, you can be absolutely sure that I would be blocked by now. Gaba ^(talk) 04:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I find WeeCurryMonster's topic-ban highly justified in my experience with this editor. Their claim about me: "Mabuska was aggressive but I did keep my cool and remained civil. Are my comments problematic?" is false and a look at that discussion, related edits, and previous discussions/acts will show this editor is prone to letting their own POV affect certain articles enforcing their personal favoured wording whilst convoluting other editors comments to denigrate that editors arguments. I do not like being dragged into discussions such as this where situations are twisted to imply a different situation for that users own benefit. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If WCM was to have a mentor then maybe they could have their topic-ban lifted, however I'd suggest the same for Gaba as WCM's behaviour incites antagonism with editors they disagree with - why else have they been topic-banned at least twice? Gibraltar and now Falkland Islands - both British dependencies with degrees of controversy. In fact maybe being topic-banned from controversial British dependencies may be a better idea... Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a comment on your opinions on Wee, not on his subject-ban. Like or dislike of an editor shouldn't come into it. FOARP (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about whether or not I like or dislike an editor. I have neither feelings for WCM. My opinions above relate to my opposition for them to have their topic-ban lifted. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyways any admins will make up their own mind on how they feel about this situation from what they see above, and whilst we may all throw around our supports or opposes in regards to WCM's request, it in all eventuality accounts for diddly-squat as it is up to the admins.Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to my request

May I add the following:

• If Nick-D wishes to mentor I will gladly accept.

• If you want to impose a 1RR limitation I will accept, it will quickly become apparent that I do not edit war but as I note above was placed in an impossible position of being asked to gain a consensus with an editor who was uncivil and edit warred to impose their views.

• I request for the fourth time, an interaction ban. I note that one way bans are frowned upon so will accept a two way ban; I have no need to comment on editors again.

• I request that there is consideration to extending the interaction ban to User:Andrés Djordjalian and User:Langus-TxT. I would just like to edit in peace without having to defend myself against their false allegations. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• • I'd be pleased to act as WCM's mentor, though I think that sticking to 1RR regardless of whether its mandated as part of this discussion or not would be highly beneficial. In regards to the above discussion, it is a bit concerning that the dispute over the content of these articles has spilled over here. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is way too much linking to ancient and angry out of context fights. Ban all linking from now on. It just makes old crap fester anew. No more linking to prove points by any party. Not just Wee and Gaba. Anyone. Irondome (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I note that a significant problem that caused the original ban was the wall of text often created on the talk page, something which a 1RR restriction would not stop. If you were willing to support a "one reply per user per topic (unless permission is given by your mentor)" on related talk pages then I would give serious consideration to this request. Obviously such a restriction is a bit ill defined, and would be need to be treated with some common sense, but I can't think of a better way to implement it.
  • Regardless of the outcome of the result of this request I think an interaction ban between WCM and Gaba_p is a very good idea. As to the other users mentioned personally I don't think such an interaction ban would, at this stage, be necessary. If the topic ban is lifted I would like to see how things go before we enacted such an interaction ban.
  • Finally I note that most of the contributors to this discussion have been involved with the articles in question and that once again we have a wall of text that is probably deterring comments. This is starting to get disruptive. Therefore I suggest that if we have a concrete un-ban proposal a new section be started with that proposal and that it be left to neural users to comment. I would consider any wall of text comments, or multiple replies, by users involved with these articles to be disruptive and possibly worthy of a block. This may be somewhat unusual but neutral editors need to be able to have a conversation about this issue without having to wade through walls of text. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • • In answer to Dpmuk, I will gladly limit my replies but I would request that you review the talk pages and simply note for now who is largely responsible for the walls of text; I agree they're unhelpful and personally believe the intention is to deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
        • See below, I understand now what you're driving at. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support amended proposals 1,2 and 3, oppose 4. (One of the ironies of Wiki-conflict is not only does an editor not have to defend themselves against false allegations, it's often better not to.) NE Ent 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are many fanatics on Wiki who reply to editing that does not entirely agree with their POV with vitriol. There is simply no point in responding to such rhetoric since it simply serves to amplify it and crowd out meaningful discussion. Wee would be well-advised not to bother responding to personal attacks if he thinks he is being attacked. FOARP (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice duly noted. However, may I ask a question. At WP:ANI a large number of false allegations were raised, with diffs used misleadingly to give credence. My experience is that the diffs aren't examined in detail and the allegations taken seriously; how do you respond then? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And how's the strategy of engaging in long arguments with your detractors been working out for you lately? FOARP (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Believe me the point has now been truly taken on board, I've not engaged in long boring arguments here as much as I might have in the past. Moreover, I have come to the realisation that at least one of the editors who appeared to take those allegations seriously on the basis of those false diffs was a wind up merchant and a troll. Thank you for your comment, you could say it has just provoked a Damascus moment in me. You are welcome to WP:TROUT me anytime I forget such an important lesson. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for multiple reasons. One: the user claims to be retired, and as such, any restrictions should be irrelevant to them. Two: their participation in the latest ANI was almost certainly a topic ban violation (particularly as they explicitly mentioned the Falkland Islands in one of their posts) and should've resulted in a block. Three: the abusive manner in which they attacked several editors in that thread (a long time after a notification had been placed on their talkpage as well) is indicative that their presence in this topic area is not helpful. Four: The abusive manner in which some of WCM's strongest proponents posting here have acted is actually detrimental to the case: I have no idea what Muggins thought they were doing, and I've already voiced my issues with Kahastok. Five: it hasn't yet been six months, and WCM is yet to demonstrate that they will not be a problem in this area again; regardless of whether they were right or not. Six: WP:CANVASSing actions by WCM. For what it's worth, I also support a two-way interaction ban between Gaba p and WCM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wee is nowhere near the title of congeniality, and that some of the people in favor of his topic ban removal are also not paragons of virtue. However, I ask only where the limit between deterrence and punishment stands in this case? Wee has accepted Nick's mentorship and 1RR on Falklands topics. I trust this is a step in the right direction, because Nick (a remarkable administrator and content contributor) surely understands the responsibility he is placing upon himself, and Wee is most certainly aware that this is pretty much a last chance to prove his trustworthiness. Moreover, the two-way interaction ban is (as most can all agree) another huge leap into a positive direction. Will waiting the full six months really make a difference or produce better results than the ones currently in play? I recommend to let Wee have his chance and, ultimately above all, trust Nick.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well said, and showing the positive way forward in my opinion. I fully agree. Apcbg (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you read my comment, you'll see that the issue of six months is only one of many concerns I have. Don't forget, this user is still claiming to be retired, and their retirement was under a cloud in the first place. And they violated their topic ban very recently - and did so deliberately. Why should we willfully reward violations of valid enforcements? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support I have been following the contributions of User:Andrés Djordjalian after commenting on his RFC at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?. I was left with concerns about his editing and I am seeing similar behaviour here. Reading this discussion, I see evidence supporting User:Wee Curry Monster's claims of cyberbullying.

There are a number of postive comments about his being a prolific contributor and given his agreement to a mentor, 1RR restriction and limiting talk page comments I see no reason not to lift the topic ban. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. From what I remember seeing the last time I looked, his editing in the Falklands area was about as tendentious as that of his opponents and had an equal share in poisoning the atmosphere there. The fact that he still can't recognize anything wrong with his editing is not a good sign. Somebody above said that the area has gone a lot more quiet since he and some of the others on the other side were topic-banned. That means the topic area is better off without them for the time being. I see no reason to unilaterally lift the topic ban on him but not on the editors on the other side of the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That was me who said that the area has generally got quieter. It's true. But it would have been just as quiet with Curry Monster not topic banned. There is no preventative reason for Curry Monster to remain topic banned. The topic area is not better off without him, because it also means that we do not have his knowledge and expertise, which is sorely missed while we go through an agreed process of attaining consensus for a large-scale change in particular to Falkland Islands. Frankly, if you topic banned every editor on Wikipedia from the Falklands it would be much quieter still. Kahastok talk 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

non-arbitrary break

Question asked and answered, hatting so it doesn't confuse the main discussion that has continued below. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question Is WCM banned from editing at the moment? He has been editing Munro | as can be seen from this edit history. It certainly doesn't look good if he has been defying this ban while asking for it to be lifted. Michael Glass (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC) He is not. NE Ent 10:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC) It is a topic ban from everything related to the Falkland Islands; Munro is not covered by that topic ban. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - As long as WCM singles me out for being disruptive, I cannot support the lifting of his topic-related ban. For the record, one of the key features of this so-called disruption has been WCM's unwavering support of the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - a page that is currently under heavy scrutiny. Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So, your oppose is entirely retaliatory? Kahastok talk 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, his oppose highlights the fact that WCM cannot edit in this topic area without being combative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

genre warring by user Y45ed after returning from block for genre warring

• Y45ed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Y45ed was blocked on 3 September 2013 for genre warring. Since returning from that block, this editor has resumed genre warring and adding genres without sources or consensus. This editor has been warned multiple times about this disruptive behaviour, both before and after the original block.

Diffs:

• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54] In this instance he reverted a properly sourced genre while claiming "Source doesn't mention thrash metal", though the source states "The origins of thrash metal can be traced down to two songs – ‘Stone Cold Crazy’ by Queen and ‘Symptom of the Universe’ by Black Sabbath."

There are also several instances in which this editor sourced the genre changes with citations that do not actually confirm in any way what is being added or altered.

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

This is classic genre warrior behaviour. The vast majority of this editor's Wikipedia time is spent altering the genre field of dozens of music infoboxes. Obviously the block didn't get the message across. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, for each of those edits i have either cited a source or explained the edit in the Edit Summary. Whoever reads those diffs, please, unlike this user, just use some common sense, and read my descriptions, sources, and, if you need to, previous edits. Don't just assume this unreasonable, ignorant user is right just because he can't seem to stop hogging the moral high-ground. Thank you. Y45ed (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, for "each of those edits" you did not; the first just has a "because I said so" edit summary, the fourth has no edit summary or reference, and the fifth has an edit summary that borders on WP:SYNTH. Also please remember WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The first, i don't know why ChakaKong is still crying about, since that problem was solved,, the whole article now redirects to the album it's on. Get over it. The fourth was based on the agreement on the talk page, and the fifth, you could have just given me a friendly notice to inform me that what I did was wrong. Please just read them carefully, and don't automatically go with what ChakaKong says just because he is, as some people may say, "up his own arse". Y45ed (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You obviously just don't get it. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, anything you're going to add to that, or are you just going to leave it as one super-effective, jarring, mysterious line? Y45ed (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll simply add that you are now also in violation of WP:NPA. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith is disturbing, as I did, in fact, "read them carefully", and if you continue with your personal attacks then you will be blocked regardless of the validity or not of your edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ChakaKong's "assumption of bad faith" towards me is also pretty disturbing, as my edits do not mean to "hurt the article" or "vandalize" it. All my edits are done purely to help or improve an article, not do damage it in any way. Let me also add that the diff "68" was a misunderstanding by the reverter, who obviously didn't read the source properly. The link i provided takes you to the track listing of On Air - Live at the BBC Volume 2. When you scroll down, you will find text that says "view track details". Click on that, scroll down to "You Can't Do That", and you will find that it calls it a "swaggering R&B workout". That is why i added Rhythm and blues to the song's genres, my source was just not read properly. Y45ed (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubts whatsoever that you are attempting to help the project, not consciously harm it. There is no assumption of bad faith. The issue from the start has been your flagrant disregard for the guidelines and the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. The last time you had your editing privileges suspended you were strongly advised to familiarize yourself with these guidelines during your time away, but you apparently came back with a chip on your shoulder instead. This is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia and your etiquette is lacking. If your goal is to share your opinions about music, start a blog instead. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Request either 2-way interaction ban or dismis this 1-way interaction ban

This is getting borderline WP:GAMING, as the very editor I'm banned to interact with has made himself involved into an AfD discussion and there's little room at all for me to contest what he's saying.

How is it that an editor is allowed to interact with me? And I'm not even able to make a stance? I suggest either 2-way interaction ban or dismiss this interaction ban in general.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless your interaction ban has unusual provisions, you're allowed (and indeed expected) to mention the user in question and to bring up links to bolster your point. The discussion can't easily happen without context, and we're not in the business of issuing superinjunctions or prohibiting banned people from discussing their bans, except when the banned people have already disrupted the ban-discussion process. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

currently I'm banned from 3 months (down to 2 months now) from interacting with this editor. Unfortunately even after I bring a subject up, it doesn't stop this editor from getting involved. You can see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spira (Final Fantasy). And even as I attempt to go around his comments it becomes difficult.Lucia Black (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia Black has been warned more than a half a dozen times about violating the topic/interaction ban, both in discussions and on her talk page. Violations include things I am not even been party to, and on pages I don't even edit, including a warning by Canterbury Tail on Sept 2.[58] Prior to that Lucia decided to bring up the conflict for which she was topic banned on Only in death's page and got warned.[59] Lucia argued further and got warned by Bushranger too.[60] After repeatedly violating the spirit and letter of the topic/interaction bans, Lucia got a 48 hour block on Sept 5.[61] The reason was because Lucia started attacking me on GAN calling me a "GA Nom ninja" after I put a few hours into fixing something I made clear I was going to work on even prior to her topic and interaction ban. I did not even reply or speak to her, but it was a tacit, but clear violation. Lucia Black also tried to get this topic ban/interaction removed before, unsuccessfully. Yes, I posted my Keep !vote at the AFD, but Lucia should not have replied to it and Bushranger warned her about that.[62] Also, before fixing the page I addressed Bushranger and explained how I felt forced to reply to the AFD and that I could easily save the page from deletion.[63] I have since rewritten much of the page and added multiple sources and found paywalled ones that assert notability.[64] The reason for this discussion is to allow her to argue with me because Lucia wants the article deleted and does not want me to rescue it. Anyways, I've said my peace so I'm going to remain silent unless asked directly to answer questions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarify, please. Does Lucia Black's ban prohibit her from interacting with ChrisGualtieri, or does it apply to someone else, or to multiple people, etc.? A link to the ban discussion would help everyone. Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained to Canterbury Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra doesn't fall into WP:ANIME's scope as its not a series from japan, but the topic ban isn't even clear on that, so I avoided it for the sake of avoiding any more issues on trigger-happy admins who consider those series anime or manga.

Despite being blocked for 48 hour ban due to bringing up an issue "related" to the topic ban, it was still about something much more general which is GAN an article without consent from the editors who made significant contribution. In which there is an etiquette that you should inform the editor or even suggest GA nomination if they made significant contribution as a sign of recognizing their edits. The fact that you only did minor expansion, and GANed it shows that your contributions overshadow mine. And this is an issue many editors have brought up in the past. Recently Folken del Fanel has argued the same with you over Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime).

However: NONE of this should be relevant, and it only looks bad on you ChrisGualtieri as your the editor pushing for this interaction ban based on events that don't concern you (which again...only serves to defame). Recently you also attempted to report me to ANI because I attempted to revert a comment of my own talkpage just because it seemed like I was modifying his comment. It just shows you want to get rid of me. You're only causing more conflict between us and you have no intention of fixing it. but the issue is you can enter any discussion I'm involved in and force me to not respond to any key points you bring up. So if another editor believes what you say simply for not contesting. You can see how a discussion can close quite easily. That's why I proposed either A) 2-way interaction ban (this is definitely my first choice.) Or B) Dismiss the interaction ban. I'm already severely limited from interacting with you due to the topic ban anyways. Anything outside would be on you getting yourself involved.

@Nyttend: Yes, I (Lucia Black) am banned from interacting with ChrisGualtieri. I currently don't have the link and its trouble enough.Lucia Black (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help to avoid editing similar topics of interest. After all the wiki has a wide topic range. Just a thought. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am already topic banned from anime and manga. I think the interaction ban is overkill espeially for 3 months.

• While Chris isn't interaction banned, I would suggest he voluntarily avoid commenting in discussions LB has opened to avoid the appearance of baiting her to violate her restriction, although I'm sure that was not his intention. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Diff [65], found on WP:Editing Restrictions. Lucia, instead of disagreeing with CG, simply wait until other editors post. E.g. on the Afd New Age Retro Hippie, ProtoDrake, and Tarc are supporting deletion, so simply agree / amplify what they're saying without referencing CG. NE Ent 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not the point. The problem is this editor (even when uninvolved) attempts to report me everytime hance he gets the chance, and it just causes more tension. And even now he shows he wants to keep the interaction ban with reasons unrelated to the ban itself. I've had enough of this mudslinging. It should be made so both of us don't get near eachother.

I believe if no action is done now, he's going to do it again and again.Lucia Black (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The quickest and easiest way to avoid interaction with CG would be to not edit where he edits. There's lots of stuff to edit around here - plenty of room for every one, even with the topic ban on anime and manga (and, I note, ANI). Mark Arsten makes a good point, above - and on that basis I'm going to join him in asking ChrisGualtieri to refrain from commenting in discussions you've started or in which you are already a participant. I don't see a need to extend the interaction ban, though CG may wish to voluntarily agree to leave you be. But there was no consensus for a mutual ban, and I'm starting to see why. If a situation is frustrating you, as this one clearly is, then find something else to do - and come back calmer in a few months. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm already topic ban and I'm well versed in similar media. So the only other space I'm familiar with is video games and as you can plainly see. So what you're suggesting is "if chris makes his way there, go somewhere else). Which to me translates as me being pushed around.

I'm tired of admins asking for me to being the calm one. Yes I am fustrated, but its not affecting my judgement. And I ChrisGualtieri manages to bring more conflict even when I can't interact with him. How is that fair? I wish admins would judge more of the situation that caused the stress and not the level of fustration itself.Lucia Black (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

....which is why I've asked Chris to leave you alone. You two edit in the same areas, which is part of what started this mess. If you go edit somewhere else, and he magically follows you there - put it this way, your case just got a lot stronger. And if he doesn't? You get a vacation from someone who is clearly and obviously causing you a lot of stress. I understand that you don't want to edit outside this topic, but please consider that a plan b. See also my comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: - Any chance I could talk you into avoiding Lucia Black for the remainder of her interaction ban with you? I understand that you are not under sanction, but I think it would go a long way to settling this drama down. It would be appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

While I do not like the idea of being unable to comment on deletion discussions, I believe it may be the only option to prevent further conflict. I'll refrain from edits relating to the Square Enix project after this AFD, okay? I'd like to remain free to edit other video game articles during this time, considering the related GANs (like my re-nom of Persona 4) and subject matter around visual novels. Would that be acceptable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that there have been no objections, that seems like it'll work. Thanks. I think we can close this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Too many indef blocked IPs

I don't know if anyone else is counting but we currently have 20,411 single IP indef blocks and 203 indef blocked IP ranges. I don't think anyone is maintaining most of the as some of these blocks are from 2004. Most indef blocks are with the open proxy rationale but since then the open proxy ips probably changed. I attempted to compile a list using Special:BlockList but was quickly overwhelmed by the amount. I even had to break apart my list as it was too large for the wiki to handle.

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/global_blocks.txt
• http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt
• Globaly blocked IPs also blocked on en.wikipedia: http://pastebin.com/HYi2XE0V

We need to verify that these IPs are indeed still open proxies and block them globally rather than locally. I cannot imagine why we would not want to do this as open proxies are a menace to all wikis. The 391 IPs listed on pastebin seem to be already globally blocked and can be unblocked here safely.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

While checking to be sure if they're still needed to be blocked at all should indeed be done, and globally blocking open proxies is probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the point of unblocking the ones already globally blocked is - if they're globally blocked, they can't edit here anyway, so a local unblock is simply checking a box on a list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It would mean that if the global block is ever removed due to the IP no longer being a proxy, that there wouldn't be a trailing block on here. There was an RFC about setting up a periodic review of indef/long term range blocks, and while it didn't explicitly include single IP's with indef blocks, the closign rationale would apply to them just as well. Has anything ever come of that? Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We have 203 indef range blocks so I don't think so. It is a daunting task to review so many indefs after so much time, perhaps stewards and checkusers from other projects could assist in the review of these IPs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the range blocks aren't even needed. You should start by reviewing those. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say everything older than 5 years can be safely unblocked. If vandalism continues, or if open proxies are detected again, they can be reblocked. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have a level of check - perhaps automated to make sure we don't run into problems. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If it can be automated it is obviously the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been slowly working through this list for about five years now, with the occasional bit of help from other admins. At least the list has stopped increasing in size. There is a dynamic IP address list somewhere which can be cross-matched, and it would make sense to tidy up any rangeblocked individual indefblocked IPs. A large proportion of the others are still trouble, IMO. I would disagree that all open proxies should be globally blocked. Different wikis have very different OP policies. Such an attempt is doomed to fail. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to this dynamic IP range? Perhaps it can be used to cross reference the blocked IP list through tool server.

Are there incompatibilities between en.wikipedias open proxy policy and the one on meta? If not then I don't quite see the doomsday scenario. Identifying open proxies is a non-trivial task it takes a lot of time and effort to detect them and just as much effort to keep track if IPs are still serving as open proxies or not. Global has proven that it is very efficient in handling this mostly technical task. Handling this globally would allow all language editions to help maintain an up-to-date open proxy list on this mutual problem. It would also be more transparent.

I do not know if this exists but globally blocked open proxies should be readily available to local admins and checkusers during on wiki maintenance. For instance consider the scenario where an IP was previously blocked as an open proxy and that was eventually lifted and later on vandalism comes out of the same IP on a local project such as en.wikipedia. That way an open proxy previously detected on another wiki would help identify its reactivation on a different wiki.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a bit of time to make sure someone hasn't already set up a page to implement the results of that RFC, if not, I'll try to get something setup, where we can hopefully coordinate our efforts. Monty₈₄₅ 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an IP list in my userspace on meta. I compiled it using the indef block log here on en.wikipedia. I have one page for range blocks and two more for single IP blocks. Feel free to edit it btw. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put together one before seeing that at User:Monty845/Block_Review. Probably needs some refinement. Monty₈₄₅ 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to handle it on meta. Feel free to update the page I linked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here you are: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Archive_2#Dynamic_IPs. You'd need a fresh RBL lookup or something to get more. You could ask someone like User:RonaldB to have a look, if he's around, as I'm sure he could assist enormously (and seen all the arguments). There are no incompatibilities between en's open proxy policy and the one on meta, just different implementations. On meta for example they are rarely blocked in relation to here, whereas the Chinese type wikis virtually depend on them. Some organisation of those blocked at the request of owner (schools, OTRS and similar), as well as those reviewed would be useful. I would not recommend unblocking without review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All OPs not blocked on meta can be blocked here, sure. But everything else should be handled there. I'll ask User:RonaldB per your request. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain briefly my approach.

On NLWP pre-emptive blocking of open proxies is applied. Rather than just reactive blocking open proxies, this also provides some defense against logged-in trolls.

Source for all blocking (and unblocking) is a large and ever growing database. Maintenance is partially automatic (single IPs), partially manual (ranges).

Various internet lists are the source for single IPs (I learned over time which ones are useful). These are 7/24 checked on open proxy behaviour. Only after a certain grace period my system considers a suspected IP a real open proxy, thus preventing amongst others useless blocking of very dynamic IPs. For unblocking the same principle applies.

Initially my scanner was also checking the exit IP of web proxy URLs. With the advent of cloud technology with hosting providers, that approach turned out to become less effective. Therefore I replaced that by blocking ranges of hosting providers.

As we speak, some 20k individual IPs and some 2750 ranges are blocked on NLWP. Blocking and unblocking of individual IPs is a batch process run every 2 days (average) and involving per run some 500 blocks and same unblocks.

Since I started on NLWP more than 350k blocking (and a bit less unblocking) actions have taken place. The table of individual proxies has a row count of 3.5 million. A lot of that is obviously historic data, but is of huge help to analyse "special cases".

In the course of time I have developed several tools to assist me with the assessment of IP related issues. Amongst these tools is one to make a kind of inventory of the status quo, like I have done years ago for the Germans (they appeared to have a similar problem as noticed here).

Since I started 6 years ago with Wikipedia:Open proxy detection, I considered ENWP the ideal test bench for any improvement on the system, because I never had to wait long for a hit ;-).

For any further queries don't hesitate to poke me on NLWP. - Rgds RonaldB (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you do a check on the indef blocked Open Proxy IPs on en.wikipedia with your tool? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've run into this problem myself. I edited for a long time as an IP editor but found I was continually getting blocked. I don't pretend to know how this works but when working from home, I log into the learning platform at school which means I was blocked as a proxy? I know that schools cause you problems with vandalism but have you ever considered contacting them to report it? I know my headmaster would take a very dim view of our pupils bringing the school into disrepute by vandalising wikipedia. You know wikipedia is such a valuable educational resource I do wonder at the merit of blocking schools? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Open proxies are always blocked. No questions, no hesitation, no exceptions. Non-proxy school IPs tend to get a fair amount of WP:ROPE before getting blocked but there are cases where the disruption simply becomes unbearable; while I appreciate your good faith in your teachers wanting to curb vandalism you'll have to forgive us if we're a bit jaded because there have been multiple cases in the past of teachers encouraging vandalism or even performing it themselves "to demonstrate/prove how Wikipedia is unreliable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Checked a total of 183 of the most recent indef blocks, using the end of this list: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt

Found 45 entries which are also in my database. Did not check whether or not all entries are still actual (would decrease the number), neither checked whether it would have been more effective to block a range.

Of the other 75% the whois has been inspected manually. The vast majority is dynamic, so indef block is meaningless and superfluous. Also found some weird things, such as 3 IPs belonging to WMF or WMDE and 4 /16 ranges in China, which are highly dynamic.

Finally ran a scan on the 75% IPs, trying 16 ports that are most frequently used as open proxy. Result negative.

So the effectiveness of the current practice seems doubtful. – Rgds RonaldB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban, some doubt about edits being allowed

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

---

Are these edits allowed within the topic ban for Laurel Lodged published here: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community? I have some doubt, so I prefer to check. The Banner talk 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not really knowing the editor or the circumstances of the ban, my opinion was tentative (Banner asked me on my talk page) but I'm inclined to say the edit certainly violates the spirit of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• She is under "editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties" and the two edits (the first being [66]) imparts a change that modifies the significance (via categorical listing) of County Limerick which is a different county in Munster. The same edit also did this for County Tipperary which is further east of County Clare and the "epon" cat of "History of County Clare" is by all accounts modifying the historical impact of the Dál gCais on the area; essentially removing them categorically from the geographical area to essentially omit the tribe's control of land in County Limerick as noted at King Brian Boru's page. If not violating the letter, it violates the spirit and lowers the significance of the tribe which by all accounts seems to have had control of land and influence in those counties. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed --- she's violating the spirit of her ban  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The change from Tipperary to North Tipperary violates the restrictions (as well as being a non-existent category), but moving to the relevant subcategory would be to increase precision, rather than to reduce significance; following the revert by User:The Banner the article became one of only three directly in Category:County Limerick. The explanation of the "eponymous categories" change isn't clear, whether it's being done consistently, and whether consensus exists for changes such as this, as it's a change between two options in WP:EPON. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• So that's a "yes, it violates the ban"? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Tipperary change[67][68] does. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Defence Firstly, gender check:male. Secondly, I am dismayed that the nominator chose to go down this path rather than engaging in the Dal gCais talk page. At the first opportunity I went to the talk page and explained my position. All I got was gnomic two word responses. Requests for clarification went unanswered. At no point in the "discussion" was the question raised as to whether or not the edits were in violation of the topic ban. Had that been raised, I would have been happy to reply per the third point below. So this is overkill and this is the wrong forum. Thirdly, it is my opinion that the Dal gCais is an important part of the history of the region. While their fortunes ebbed and flowed over the centuries, at their most stable period, their rule extended over most of what would be now known as counties Clare, Limerick and North Tipperary. At no point did they hold sway over South Tipperary which was held by their rivals in Munster, the Eóganachta. So precision demands that a more wide-embracing use of County Tipperary be avoided. It goes without saying that none of these geographic areas existed at the time of the height of Dal gCais power; they were Norman inventions centuries later. Why then the removal of the categories? Simple. They already existed for the articles eponymous category - Category:Dál gCais. Why have double directs? How was this going to improve navigation? Everything that was needed for the Dal gCais article - and more - was contained in its eponymous category. It is sufficient for the article to have no other categories than its parent; everything else is clutter and superfluous. You will note that I did not delete any county category from the parent category. Instead, I increased the category precision from a generic "County Foo" to a precise "History of County Foo". Indeed I added a category - North Tipperary - on the assumption that it too would have the same county naming structure. I was surprised that the county did not have a History sub-cat. It was my intention to create it later but did not want to muddy the waters once the nominator's reversions kicked in. None of the above violates the letter or spirit of the ban.

I recommended that the nominator be asked to cool his/her jets and engage more faithfully in future before taking the sledgehammer to solve the nut situation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but I am not seeing a defense to why you violated your topic ban and on the contrary it sounds like you knowingly violated it instead of discussing it on the talk pages. Something which you are allowed and highly encouraged to do by explicit wording of the editing restriction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Sorry, my mistake. The Banner talk 13:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanbir Singh Grewal: ban?

Amanbir Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amanbir Singh Grewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mokshanine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There's been some contentious editing at Runes by a 117 IP who has been signing as amanbir and amanbir grewal on Talk:Runes and on my talk page. The edit summary here especially concerns me. I note that there was an AN/I report of much more serious nationalist bigotry in October 2012 that ended with blocks on an IP in that range who was calling himself Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh was indef-blocked in November 2012, which was followed by an AN/I report of threats by an IP signing Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh Grewal was blocked twice for edit warring in August this year (currently unblocked, so I have asked the IP at Talk:Runes whether they are the same person); that there was an AN/I report that month mentioning IP use associated with the Amanbir Singh Grewal account but not the indef block of the Amanbir Singh account, and referring back to this AN/I report earlier the same month, which refers to User:Mokshanine, who requested a rename from User:Amanbirgrewal. These appear to be the same person, although the edits are in a different area of interest, and with the continuing contentious IP editing, I believe it may be time for an official ban so that the other two accounts can be officially linked an indeffed too and so that IP edits can be reverted on sight. A rangeblock has also been suggested to me, but I understand there would be a lot of collateral damage, so that would amount to another reason to go the revert on sight route. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support siteban and blocking of Amanbir Singh Grewal, Mokshanine/Amanbirgrewal for sockpuppetry. Upon a closer look the area of interest of these accounts is not so different at all. All have a common interest in St. Paul's School, Darjeeling which made up most of Mokshanine's edits. In fact the first edit by Amanbir Singh was the attempt of inserting a photo to that article [69], a task where Mokshanine had apparently given up over continuous copyright issues [70]. Moreover, the 117.x IPs in question and Amanbir Singh share an interest in things related to Norway and the Norse culture, like Norwegian School of Economics, Breivik [71][72], and lately the puported origin of Norse runes by the IP editor who names himself amanbir grewal (see diff posted by Yngvadottir). De728631 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear ethnic attack here, but I'd better not block him myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Block who? :) Yes, a range block would be very appropriate here. Sheesh, what not-smartness is on display there. You can have your ban (support) too, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, I blocked another IP, but none of that is going to do any good of course. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, no mention of Cynewulf. No wonder it's not an FA. Get to work, Yngvadottir; no need for sex books here. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am convinced there is a connection between the account holders, though I'm not fully convinced (yet?) they are all the same person. I do support a ban for all potential owners of the accounts. When it comes to IP ranges, if I only look at the first two IP's, 117.226.28.239 and 117.238.251.53, the likely collateral would already be enourmous: it would be 117.224.0.0/12. 117.226.28.239 alone is part of a /14 assignment, which is already crazy collateral. The IP's are owned by Bharat Sanchar Nigam, which is at least one of the largest ISP's in India. Any effective rangeblock would probably mean blocking huge swats of this ISP's userbase. What we're left with is probably remaining vigilant and blocking where we can. I'll take some time to investigate the edits themselves, and see if I can tailor an abusefilter, but I'm not counting on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Esvita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just appeared on my talk page signing Amanbir, and has edits on other Wikipedias. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And there's a 117 IP on the user page of the Swedish Esvita (who is also associated with the name Amanbir Singh Grewal [73]). I'm beginning to think that this is a whole team of editors. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I had a run-in with IPs signing off as Amanbir Singh a year ago and made one AN/I post here. It involved massive disruption on the Anders Behring Breivik related pages. The incident included at least one threatening post [74], implications that I knew something about the 2011 Norway attacks, and postings of my real name on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Enough really right there to ban someone were it not for the fact that he was de facto banned already. But if it will help to make it de jure banned, it has my full support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

abuser Yopie

I warn that to the abuser Yopie. Yopie only phanatically delete (Yopie is neither a linguist nor a native speaker!) the word Czechia[75], [76], [77], here with Vandalism[78].

And Yopie do not understand history [79], [80], because Yopie do not delete for example Japan or Lapland, Yopie delete only the word Czechia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang incoming! IP 62.168.13.98, I'm afraid to tell you that it is you whose edits and conduct are problematic. Instead of calling an established editor abusive and a vandal, you should have provided reliable sources for your edits in the first place. You've already been blocked for edit warring and it seems to me that you are still merely pushing your point of view. So I strongly recommend that you read up on the Czechia issue as you have been advised here. Please see also 'what is not vandalism', because Yopie's edits did not constitute vandalism. If you continue your confrontational route you will be certainly be blocked again for harrassment and disruptive editing. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing one thing that doesn't fit and leaving something else in a long list is very different from actively adding something that doesn't fit; presumably Yopie simply didn't notice bits such as Japan. I have no clue whether the Romans were aware of the Laps or Lapland (let alone whether they had a concept of "Finland" or "Poland"), but I've removed Tartary and Japan. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

History merge

Can someone move the history of User:Tomica/Sandbox9 to "Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be  Done. Monty₈₄₅ 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You lost the original redirect from several days before the sandbox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a deleted edit in the history of the article, right now. Keeping the redirect (which was by Calvin999) in the page history would be confusing, since it would interrupt the flow of the page history. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested before I implement consensus at WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

Most of you are familiar with the Visual Editor problem. Despite an overwhelming consensus that the tool should be opt-in (see WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC, which had the highest response rate of any Wikipedia RFC that I am aware of ) WMF has insisted on keeping the editor opt-out, and issued a response that basically dismissed the community's concerns at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Default State RFC#Wikimedia response.

WMF cooperation isn't actually required to implement the consensus at the RFC, though. It's fully within any admin's power to replace MediaWiki:common.js with User:Kww/common3.js. That would have the effect of requiring an opt-in to use VE (using the existing preference), and would remove access to VE from IP editors, just as the RFC required. Please don't do so just yet, as it needs another test round due a recent edit.

Before I proceed to implement community consensus, I invite comment and code review.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• No See Phillipe's request [81]. Disrupting users' experience -- increasing load either client side or server side -- to prove a point is childish -- let's key our toys in the pram. WMF is the owner of this website, and they have every legal and moral right to be stupid stupid and hurt the encyclopeida, even if we don't like it. Getting into a pissing contest will not be a positive step, and they could simply revert the edit per wp:office. NE Ent 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • They are not just being stupid, they're hurting the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • • Amended. Nonetheless I've never believed another's stupidity justified my own. NE Ent 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The technical problems alluded to in Phillipe's request have been corrected, and his foundational premise is flawed: WMF has been approached about this many times, and is the group that is refusing to compromise. I would certainly hope that no one from WMF would abuse WP:OFFICE in a way that did not relate to a legal issue, and we could freely revert such a change.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm a little confused about the load issues. Would this actually increase server or client load more than it currently is with VisualEditor displayed? equazcion ^(talk) 18:12, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
        • An earlier version did, and that's the context of Phillipe's comments.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • NE Ent: It's difficult to read your comments as more than an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. For example, you mentioned a possible office revert. Which part of that policy specifically would you say is applicable here? Please feel free to quote liberally. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • See terms of use and common sense NE Ent 18:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You've pointed to a section about how Wikimedia wikis deal with long-term problematic users. It seems pretty clear, at least to me, that you're grasping at straws. You've come pretty close to comparing a long-time admin in good standing with the likes of Grawp. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)The WMF rarely edits Wikipedia directly outside of legal reasons, and if they abused their access to administrator privileges (i.e. editing the common js and css) it would make them a laughingstock in outside media. Heck, this whole thing makes them already look like a laughingstock, so I'm not sure that kind of misuse of WP:OFFICE would be out of the question. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If WMF allows other projects to opt-in rather than opt-out, as it appears they have, then they have no basis for ignoring consensus here. GregJackP Boomer! 18:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Not once in this whole farrago has the WMF explained why the RFC at de.wiki resulted in VE being switched to opt-in, yet an RFC here with a similar result was completely ignored (and, indeed, met with a response which basically told the community "we know best, and we're going to ignore your concerns"). Coming on the back of the Notifications fiasco, I can only assume that the WMF has lost sight of the fact that the people who actually create the vast majority of quality pages on its website are its regular community, and it needs to take notice of them. Perhaps actually implementing the results of a very clear community RfC will actually achieve that. Not to mention that it will save huge amouts of editor's time which is currently being taken up with fixing pages still being broken by VE pn a regular basis - such as these. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Neither Philippe nor NE Ent are in a position to evaluate the technical aspects of this proposal. Previous versions of the code would have needlessly hit the MediaWiki Web API. The current code being proposed for deployment should be fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  I should add that if Philippe, NE Ent, or anyone else has criticisms of the code being proposed for deployment, they are of course strongly encouraged to speak up. Please point to specific problems in the code. Vague and general statements about the code's unsuitability should simply be discarded as attempts to unfairly influence the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  • • • You're quite right that I'm not competent to evaluate the code myself. Assuredly, I wouldn't then post that it was problematic code unless I was pretty sure of it. I've been assured by our engineering group that the code is still badly flawed. I have requested an analysis of that that I can post, knowing that you'd want specifics (in fact, it wouldn't be fair to say that without specifics), so hold tight - I think they are working on it now. But they assure me that the script as currently written - contrary to MZ's assurances - is not, in fact, fine, and that if implemented, would create an unacceptable load on the servers. If nothing else, please don't proceed with this code until our engineering team can weigh in on it. That's not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of ensuring the basic reliability of the site. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The code fails the basic software quality of not meeting the functional requirements of the owner (that's WMF, not you or me) of the site. NE Ent 18:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's increasingly clear that you have a very distorted view of how Wikimedia operates. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • As opposed to the existing code, which fails the functional requirement of actually improving the encylopedia - as per the results of the RfC. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We've been assured it will not hurt the servers, and it will assuredly help the editors, and avoid further damaging the project, which the WMF appears to have forgotten is why we're here. That plus a clear consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is run via consensus decisions from its community of users. That's the basis of everything we do, and arguably it's the reason we're all actually here. We're not here to implement traffic increase strategies determined by some committee; if we were, and had known that from the get-go, I doubt many of us would've been interested in getting involved in the first place. A foundation owns the site and made WP:OFFICE to tell us the various rights they nevertheless reserve, and that's fine, but they continue to claim they uphold the original ideal that this encyclopedia is a community-run entity. That's a tough claim for them to vigilantly maintain in practice, especially in the wake of the power this encyclopedia now wields thanks to us. Sadly there's been an evident, gradual trend towards it becoming mere lip service. I think it's our responsibility to make them prove the ideals that keep us here when necessary, or else be forced to change their party line. It's only fair that we should know exactly who we're working for based on something more than empty words. So long as this action doesn't contradict WP:OFFICE and it won't increase load on either side, let's implement the community's well-established consensus. equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It's about time someone stood up to the pen-pushers and incompetents in the WMF. Regardless of that fact, community consensus was clear that this is the way forward - I may not see eye-to-eye with Kww on everything, but I respect them for having the guts to stick their neck out on this one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per community consensus. Andreas JN466 19:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Please go ahead and implement the RFC result. It is up to the community alone to decide what has to be done.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support implementation of community consensus. The WMF's failure (or refusal) to provide an explanation of why the parallel de-wiki determination cannot be similarly implemented here is at best disquieting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:John

Apparently he associates my comments with fecal matter just because he didn't like them, he has also closed this section without apologizing for calling another editor's actions "retarded" in such a way that it made more than one person think he was calling the editor retarded.

"That seems pretty retarded. This is a "content dispute"? Seriously? --John (talk) 3:24 am, Today (UTC−5)" - relevant quote from his talkpage.

He furthermore, when questioned by multiple users, took one (mine) message off of his page, and responded to the other with "Get over yourself", and saying that "[retarded] just means 'stupid'". He also told an editor that they are "deeply, deeply confused".

Can someone have a word with him about improving his civility a little bit before someone actually gets driven off the project because of it (especially new users)? "retarded" is not appropriate in any context other than mental disability itself, and even then it's not generally appropriate, much less when talking about another contributor.

Oh, I've been requested to not post on John's talkpage, so if someone else could notify I'd really appreciate it. I'll be notifying the others in a second. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification  Done NE Ent 18:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NE Ent. I try to respect peoples' wishes for me to stay off of talkpages. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. posted on my UT page as a result of me posting on noticeboards, and as he is likely following my posts (he responded to a post I made which did not mention him by name at all with I didn't happen upon your posts; every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system which, frankly, is an extraordinary claim, indeed, I am not going to follow this section. Cheers, and best of luck to anyone following this. Collect (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of rights and wrongs, "every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system" is correct, as long as he has the "mention" box checked. Mogism (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the post did not mention him by name at all. ESP notification? Collect (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it did, and the notification system duly notified me. --John (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blown up at another user once or twice in my day and said some intemperate things that I probably shouldn't have. But I have never blocked a user I was involved in a content dispute with. And that is what is really problematic here. Not just the word "retarded" (as unacceptable as that obviously is) but the unwillingness to see this for what it is. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED and should not have issued that block.

The only hope I see for this thread having any effect is if John sees that the community, not just me, see it as such. I don't want or expect an apology or for John to grovel at my feet or anything like that, but an acknowledgement that he did in fact violate expected norms of administrative restraint as well as civility would be nice. The user he blocked was not vandalizing the article, this was an argument over the appropriateness of a source. An argument that up until he issued the block was confined entirely to reverts and edit summaries. That is just not how we do things, and anyone who has been here more than a week knows that so I would certainly expect an admin to know better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)