Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 142 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 92 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 60 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 59 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 46 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

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

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

(Initiated 36 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 29 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	20	39
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	3	5
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	13	13

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 111 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 105 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 98 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 92 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 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)

ADMIN WANTED

Please, will one of you read over the ANI thread "Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting" and assess the situation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come on dudes and dudettes, close that thread. I'll send you Wikilove and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• The section that needs closure is at the top of ANI, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• And pizza, don't forget the pizza, for the brave admin who wants to close that quagmire. Blackmane (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - like it or hate it it's the best I could come up with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I think there is a significant WP:OWN problem with QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edits by virtually anybody else (including long0time Wikipedians like Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and me) are reverted almost immediately, and there are talk page comments such as "Reliable sources must not be deleted again" (as if Wikipedia is mandated to include every reliable source, and no editorial discretion may be used). His discussions on the talk page are terse and aggressive. I am sympathetic to a properly skeptical view of the topic, but this is not the way to do it. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some stats for edits since Jan 23, when the current run of rapid-fire editing began:

Editor               Edits
Alexbrn  . . . . . . 21
AndyTheGrump . . . . 1
AnomieBOT  . . . . . 11
BullRangifer . . . . 3
Chris the speller  . 1
Citation bot . . . . 1
DJFryzy  . . . . . . 2
Drsjpdc  . . . . . . 2
John Snow II . . . . 1
JzG  . . . . . . . . 8
Monkbot	 . . . . . . 1
Ocaasi . . . . . . . 1
Puhlaa . . . . . . . 5
QuackGuru  . . . . . 169
RexxS  . . . . . . . 1
Solomonfromfinland . 2
Vzaak  . . . . . . . 1
Grand Total  . . . . 231

Total volume of all changes over that time is 91.2kB and 56.3kB of that is QuackGuru.

QG makes so many edits in such rapid succession that it is not possible to assess them p- and if you try, he just reverts you or asserts that his version is neutral. He's had two lengthy topic bans from this very article (6 months and a year). The issues described with QG's ownership, refusal to engage properly with others, and general MPOV problems, go back years with absolutely no sign of improvement - in fact quite the opposite. I suspect the first thing to be done is an indefinite topic ban from chiropractic broadly construed, also likely to be needed for acupuncture. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Even without looking at the contents of individual edits, it's obvious that we have an edit war going on here: reverts by five different people in little more than 24 hours, and since it's three versus two, it's not really a situation for a block. For this reason, I've protected the article for 24 hours. The article previously had indefinite semiprotection because of vandalism, so that should be restored when the full protection is over; JzG, could you restore it when the full protection is over? This is definitely one of the "any reasonable admin" situations mentioned at WP:INVOLVED, since you'd just be restoring the undisputed status quo; anyone else should feel free to restore it, of course. I wish we could check a box to "restore previous protection when this one expires". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. But it's actually two separate disputes. One editor is a chiro, here on the usual mission. We are perfectly used to that, Puhlaa has been active to the article since forever, trying to present the idealised form of chiro he believes in - all perfectly sincere and polite, easily managed. Now look at the number of reverts by QG, and the number of editors whose text he has reverted, which amounts to, basically, everyone other than QG and possibly the bots. I don't think protection is really needed, but it will stop the war while we sort things out, so no harm no foul :-) Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "So, do the risks outweigh the benefits? The best evidence suggests that SMT, whether it be for neck or low back pain, is a safe and effective therapy. At a population level, the benefits still outweigh the risks."[1]

This edit by Guy was a SYN violation. "Although" is SYN. These are different sources that are not connected. The part "published by practitioners" is not what the source says and this is a violation of WP:ASSERT. I think I am being unfairly targeted at ANI. Adding original research is not editorial discretion. Deleting reliable sources such as WHO is not appropriate according to a number of other editors. User:RexxS started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Is WHO guideline a MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's never alright to try to solve a dispute by an edit war, even when you're right, so kudos to Nyttend for the temporary full prot. There are several editors at the article who have long experience with dealing with topics that are on the borderline between Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Fringe. I understand that the principal dispute is not between skeptics and fringe-pushers, but (unusually) between editors on a different part of the spectrum of skepticism. Chiropractic is an awkward case because it is widely practised and generally seems to fit in with our definition of CAM and yet has an underpinning non-scientific theory that most of us would recognise as fringe. As I understand it, the locus of the dispute revolves around what parts of the article should be considered CAM and what parts fringe. I remain convinced the way to improve the article is for everybody involved to steadily work through each section of the article on the talk page and actively seek consensus on what are the best sources to use for each section. It may need third opinions and perhaps a skilled mediator, but agreeing the sources to use will make the text easy to write. The lead can be done afterwards. I don't believe that excluding good-faith editors normally leads to a better article, so I wouldn't agree to banning anybody from discussion other than as a last resort - and I don't think we've reached that point yet, no matter how much one party has annoyed the other. I've found Guy, Alex and QG to be good-faith editors, although they don't see eye-to-eye on everything. My advice is take things slowly - there's no deadline - and put the effort into finding what can be agreed and what needs third opinions. It's obvious that all parties can't have everything that they want, but equally it's not obvious that any party has to get all that they want. I recommend compromise. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In no particular order:

1. "Although" is not WP:SYN. It's grammar. I was balancing a report by chiros that says it's safe with a report from an independent source that shows they cannot possibly know that, because they have no systematic reporting of adverse events (and indeed their claim of safety is contradicted by other facts cited; they are in denial).
2. QG promotes instead a statement that "The evidence" says it's safe. "The evidence" does not. The evidence is equivocal, with chiros saying it's safe and independent investigators finding that, for example, people under 45 with strokes due to vertebral artery dissection are 3-5 times more likely to have been to a chiro in the last week.
3. Neither of those facts is relevant to the fact that QG exhibits absolutely classic WP:OWNership, and that this appears to be repeated wherever he decides to edit.
4. QG's good faith is not in dobt. His behaviour, however, is a problem. Look at the RfC. Look at the block log. Look at the past sanctions. Do not be seduced by the fallacy of false balance.
5. The fact that chiro overlaps slightly into reality-based medicine is also not relevant. It would not matter if it was abject quackery like homeopathy or a solid science-based therapy, anybody editing as QG edits, is a problem.
6. Yes, a few of us have a long history of holding back the tide of woo on Wikipedia. This isn't POV-pushing, it's m:MPOV.

So, in cases where the problem is with a several editors warring, we protect. In cases where one editor is waging a war against all comers, we sanction that editor.

QG seems to want to call a truce. I am prepared to support a 0RR restriction and a limit of ten edits per day, as an experiment. Otherwise IMO it's topic ban time, as the RfC comments propose. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that I imposed protection (rather than issuing a block) because of the edit by AndyTheGrump, who reverted a reversion of QG's edit. Had he gone the other way (i.e. reverting QG), or had he not come in at all, I expect that I would have blocked QG, but given what happened, an unwarned/undiscussed block for QG would have been inappropriate (why block just one participant?), and it would have been even worse to block one or more of the other participants in addition to QG. No comment on whether this discussion should end with sanctions for anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To explain my motivation for the revert: having seen QuackGuru's post on WP:FTN, I took a look at the article (which I'd not otherwise been involved in, beyond attempting to read it some time ago, and finding it less than coherent as I recall), the talk page, and the editing history, and gathered that there were several interrelated issues involved - but my revert was based more than anything on DJFryzy's edit summary: "{{subst:uw-vandalism3}} Please refrain from blatant bias in this article and refer to the talk page." [2] This seemed to me at the time to be inflammatory, and unlikely to help with consensus building - it should be noted that DJFryzy's last post on the talk page at that point dated back to October last year. My own edit summary was intended to point DJFryzy back to the talk page: "Undid revision 595050094 by DJFryzy (talk) please read WP:VANDAL, and explain in detail on the talk page what you consider to be wrong with the article". [3] With hindsight, this may have been a mistake in that it looked like taking sides with QuackGuru in what is clearly a complex issue, though my revert did at least succeed in bringing DJFryzy back to the talk page discussion. Whether such discussion is going to actually resolve anything, and whether my revert helped or hindered, is of course open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you check further back in the edit history you will see I am not the only editor who had a concern about the older version. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's you citing a revert to one of your versions as an endorsement of your editing behaviour, which it was not. You seem not to be able to admit that your rapid-fire editing, insistence that your POV is the only neutral POV, assertion that only your edits meet policy, reversion of everybody else and so on, are a problem. That's why we're here. You're the only one behaving that way, You're the only one changing a substantial proportion of the article in dozens of successive edits, too quickly for independent editors to review your work, and reflexively reverting any modification to your text. That's WP:OWN. I was rolling back over 30 edits by you in quick succession making substantial changes to a mature article whose neutrality was disputed only by advocates of the quack therapy in question.

That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. For you, it's bold, revert anyone who changes or reverts your boldness, and discuss only in the minimum terms necessary to assert that only you are right. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about QuackGuru (QG). On the one hand QG is generally civil and content focussed; but the manner of editing is such that it often seems to turn Wikipedia into an inefficient place for other editors. I find that if QG gets going on an article, I tend to back off because I know my time can be used more efficiently elsewhere.
• An example of this can be found in the GERAC articles, which were hotly disputed for a long time. The dispute centered on the amount of low-level medical detail the article should contain, with QG in the camp that opposed including that detail. This bubbled-over onto AN/I[4] and at FT/N[5] with QG eventually being persuaded by Guy Macon to start an RFC. This duly took place with consensus ending up on QG's side: less detail should be included. But now the bizarre twist. Since this section here on AN has been started, QG has approached two editors, Middle 8 and Mallexikon, in the opposing "camp" (who had jointly initiated a RFC/U on him) and offered it seems to reverse his position ("please revert ALL the edits I made" [6] / "Truce"[7]). This whole idea of a "truce" speaks of a battleground mentality. What is going on here? Are two editors being "allowed" their desired content in exchange for backing-off on an RFC/U? Were those thousands of bytes spent on the article Talk page, two noticeboards and an RfC just part of a game? This is not how WP should be edited, I think.
• Finally, it is annoying that despite being asked not to, QG uses the {{cite pmid}} template all the time on medical articles, which isn't in line the MOSMED and which makes the work of other editors harder. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru is an interesting, difficult editor who is highly detail-oriented (for better and for worse), sometimes productive, with intense tendentiousness and IDHT beyond belief (see current RfC). I don't mean to pile on, and I don't think he's a bad guy on the whole; he's just a net liability. I think his main challenge (WP:COMPETENCE) is social: he blanks everything on his talk page; he nitpicks every edit and there is just no talking to him, per Guy above; instead of productive discussion he generates endless iterations of IDHT and stilted, declarative sentences, and cascades of edits that get way ahead of consensus. His comments on my talk page asking me to revert all his edits were odd, and in a curious section (re the RfC), but I don't know if they reflect a battleground mentality or if he's just stressed and freaked. He seems to be contemplating a long wikibreak from some of the topic areas where he's had conflict. That's good, but if history is any indication, regardless of wikibreaks or temporary sanctions, he'll eventually be back with the exact same issues. There have been multiple RfC's, AN/I threads etc. over the years, and his conduct never changes. We should act. Suggest an indef topic ban (chiro and acu at least; likely all alt-med, maybe all science and health), including talk pages. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of when someone needs to be topic banned. Let's get it done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just give an edit restriction of something like one edit per day to article space? Why topic ban? He does good work, by all acknowledgments. This can be seen by the fact that he riles the pseudoscientists the most. jps (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The corollary to that is, if someone who supports the reality-based view still manages to piss me off, then they are doing something very badly wrong. I am really quite outspoken when it comes to quacks and charlatans. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not extensively familiar with QuackGuru's editing, but looking over the discussion there appears to be agreement that: 1) QuackGuru is editing in good faith, and at least sometimes he is making productive edits; 2) QuackGuru is not engaging other editors productively. So the ideal solution is to curb #2 without hindering #1. Depending on the crux of the problem, that could include a 0RR restriction, a restriction on the number of edits per day, or discretionary sanctions. Would it be possible to try one of those prior to instituting a topic ban, with the understanding that further problems (especially gaming his restrictions) would result in stricter sanctions?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar, and can tell you that we've tried a bunch of provisional stuff (cf. history here), and eventually QG always bounces back with the same problems. Gaming? He blanks all attempts at communication on his talk page and repeatedly (repeatedly!) IDHT's. But mostly I think it's a social competence thing. At some point we have to stop worrying about losing an editor's talents, especially when other editors can do the same work without the tendentiousness. IMHO we have reached that point when an editor is a net liability and has been so for years despite multiple attempts to help. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 09:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)That being said, QG has actually gradually changed for the better; he's had no blocks since '09 (block log), most of the RfC's/ANI threads/etc are pre-2010, with a pseudoscience topic ban in 2011 as part of Arbitration enforcement. Some finite sanction may be OK; I just can't figure out what to make of stuff like the "truce" thing above, and this. Sincere? Gamey? This is active: WP:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess has hit the nail on the head. The knee-jerk reaction that Wikipedia tends to have ("ban, ban, ban!") needs to be applied only when users are adding no value at all. Since people agree that QG adds value, there needs to be another option. That the waters are being muddied by Middle 8 who, in spite of being paid to do acupuncture, changes the content of articles on acupuncture to promote the subject in blatant violation of WP:COI, does not help matters here. In response to Guy's concern, I admit that I have also been pissed off by users of Wikipedia who I think generally do good work and are generally in-line with what I think should be done on this website. I don't want to see any of them to be banned, however. The ones I want to see banned are those who add no value. jps (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, you rather like bans, just for editors you think are unhelpful. A lot of things have been tried with QG, bans and otherwise... and he has indeed gradually improved... and I don't know what does or doesn't work. Re me: Seriously? Wikipedia has never made one's profession (as opposed to one's employer) a basis for WP:COI; do we really want to? Seems like a mind-blowingly stupid thing for an encyclopedia to say that professionals shouldn't edit their own areas of expertise! I think you're unfairly singling out acupuncture as a venue for possible self-promotion (e.g., health-care turf wars), and I'm confident that you're mischaracterizing my edits, possibly because your biases are so intense that you can't even identify good sources for acupuncture (that per consensus at WT:MEDRS). (sigh) But that (COI) is for a different noticeboard - specifically: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This does not really apply to quackery: to be able to write neutrally about homeopathy, acupuncture or chiropractic would require that you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that they are placebo interventions based on incorrect views of human physiology. It would be impossible to accept this and still practice, unless you were an out-and-out charlatan. Most are not: they are deluded, but sincerely so. Guy (Help!) 01:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, except that I was specifically referring to acupuncture, since that seemed to be what Middle 8 was referring to. I can't say that I'm up on the scientific literature on acupuncture, but it was my impression that the impossibility of double-blind tests meant that it wasn't considered to be the equivalent of homeopathy or chiropractic, and that there was still some doubt about the actual effects of the practice not due to the placebo effect. As I said, I'm well prepared to be told that I'm wrong, and that the latest scientific studies have shown it to be totally ineffective. (And, BTW, there's also an in-between place where a practice such as acupuncture might create certain effects, but for totally different reasons then given by acupuncturists. Again, I'm not saying that's the case, but it stands to reason that putting needles into the human body would provoke some kind of physical response which doesn't have anything to do with the flow of qi through the body.) BMK (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You should look at research into sham acupuncture. It shows somewhat conclusively that acupuncture's positive benefits cannot be distinguished from the placebo effect. jps (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's a little bit of a biased view... I would recommend to just read the efficacy section of the acupuncture article; there's actually quite a few reviews documenting that acupuncture works better than placebo for certain pain conditions (the argument is basically over whether the effect is clinically meaningful). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The claims that "real" acupuncture is more effective against pain that "sham" acupuncture are all based on designs that were not double blind. When you double blind, it's pretty clear that acupuncture is wholesale quackery. jps (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(detailed reply removed.) This really isn't the venue for such a debate; see Talk:Acupuncture.--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block based on current record of disruption and past block log.[8] Screw the topic ban. I don't give a flying fuck about acupuncture or any other topic du jour QuackGuru is obsessed with today, I'm just sick of seeing him edit war and revert on every single article without discussing calmly with other editors on the talk page. He just isn't suited for Wikipedia, end of story. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't generally agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so I would disagree that QG should be indef blocked.BMK (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Depends on how unique the baby is; QG's skills aren't in short supply. In fact his literature-search skills, supposedly his forté, is questionable: here, QG deleted a meta-analysis because its authors also referred to it as a "study", which he thought meant it must be a primary source. He kept arguing this semantic point despite evidence to the contrary (see archived thread and scroll down to "it was a study. Failed MEDRS.".) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I restored the 2013 meta-analysis but with neutrally written text as discussed on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Because of recent retaliatory behavior I'm leaning back toward indef ban. Busy now but will post diffs later. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing article content. You and Mallexikon claimed I skewed the facts but you are refusing to say what the problem is. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block One does not get blocked just because they have made the most edits. QG was trying to bring the article to GA per here[9] A noble but overly ambicious goal as these topic is horribly controversial. Having written dozens of GAs myself, I know that these usually take about 500 edits. I usually make them all within a couple of weeks. To have someone come along and try to use this as evidence is crazy. Doc James(talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit restriction rather than ban

I think this option should be discussed at the very least. The "all or nothing" approach to complete banning or being given complete free reign at this website needs to be re-evaluated in situations like this. One possibility is to request that QG should only edit articles once per day. This would address some of JzG's overwhelmed by edits concerns. jps (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Given this article is covered by discretionary sanctions, AE might also be a good place to go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the recent comments by QG in this debate, I think it's unlikely to work. Put bluntly, he seems to be incapable of allowing for the possibility that his interpretation might be anything other than the sole correct one. You could argue that he improves the articles, but you could also argue that he doesn't (obviously, since there are several other active editors with no obvious commitment to the subject whose edits he's nonetheless reverting). I think his edits are a curate's egg, and his behaviour s uniformly problematic. The fact that we are here again after the previous topic bans suggests this behaviour is inherent or dispositional. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Callanecc makes a good point about, AE, Guy. Also, I wish that Wikipedia was more prone to trying alternatives to ban, ban, ban, but I know I'm in the minority on that one. jps (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I do appreciate your feedback on your talk page. I am discussing a truce with you and I do accept the edits by other editors to chiropractic and other articles. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the way I use Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jps, you are not alone in hat view, I am happy to consider things like 1RR restrictions and such, but this has been a problem with QG since 2006, I don't think it's fixable. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have incredible sympathy for QG if it's the timeline that is supposed to be the compelling reason. People can (and do) make a similar argument about whether I should be blocked/banned from this website. In any case, my suggestion was not 1RR which doesn't really address the totality of your concerns. My suggestion was an edit restriction of one edit per article per day. That would slow things down considerably. Have you mulled that over at all? jps (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) Recidivism isn't something I'm real sympathetic about; (b) there would have to be talk page restrictions too; he's massively disruptive there. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

JzG lists on his user talkpage the following issues:

• Large numbers of substantial changes, overwhelming anyone else's ability to review them
• Reflex reversion of any edits to your text
• Behaving as if you WP:OWN the article
• Dysfunctional communication with other users, rarely extending beyond terse assertions that you are right

Articlespace restrictions would deal with 1), 2), and arguably 3). 4) is too vague and confusing for me to be able to understand what is being requested. QG is rarely terse. He's actually quite verbose.

jps (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed to the edit restrictions. I do agree to articlespace restrictions and I can make less comments on the talk page too. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose currently I am still looking for evidence. QC has recently caught a sockpuppet. He/she edits in a very controversial area.[10] The last thing we need to do is restrict people who are willing to deal with the sockpuppetry that occurs here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do I hear quacking?

It has been pointed out that QG's edit focus, style and behaviour is a very close match to KrishnaVindaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Certainly the earliest edits by QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not those of a newcomer, starting not very long after KV was blocked and immediately commencing a high level of activity. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to have the right username there, Guy. We have no KrishnaVindalo. There is a User:Krishnavedala, but he's never been blocked, and seems to edit on entirely different subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. That'll be the one - I'd been searching for 'User:Krishna...', and Vindaloo has no User page, so didn't show up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The other user referenced here has not edited for more than seven years. I'm not sure why it would be relevant to this thread. I imagine CU would be declined on the basis of such a stale concern. jps (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CU would probably be irrelevant; he's probably switched ISP's and/or moved at least once. But QG is almost certainly KrishnaVindaloo. That characteristic writing style... topic areas edited... how he responds in various situations.... no question, in my mind. FWIW. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether this is KV or not? QG has been editing quite long enough for us to decide, based entirely on edits to that account, whether he/she is a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

+1. I suggest that this line is rather irrelevant. If we were having this discussion in 2007 or 2008 maybe this might be fruitful. But, to quote the previous US Secretary of State, "What difference does it make?" jps (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jps, what about, let's say, as recently as May 2013, when you were using sock puppets to edit war while simultaneously requesting an unblock? Does that make any difference? After all, you were unblocked even though you were using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia. Why does there seem to be an exception made for editors like you and QuackGuru to disrupt the encyclopedia while other editors are indefinitely blocked and never heard from again? I know the answer, of course. It's because you and QuackGuru are promoting "THE TRVTH". It's so funny and ironic how you guys are almost indistinguishable from the pseudoscience and woo-spouting editors you claim to be fighting against. Both of you guys claims to know the truth and admins protect, encourage, and enable you to wage this campaign. QuackGuru's blitzkrieg tactics would be unacceptable from any other editor, but because he's doing it on behalf of WikiProject Medicine, it's OK. The hypocrisy is not only unbelievable here, it's evident to other editors and demonstrates that the community is corrupt and unwilling to enforce policies across the board in a fair and equal way. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not KrishnaVindaloo. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So, what we have is:

• A combative, WP:OWN-violating editor
• Who is the subject of an ongoing RfC for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Who has already been sanctioned multiple times for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Who is still indef-blocked under his previous account for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Whose primary response to any attempt to address his combative, WP:OWN-violating behaviour is to assert that he is right.

We've got nearly 8 years of history on this editor. If there is improvement, then the pace of said improvement is glacial. I'm not minded to waste much more energy on this unless someone feels like mentoring him (and I suspect that will be a high maintenance task). Guy (Help!) 15:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked under a previous account and I do not have a previous account. As I said I will change and make smaller edits to articles and change the way I use Wikipedia. I want a truce and I do accept your suggestion for someone to mentor me. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should Enact a Ban and/or block (possibly Indefinite) because what I think is that he is thinking that just because he is also a good editor, It means he can not be Banned/blocked. This is actually doing the exact opposite! Behavior like this is uncalled for when done by any user, let alone a user who also makes good contributions! We can not let this continue! Happy Attack Dog (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog has been here for 13 days and made 53 edits, only 6 of which are to articles. I suggest that he or she doesn't reallyhave standing to comment on this matter. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As QG has been blocked and banned in the past, I seriously doubt that he believes he cannot be banned/blocked. jps (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• BullRangifer said in December 2009 that QuackGuru's behavior was "exactly, to a T, the same as the behavior exhibited by the indef banned KrishnaVindaloo... so much so that I have always suspected that QG was a sock of that disruptive user." Unomi agreed. An Arbitration Request for Enforcement was filed against QuackGuru but checkuser would have been of no help after three years, and nothing came of it. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment So people are trying to use a block back in 2006 by no other than Guy (User:JzG) himself as justification to block QG now? Wow. My mind spins. Guy has 5 of his own blocks. Counting previous blocks is not justification for a further block. Is there any current evidence of sockpuppetry by QG in the last year? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hum we seem to have a number of people who disagree with QG position and have a long history of an adversarial position with him or her attempting to have them banned. When people make statement like "notoriously difficult editor who now seems to be on an anti-acupuncture crusade, to the point that he is willing to skew the facts" and than they try to create a ""skeptic faction" [11]. Anyway this should be closed and discussion continued on the RfC User. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have no history of adversarial editing with QuackGuru at all.[12][13] Let's face the facts. WikiProject Medicine depends on disruptive editors like QuackGuru for their blitzkrieg approach. Don't think for a minute that QuackGuru isn't coordinating with them to help them push out any editor who dares to deviate from their POV. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow we have blitzkrieg abilities that I didn't know about? Will definitely have to look into that :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the 2006 block is not a reason to ban. But the long-term conduct, including evading that block, may be. And I am not sympathetic towards quackery, this is rather easy to verify. I'm happy to have cleared this up for you. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Great glad we are on the same. Also not a big fan of unfounded claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• We indeed have recent evidence here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#WP:IDHT. It is an entire thread (less than 90 days old, and for which a complete set of diffs will be submitted: Rate of serious adverse events (from Talk:Acupuncture, stable version as of Feb. 14, 2014). If this doesn't indicate a problem with QG's recent conduct, I don't know what would. It's longish, but that's the point: the IDHT is protracted and is much more apparent as a full thread. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon

Here these two make the claim that QG is "Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias" [14]. The evidence is this dif [15] were QG adds

In 2006, German researchers published the results of one of the first, largest controlled randomized clinical trials.ref name="He-2013" As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture.ref name="He-2013" The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community.He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ben, H.; Qin, Q.; Huang, F.; Rong, P. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. 33 (3): 403–7. PMID 24024341. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

Now the claim of skewing the evidence requires a serious review. The ref is a 2013 review article. The ref is properly formatted with the cite journal template. Each line has the ref attached and the content added is just enough paraphrased from the source in question to not be a copyright violation. If one reads the paper in question it supports the content in question. This is what we want editors to do.

Now QG and the two user User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon have been at odds for some time. Making false unsupported claims such as they have done above should not be tolerated IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban for these two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if we Used A indefinite topic ban on QG that this would curve the problem. Anything more by him could result in a Site ban. But then We would have to look out for sock puppetry. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog has been here for 13 days and made 53 edits, only 6 of which are to articles. I suggest that he or she doesn't reallyhave standing to comment on this matter. BMK (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the claims made have not be justified there does not appear to be any reason to ban QG. The ones making the unjustified claims on the other hand... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oops - For the record: Doc James correctly points out that one of the diffs[16] doesn't match the claim given. This was accidental;edit: I we failed to catch it before certifying. Mallexikon is more familiar with this than I am, but IIRC, the dispute had to do with QG wanting this, to the exclusion of the additional sources in e.g. this (although the larger context was that in these trials, acupuncture was no better than a placebo). The proper diff(s) will be provided ASAP at which point the Doc may wish to reconsider his comments above and at his outside view at the RfC. I do apologize, and accept the trout 'o shame, for this mistake and the misunderstanding it caused. And Doc... be a little less hasty with your WP:BOOMERANG, OK? We could have worked it out at the talk page level; there was no need to escalate. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Further note - Ironically, at GERAC, QG's anti-acu bias was making it harder to include detail that explained how the trials in fact showed real acu to be no better than sham (placebo) acu, and that initial reports in the media that "acupuncture works for low back pain!!" were wrong. Apparently, QG fixated on those inaccurate reports and thus assumed the article was a pro-acu WP:COATRACK.[17][18] QG thus was against including much experimental detail,[19], while Mallexikon [20] and I [21] wanted it in there so that even slightly science-literate readers could follow.[22][23]. (And yes, this kind of evidence belongs in the RfC.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you are going to make claims against other editors you need to have difs of poor quality edits. Trying to use diffs of really good edits and then claiming they are bad really hurts your arguments. Anyway the last thing we need is someone who is involved trying to force this closed. Definitely not cool and not winning those attempting to ban QG support.
• Anyway if the desire to deal with issues it would likely help to remove all the old evidence and all the unfounded claims from the RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• CORRECTION - Mallexikon just explained what actually happened. [24]. I'm very surprised. [25] So now, in addition to my earlier apology for not adequately proofreading the RfC, I apologize for assuming that Mallexikon's used of evidence was obviously accidental, when it was in fact just improperly handled, i.e. incomplete. Oy vey... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support The RfC request appears an attempt to remove a figure who opposes the POV of Middle 8 and Mallexikon. Not only did it fail to distinguish very old diffs from the new "evidence", the new evidence is now shown to be demonstrably false. I would wager that their bias has got in the way during this escapade rather than any malicious intent but nonetheless a real issue exists, Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)
• Support The encyclopedia is an easy target for WP:CPUSH activists, and the acupuncture topics do not need constant nurturing from those promoting its wonders. Mistakes happen, but such a mistake in this context is not to be swept under the carpet. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose transparent attempt to block editors who actually know something about the subject. I also oppose the transparent attempt to ignore the major disruption caused to the encyclopedia by QuackGuru on behalf of WikiProject Medicine. According to QuackGuru and DocJames, experts are scum if and only if they edit from a different POV. Both Middle 8 and Mallexikon have never been blocked, while QuackGuru has been blocked at least 13 times for disrupting Wikipedia.[26] It is time to end the constant disruption by indefinitely blocking QuackGuru, not by sanctioning the opposing POV of editors who have no history of disruption. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, just a couple more times than your 10 blocks [27] but some of yours have been more recent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And my blocks are relevant how in a discussion about QuackGuru's disruption? Troll much, Doc James? Middle 8 and Mallexikon have never been blocked, unlike QuackGuru. There is no rationale for a topic ban on either of them, but quite a precedent for an indefinite block for QuackGuru. If that isn't clear, feel free to distract us once again with another red herring by bringing up my block log. I don't mind. I worked hard for those blocks and I earned them. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban by WP:CPOV & WP:COI editors. BMK (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry for the misunderstanding - Surprised to see the supports, given that this was a good-faith error. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc James may want to AGF and reword his outside view accordingly. I posted a special notice on the RfC about it[28], but since IRWolfie-/Second Quantization moved it[29], editors may not have understood that this was a good-faith accident. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This claim against QG is still not supported by diffs and has not been withdraw. The claim is just a link to a comment by Mallexikon which contains comments verging on incivility were he says "disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts" [30] with no diffs to support the comments that are verging on incivility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GQ chose to mention the GERAC trials at the acupuncture trial. The GERAC are notable because they led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services of Germany's statutory health insurers (this fact has been emphasized on the GERAC talk page again and again. It was also the reason why GERAC survived AfD. Doc James knows this. QG knows this). But GQ chose only add this to the acupuncture article: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." If you don't like to call this "skewing the facts", what do you call it then? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that "Doc James knows this" except I am Doc James and I didn't until reading it now. So add it based on a reliable source. And problem solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on COI -- Mallexikon has no potential COI here. He's noted repeatedly on the RfC talk page that he doesn't make money from Acupuncture/TCM [31][32][33], but jps has refused[34][35][36] to redact his assertion[37] on the RfC page (see: Outside view by jps). This compounds the error above by suggesting further bad faith (or COI) on the part of the RfC certifiers. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• One can be a civil POV-pusher without having a financial interest in the subject. True believers do it frequently. The basis for the suggest topic ban is not COI, it's making false claims in support of a fringe POV. BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• @BMK, I think you'll need more than just one diff to support that last contention. :-) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Newsflash: in the real world, outside of the basement dwellers on Wikipedia, neither chiropractic treatment nor acupuncture are considered "fringe" by medical practitioners. By all accounts, they are deeply part of mainstream culture and the health care ecosystem. Whether they are effective or not is another matter, and that debate is not limited to alternative medicine, as there are many regimens and procedures associated with mainstream medicine that fall out of favor every day as more evidence becomes available. Whatever your opinion is, acupuncture and chiropractic treatment are used in traditional medical environments throughout the world. Wikipedia has a tendency to promote and advance the views of extreme skeptics who often violate the NPOV policy in order to promote one side over another. That's not how Wikipedia works. Yes, there is a debate about whether these types of alternative medical practices "work" but that debate is also found in mainstream medicine. Medicine is more of an art than a science, and this debate reflects that problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Last time I looked we don't judge whether a subject is "fringe" by how many ordinary people believe in it, we judge science by scritific standards, and medicine by medical and scientific standards. It is irrelevant whether Sally and her Uncle Fred get relief from visiting the acupuncturist or the chiropractor (there's this thing called the placebo effect which can work near miracles), unless the scientific and medical community say that the effect is caused by the "therapy", it ain't mainstream. And that's not just the case here in the Wikipedia basement, it's true in every institution of science and most institutes of medicine in the world. BMK (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chiropractic and acupuncture are most certainly considered mainstream, so you must be living in the past. They are covered by most major health insurance plans and physicians will often recommend them for specific problems. With that said, their efficacy is in dispute, as are many accepted mainstream practices and drug regimens. You appear to be appealing to Wikipedia's perspective on what is fringe rather than the external world outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fellow editors this is not the place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, indignantly - I explained my allegation of QG skewing the facts at the RfC/U in this diff (Talk:Acupuncture#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I), which reads:

  "User:QuackGuru was kind enough to add some material about the German acupuncture trials here... You know, the set of large trials that resulted in acupuncture being added to the list of reimbursable services in the German statutory health system. Interestingly, the text that was added by QG reads: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." I try to AGF in this case, but unfortunately I know that QG knows that the GERAC resulted in acupuncture being reimbursable in Germany (as we have been working on that article together)... To leave this tiny fact out, and instead only present the side-note material about some health insurances allegedy not reimbursing acupuncture anymore and alleged negative impact on the international community, is a disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts. I know we have our differences in perspective here, but there're some rules for chrissake. If you're willing to skew the facts in this way, maybe you should stop for a minute and ask yourself whether your POV got the better of you."

Now I guess Doc James simply didn't read this - that's a little embarrassing. Or he did read it and didn't get it - that's even more embarrassing. But for accusing me of a "false claim" I'd actually like an apology. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So why did you not add further text than? If you did and it was supported by a high quality source and QC removed it than there might be a bit of a case. But right now I still see unsubstantiated claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GQ chose to mention the GERAC trials at the acupuncture trial. The GERAC are notable because they led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services of Germany's statutory health insurers (this fact has been emphasized on the GERAC talk page again and again. It was also the reason why GERAC survived AfD. Doc James knows this. QG knows this). But GQ chose only add this to the acupuncture article: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." If you don't like to call this "skewing the facts", what do you call it then? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the current text: The German acupuncture trials were a series of nationwide acupuncture trials set up in 2001 and published in 2006 on behalf of several German statutory health insurance companies due to a dispute as to the usefulness of acupuncture.[185] The trials were considered to be one of the largest clinical studies in the field of acupuncture.[185] As a result of the trials, acupuncture was paid for in Germany by the social insurance scheme for only low back pain and osteoarthritis of the knee.[186] This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons.[186] However, as a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[187] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community.[187] See Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I did not skew the facts. Mallexikon, you are not assumed good faith and the evidence is against you here. You and Middle 8 did not attempt to improve or expand the text. I expanded the text and added in more information. So what is the current problem with the text? I started a discussion after I made my initial edit to the section for feedback. Middle 8 did not have a problem with the text in that section at that time. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11#Legal and political status recent edits. I recently discussed this on the talk page again. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. I also started a discussion in the RfC. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you expanded the text and thanks for that. However, you did so only after I protested at the talk page. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not called "protesting at the talk page" its called bringing forwards other high quality sources and created balances text based on all the best available evidence. This is how Wikipedia is supported to work. User A adds text based on one high quality source they have found. Other users bring other high quality sources and the text get altered further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. QG knew that the GERAC are notable for resulting in acupuncture being reimbursable by virtual all German health insurers. But his summary of the GERAC was: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments. The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community". That is skewing of facts, even if he has a source. But it makes acupuncture look bad of course, and I guess that's why he's getting so much applause and encouragement here. Cause the end justifies the means, right? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• This suggestion is utterly fatuous and an egregious violation of WP:POINT. The determination to have this fatuous discussion in spite of these obvious facts, is worrying. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We do not block people based on the amount they contribute. And incivility such as you claiming I'm an idiot here does not move the discussion forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if Mallexikon's and my errors in presenting evidence have worsened the signal-to-noise ratio here. I agree that other editors may be trying to exploit this, though. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Guy: Has it escaped your notice that this suggested sanction has received more support than any of the sanctions proposed against QG? Or that no one has endorsed the views of the instigators of the RFC/U? Or that equal numbers of editors are supporting pro-QG outside views as are supporting anti-QG views? All of this means that the facts, which seem so clear to you, are seen differently by other people, and that there is noting in the least "fatuous" or pointy in the proposed sanction. Your suggestion seems utterly lacking in AGF. BMK (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• So far nobody has endorsed the gentle outcomes sought in the RfC. That is true. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 08:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentle? Your suggested outcome is to remove QG and that you be left to divy up the article. Second Quantization (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• On the fence at this moment because I'm having a bit of a dilemma. We certainly wants to send a clear message to people who twist other people's words or made wrongful accusations out of thin air (and maybe this block sets a precedent for future violators). But blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef siteblock, for Middle 8 only - Longstanding behavior pattern of excessive editing in topic areas unlikely to change, despite extensive feedback. Please take action. Sincerely, --Middle 8's family (leave him alone • don't talk to him) 09:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that these guys have no reason to be banned whatsoever, why are we even worrying about them? The real problem is QuackGuru. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The above editor has been here for 14 days, and has 54 edits, only 6 of them to articles. Their lack of experience should be taken into account when assessing their !vote. BMK (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR ==> statuslabs.com

From [38] “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards. This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”

According to the Signpost In Briefs section Wiki-PR has changed its name to Status Labs [39]. Checking the new site it's clear that it's the same company, using the same software, same style, some of the same boilerplate text. You can still check the old site for comparison [40]. I'd just like to make sure that the ban applies to "Status Labs" as well so I've added Status Labs to the Wiki-PR entry at WP:List of banned users

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the ban extends to new names and urls, etc. Did we ever end up using filters or such to help keep an eye out for this group? If so, those may need updating as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the ban extends to any subsequent incarnation of the group, the founder, or any traceable derivative. For clarity, because they can be expected to seize upon whatever arguments against us they can imagine, it might be well to re-enact the ban saying so in no uncertain terms. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me reiterate some of the wording: ...derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned.... This makes it clear that the ban is meant for the organisation and its people, regardless of the name they use. Should someone actively seek an expansion of the ban so that it "officially" covers the organisation regardless of its name, I'll support (there's no way that it would hurt to expand it), but I don't think an expansion necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a fair interpretation to say that the ban also covers "Status Labs". Different name, same folks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Interaction ban between User:Rusted AutoParts and User:TreCoolGuy

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

---

I am requesting that, in addition to the newly created guidelines for Rusted AutoParts to follow from his most recent block (which can be read up on starting here), I am requesting that an interaction ban be added between him and TreCoolGuy. This was fueled by the discussion Rusted started on February 13 on Tre's page (here), but this whole situation stems from "bad blood" as it were, since Rusted started an SPI into Tre, and after the initial result, kept going back to it. With the short leash Rusted is on now, I think this will help him try to improve, as he has stated he intends to, and will also help for Tre, who has been an offender of 3RR in his own right, but that's for a different discussion. If any other diffs or info location is needed, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. gsk 21:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - yep. Both parties need to step away from each other - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. I mainly just wanted to know why the user felt the need to plaster my user page with my block notice. Rusted AutoParts 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, and good to see you back Rusted. I hope things go well for you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - TreCoolGuy 14 February 2014
• Support - But why did someone not just report TreCoolGuy to WP:AIV after vandalizing User:Rusted AutoParts's userpage, as he had already received a final warning (can be found in their talk page history). This user has a long disruptive editing history as Favre1fan93, among many others can attend do. STATic message me! 01:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Looks like it is best to have an interaction ban. Ethically^Yours! 16:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - if it wasn't for the fact it is mostly stale, I would also support a hefty block on TreCoolGuy for the userpage vandalism, and for their explanation being "First of all I can explain the first one, you humiliated me infront of everyone on Wiki by calling me a Sock puppet and showing that I was suspended for a period of time. I just wanted you to know how that feels." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose a block for TreCoolGuy, why don't you make a separate section (or subsection) for that? I would not oppose that. While involved in the previous discussion as STATicVapor mentioned, my only concern with this section was for the interaction ban. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given the interaction with the user on my talkpage, I'm concerned about their clear lack of WP:COMPETENCE, but not enough to start another thread on them just yet (an example: they thought I was calling for a permanent block, which I clearly wasn't.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I see that. Happened on STATic's page too. Competence is the major issue many of us in the discussion I linked (and others) are having. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Yep, looks like there's a lot of disruption that can be solved perfectly with an IBAN (no sarcasm in there). Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil discussion by User:Sean.hoyland

User:Sean.hoyland appears to be wikihounding and violating WP:Civility. He has made matters worse by impeding honest efforts at dispute resolution. He appears unable to control his battleground behavior. His comments are in clear violation of civility, namely, by "making snide comments, making personal remarks about editors, and being aggressive." He recently put me in the same category as "advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, and others who "deny the existence of evidence." (See WP:NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. [See also Godwin's law.]") I have done nothing to deserve such attacks.

• As can be seen, I have voiced concerns politely and made an honest effort to engage in discussion in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state, but he has responded aggressively to dispute resolution of a reasonable disagreement. It is an honest discussion that does not show any signs of WP:NOTADVOCATE, for which he cites as his reason for rejected any form of DR.[redacted]
• He said I and another editor lack "basic behavioral attributes," but never explained what he means, for his reason not to resolve the dispute.[41][redacted]
• In a search for guidance, I looked for editors who are willing to volunteer to help resolve disputes. I found an admin and made a polite request for advice for this situation. User:Sean.hoyland, apparently by wikihounding, made an aggressive, uncivil, and rude comment on the editor's page after my request:

  I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. ... I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time.

I have acted professionally and collegially and have done nothing to deserve these abrasive comments. I have sought to resolve our disagreement, but this user is making that difficult if not impossible. He cannot control his battleground behavior, and while I have remained civil he is not making an effort to engage in dispute resolution, leaving many cases at a standstill. I kindly bring this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took the time to read first 20 edits of this discussion: Talk:Israel#Palestinian state. Precision123 is performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in re-opening the unfamous case that West Bank and Gaza Strip would not be Palestinian (occupied) territories but disputed territories per WP:NPov. I can understand that the way he insists despite the responses that he receives could upset and make many lose their temper. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  (edit) And I lost my time. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no civil POV pushing at all. There are no fringe theories that I push or give any weight to. I fully support describing the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. My position is against the POV pushing of "State of Palestine" on the borders. I fully support that the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the reliable sources do not refer to those territories as the state of Palestine. (Same with most WP articles). Please do not make those accusations. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why Pluto2012 is bringing up an unrelated edit that is a year old, to which I have made no further edits since. Pluto2012's edit was just quickly removed by another editor there just now, so I am not sure what his grievance is. I have made many improvements to articles of political parties (e.g., Hatnuah, Meretz, Likud, Green Movement, Ale Yarok, Yesh Atid, Shas, etc.) virtually all of them uncontroversial and accepted by editors still today. You may see. No accusations of POV pushing before. This is not related, so please stay on topic. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:, you want to see civil POV pushing by Precision123 just look here: Talk:Haaretz.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is another case where Precision123 tries to make a case out of nothing against Sean.hoyland. Start being a useful contributor and you will surely get better replies and cooperation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please allow the admins to respond and read for themselves. This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. The diffs speak for themselves. A lack of civility and effort to cooperate is apparent. I have always been a useful and professional contributor and have been civil, so please leave your personal attacks to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 says This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. WP:WIAPA says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. What's wrong with this picture?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have used several diffs pointing to specific incidents, unlike the other editors' comments, including yours. Please avoid accusations and let the admins see for themselves. I have acted professionally and have done nothing to deserve rude remarks or aggressive comparisons to Holocaust deniers when I politely request dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precision123 needs to be more concise—the opening paragraph is filled with irrelevant links (people here know what "intelligent design" is, and come to think of it, they know what CIVIL is as well). I looked at the first link that appeared to be about the issue, and found a perfectly civil and helpful comment from Sean Hoyland, currently visible here. The comment may be regarded as a little blunt, but all editors who have met WP:CPUSH contributors know that mediation is a waste of time in certain cases. My recommendation would be for Precision123 to examine the message in the comment and evaluate whether any of it may have merit. Wikipedia is not available for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was trying to be as inclusive as I could, but I will take your advice. My concern is over an editor who essentially acts a stumbling block to dispute resolution as could be seen there. I have not done anything to be put in categories with people like Holocaust denier, intelligent design advocates, etc., with whom mediation might actually be worthless. Rather, I want to pursue dispute resolution, and this editor just responds abrasively and rudely to me. --Precision123 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, can you please stop editing your remarks after people have responded to them? It's extremely confusing for everyone who's trying to follow the conversation, if anyone still is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was confusing for you. I put a note that says [redact] because I took the advice to make it more concise. I do not want my statement to be misconstrued. Never would I do anything like POV push (civil or otherwise), and there is no evidence that I have. Dispute resolution is between editors who do not agree, not between those who do. All I ask for is an honest discussion, and an editor should respond in a manner that is civil. Responding so aggressively to a polite request for DR is disruptive and unfair. --Precision123 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not trying it get involved in admin matters or even know if I'm aloud to post here. If I'm not my apologies. Sean Hoyland isn't patting anyone on the butt and tucking them in good night but he's hardly breached civility. I'm involved with this dispute or or least the one involving regarding Israel. Sean maybe a stumbling block for dispute resolution. But all avenues of dispute resolution used have been optional. I hate to assume bad faith but that is all can assume here. I have to ask you Precision if this is an effort to get Sean out of the way temporarily so that you can have a better chance at forcing a consensus. Again my apologies administrators if I shouldn't have posted here. As party involved in the dispute that lead to this I thought would be appropriate. Echo me if I'm required here for anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not at all, Serialjoepsycho. I would love to cooperate with him or any other editor in dispute resolution. I have never requested that he be blocked. As you can see I am understandably offended by such abrasive comments; I did nothing to deserve them and it is disrupting an honest effort at dispute resolution. But I did not want him to be blocked or banned. We have a reasonable disagreement that is best guided by an admin or mediator. I think that would be great for all of us if he were to engage, and did not impede, dispute resolution. I am sorry if that was not clear before. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page, Precision123's behavior here and elsewhere, I have imposed an ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions 1-week article ban on Precision123 editing Israel and its talk page. He is acting politely and within administrative channels, but in a persistently disruptive manner in which he is acting as if the others around him cannot have a valid differing viewpoint. This is not collegial; we do not require everyone sing Kumbaya and agree on the real world positions, but we do require that you respect that others can have differing opinions and that those are valid and need to be respected. Merely holding a differing opinion is not grounds for administrative challenges or disruptive behavior, even if those are done very politely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not previously familiar with WP:ARBPIA, or if I were in the past, I've forgotten it. Are you doing this under the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, the remedy 6)? Not challenging, just seeking to be clear, especially since Arbcom's repealed some findings and provisions as well as enacting others that weren't originally included. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, standard discretionary sanctions are now enabled on all PIA articles. They enable any uninvolved administrator to warn any editor who they believe is editing in a disruptive manner in the field, which was done twice earlier this year for Precision123. Once warned, any uninvolved administrator can article or topic ban, etc. etc. Arbitration enforcement DS admin actions are not subject to one-admin overturn, but can be appealed or reviewed and overturned subject to a reasonable consensus on any appropriate noticeboard (which I think is AN, ANI, or AE). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I think from looking at those differences that Sean hoyland is the cool-headed person, besides being overall a constructive editor. Precision123 on the other hand appears to be a POV pusher and his overal behavior in my opinion warrants a topic ban of some sort. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor is asking Sean to be polite:

User Sean.hoyland could first apologize for foul language and again here before making any further edits in this page. Tkuvho (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

— Tkuvho, diff

Yes, that is something that I could do. There are very many things I could do, but that is one of the things I will not be doing. This has already been explained to you at Talk:SodaStream#Reducing_policy_compliance. You are welcome to keep asking at my talk page but you will be wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe someone needs to lighten up? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My time is limited today so I'll keep it short. Precision123 made statements at AGK's talk page that misrepresented the state of affairs. My comment addressed those falsehoods. The editor has demonstrated a capacity to both ignore evidence and make false statements premised on the absence of that evidence. The existence of information in RS and the policies that describe the methods that must be used to build the encyclopedia and make content decisions based on that information have no dependency on my existence as an editor or my views about anything at all. Precision123 is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with all of the evidence without prejudice and using methods that will produce content that complies with Wikipedia's rules. Resolving the dispute requires participants to make content decisions based on all of the information available using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and Precision123 is not doing that. There is no dependency on my participation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that it's rather unusual, in my experience, for an editor in the ARBPIA topic area with Precision123's number of edits/account age to make such an effort to be seen to say the right things and exploit a wide range of noticeboards to try to get what they want while simultaneously making false statements about information and ignoring or demonstrating an aversion to subsets of reliably sourced information. Precision123's behavior incorporates a number of elements that in ARBPIA can indicate that an editor has an undisclosed editing history, that they are avoiding a block or a topic ban and have learned to exploit Wikipedia more effectively to achieve their objectives. I don't know whether that is the case here but I would like Precision123 to say whether they have used any other accounts to edit Wikipedia and declare those accounts. For example, Precision123 shares a number of statistically improbable attributes with indefinitely blocked user Shamir1. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Username violation unblocks

Hello,

As per the current procedures for admins, any unblock requests for users blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy must be followed up by a username change request by the blocked editor themselves. But shouldn't the unblock request with the suggested alternate username be itself considered to be a Username change request? For example, User_talk:8022284499VT and User_talk:Imsindia1 are two users who have been unblocked so they can have a username change. But neither submitted any such request. It has been over 3 months since the former was unblocked (and even started editing after being unblocked), and over two months since the latter was.

I think that this case might be more common than it appears, and a possible solution would be to remove the bureaucracy and do away with the explicit username change request by the unblocked user. There could be a number of ways this could be implemented, but overall, it will end up making things simpler for the new users.

Any thoughts?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've multiple times submitted username change requests on behalf of other users. Of course we can't go around submitting changes in normal circumstances (imagine I hate Camelcase. Please change this username to "Theoriginalsoni"), but when you have a new user with a problematic username, there's really nothing wrong with submitting on the other's behalf. A simple link to the unblock request should suffice at WP:CHUS; in the reason parameter, we can put in something like "Submitting on TheOriginalSoni's behalf. He got blocked for a CamelCase violation, but he submitted a request for unblock with username change to Theoriginalsoni". Unless I've figured out the other user's password or convinced the developers to play around with the contents of the database, we can't deny that the other user is asking for the change, so the diff should be sufficient evidence. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• They should be re-blocked. I typically watchlist those who I unblock for username changes. I sometimes forget to return. We don't submit for them, and it's difficult to do so. Those who return to editing using their previous name will have trouble requesting a future unblock because they already violated their promises once DP 14:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Imagine that you're one of these users. You start editing, only to learn that you've been banned because you picked a name that's not in line with some crazy rule; they tell you to pick a different name, and if it's all right, you'll be unbanned. You follow the directions and pick a different name, and you find the situation stressful enough or annoying enough that you just go away for a few days. You come back, and you get a message saying that you can edit because your choice got accepted. Hooray! This done, you go off and start editing. Now Isn't this a plausible scenario? It's easy to misunderstand what's going on, make a good-faith request, have it accepted, and wrongly assume that you did everything needed. When we're talking about new editors, we really ought to assume cluelessness in lieu of assuming broken promises, making it easier for them to comply rather than showing them the door. After all, this scenario of unblocking for username change is only done when the username is the only objection, or when the user's other objectionable actions aren't enough to warrant a block (a vandal with bad username won't be permitted to request a change), so I don't see why we should reblock or otherwise sanction them just because they didn't request the same change at two different pages. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend. If the unblock request specifies a prefered new name, and that name is acceptable under the user name policy, and is not in use, then the unblocking admin ought to file the username change request on behalf of the blocked editor. if this is difficult, then the process should be changed to make it easier. Why make new editors jump through hoops needlessly and increase the chance of problems. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Requesting a username change may seem a little intimidating, but there's actually a handy link on Wikipedia:Changing username that will take care of most of the work: Click here to place your request. Admins who do a lot of unblock-on-condition-of-rename work can click that link, enter the current and desired usernames, and save the page, and a bureaucrat will be along to take care of it. (The bot will complain that the person who submitted the request isn't the person who will be renamed, but that's nothing to worry about.) Admins aren't under any obligation to do this for the user, of course, but if any want to, just bookmark that link for future reference. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder... should someone tweak it so that any unblock pending a name change would re-block the existing account if it edits in mainspace, or after seven days, or something like that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with Nyttend and DESiegel. It's too easy for new editors to fall through the gaps; let's make it easier for them. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to unblock editors to request a namechange? That procedure seems unnecessary - the 'unblock for namechange' should (as it already has) a suggested new name, and that type of requests could then be handled by bureaucrats (instead of admins) who, solely based on the unblock-request, rename the account ánd unblock at the same time (or would the latter be out of the scope of what we expect bureaucrats to do?). In that way you don't end up with unblocked promotional usernames which do not request rename, editors with violating usernames who can edit using that account, or have to revisit cases where editors need to be reblocked because they did not carry out their suggested username change. I do however realise that this is more work for the bureaucrats - they would have to monitor a category for that (or a bot needs to transclude a username change request on behalf of such unblock requests). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(noting that declining the request can be done by others. Also, one could design a 'admin recommendation' into the system, like the 'unblock on hold' system). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• One possible solution is that if a User xyz was being unblocked by an admin for a username change, the admin could replace the {{unblock}} by something like {{unblock namechange}} instead of {{unblock reviewed}}. The new template could look something like "Your unblock request has been accepted and is waiting for a Bureaucrat to change your username", and we could have crats monitor the template the same way admins monitor unblock templates. The crats will have some additional load too, but this would probably make matters simpler. Thoughts? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good idea - doesn't add much more work for the 'crats (they simply need to monitor a single category, chekc the history to make sure that the template was added by an admin, rename the account, and unblock it). Most of our 'crats are admins, and the rest aren't because they've given it up. If someone thinks tghat monitoring that category is too much, we could even have a bot do that, filing the requests ta CHU. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea, I agree. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Careful, this is sounding too logical DP 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What's this, an AN thread with no dissenters by third response? Something is very wrong here... but not TheOriginalSoni's proposal, which sounds very sensible indeed. I've often thought that the username unblocking process required the unblocked user to jump through too many hoops; this is a neat and elegant solution. Who's going to write the template, then? Yunshui 雲‍水 15:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The primary challenge will be that if the Buro is responding on the user's talkpage to a category based on an unblock acceptance, the Buro will have to verify that it was, indeed, accepted by an admin and unblocked, and not "accepted" by the user themself (or someone else) DP 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a response to everyone: I'd happily support this idea. Just please be careful to write out good documentation, lest we admins get confused. It seems like half the username blocks are made by Daniel Case, whom I should have notified about this thread when I first saw it. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I believe it's desired to have a record of all username changes at CHU, so perhaps it's best to include a requirement for the 'crats to make a pro forma pre-accepted request at CHU/S when we perform these kinds of renames. (Don't worry, we're bureaucrats, we can handle paperwork.) Incidentally, I've been thinking about writing a script that will warn an admin who's looking at a username block that the user in question has made edits to CHU/S or CHU/U: I've seen some cases of users blocked solely for a username violation after they've already made a username request. Is this a thing admins would be interested in using? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be interested, but I'm not a scripts fan; I've only ever used a couple in eight years' editing. If I were a scripts user, I would be quite interested in using it. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, for those of you who aren't total squares, the script is ready for trial here. As always, install by putting importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/renameWarner.js"); into your common.js page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think a time limit on the unblock would be a better idea. Blocks go off automatically when their time is expires - is there any reason why this can't be applied to the temporary unblock (it DOES say temporary) for applying for a change? Sending things to CHU automatically may not work. The first name many select is the one they've just been blocked for, but in capitals or with the spaces taken out. Or Bloggsco instead of BloggsCo. Or even no change at all... There should also be some way of automatically reblocking if they edit anywhere other than CHU, their talk page or the unblocking admin's talk page. For now, if an unblocked account hasn't gone to CHU after a reminder has been issued, it should be reblocked as it was before. They may have been run over by a bus, or decided that they can't write an article about their business that will pass anyway. Just leave a note saying to re-request. Peridon (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

SP Request

Hello, I recomended to Semi protection of Pakistan Idol (season 1). Some IPs trying to disruption editing on it. Please Protect it. Thanks - Cod Swick! (Reply here) 09:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of IP vandalism since February 6, so no protection is needed now. And for future reference, pleasse take requests like these to WP:Requests for Page Protection (RFPP). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kendite/يوسف حسين

Discussion

User:Kendite/User:يوسف حسين has been a disruptive presence on the Yemen-related pages for some time. Over the past week alone, issues involving him have included (but are not limited to) general rudeness, calling another editor out of name, page owning, using gratuitous racial language, abusing multiple accounts, revert warring with multiple editors including an administrator, avoiding talk page discussion, ignoring standard talk page etiquette, ignoring administrator instructions to seek consensus, and deleting another editor's talk page comments. He has in the process showed little to no understanding of the gravity of his actions let alone contrition, despite having been blocked twice over the passed few days, with his Kendite account indefinitely banned.

He originally used to post using the Kendite account, but later abandoned that for the يوسف حسين account. The user first started using the يوسف حسين account in April 2013, in the midst of a heated exchange with another user on the Sheba talk page [42]. He changed the signature two minutes later to point to Kendite [43]. The other editor in the dispute then sock-tagged يوسف حسين's userpage [44]. Kendite promptly removed this tag [45], claiming that يوسف حسين was “just the account i use on another wiki project” and that he “edited one page using this account without realizing it”. This was of course an absurd excuse since an account first needs to be registered on English Wikipedia before one can use it here. Instead of publicly disclosing on his user page that that was an alternate account, the user continued to edit-war with various users to conceal this fact. This was despite the fact that both accounts were used almost exclusively to edit (and in an often disruptive manner) the same set of Yemen-related pages. The Kendite account was eventually indefinitely blocked about a week ago after a sock case confirmed the relationship. However, an administrator generously gave the user a second chance by allowing the يوسف حسين account to remain unblocked, and warned him not to repeat this behavior [46].

Despite this, Kendite/يوسف حسين continued to edit disruptively, revert-warring on the Yemen page over slavery-related material with a number of different editors, including User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow, and administrator User:Materialscientist. The user in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he simultaneously revert-warred on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([47], [48], [49]). More disturbingly, a number of editors including myself also noticed certain racial overtones in the user's remarks. The most glaring example of this was Kendite/يوسف حسين 's gratuitous use of the antiquated epithet "Negroes", although the source itself did not use this language [50]. He was eventually blocked a second time within a week for disruptive editing [51]. However, here again the blocking administrator was generous and gave the user another chance by not indefinitely blocking his account. Instead of showing contrition and pledging to improve his behavior, the editor in his unblock request proceeded to attack other users and refused to acknowledge that he had even violated 3RR. His unblock request was predictably declined by another admin [52].

After coming off his second block in a week, Kendite/يوسف حسين promptly attempted to revert the same material on the Yemen page that he had been edit-warring over to begin with. He only stopped reverting when I reminded him of the blocking administrator's condition to “consider agreeing to wait for consensus” [53]. Instead of sincerely attempting to reach a consensus, the user proceeded to ignore standard talk page etiquette, accuse me of attempting to "show off" when reminding him to adhere to it, take my words out of context, repeatedly call me out of name, make snide remarks about what he presumed were the ethnic backgrounds of the other editors (which none of us had actually divulged), and aggressively answered comments I never even made [54].

Besides the foregoing, the user also has major WP:OWNership issues. He at one point threatened the user AcidSnow outright to "just stay away from any Yemen related article" [55]. One of Kendite's last actions in this vein was to delete the talk page comments yesterday of the user Inayity. When Inayity protested [56], Kendite claimed that it was another accident. The user then gave Inayity permission to post his own comment again, but told him to “refrain” from doing so “if it's not related to the discussion” [57]. To add insult to injury, the user signed this dictum with a smiley face. Ironically, this very thread likewise owes its existence to one of Kendite's myriad orders/taunts (“file a complaint! you keep circling around this in a pathetic way you know that?” [58]).

Given the foregoing, it's clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين has expended every last ounce of good faith that has been conferred upon him. He was repeatedly given second chances by administrators, whose collective trust he squandered by not only re-engaging in the same disruptive behaviors as before, but actually intensifying and multiplying them. I therefore propose either a permanent Wikipedia editing ban on this user, or at the very least a lighter permanent topic ban on editing the website's Yemen, Arab world and Horn of Africa-related topics. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add I seriously believe my remarks, which were to the affect be concise on the TK page, spare us the extensive bulk of text. From the edit history it was NOT an edit conflict, but a deletion. I suspect the user, since believing he WP:OWN the page is in control of what I can post. As he has asserted I have no role on the page only to "Help a friend" my comments are worthless. I may have replied with some minor incivilities, because it is shocking to be told to keep the talk page relevant by a prolix TK violator *the cheek*. --Inayity (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the excuse that he/she “edited one page using this account without realizing it” is not as absurd as Middayexpress thinks. The يوسف حسين account was used on Commons and Wikidata in 2013. When he/she registered the Commons account it would have automatically created accounts in all languages' Wikipedias. If you have a Commons account under a different name than your Wikipedia account, then you also have a Commons account under your Wikipedia name, and a Wikipedia account under your Commons name. It is possible to accidentally edit Wikipedia under your Commons name if you click "keep me logged in" (and vice versa).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. However, he was apparently not talking about his account on Commons but rather one on the very different looking Arabic Wiki [59]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any disruptive editing, see the Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and Talk:Yemen#Najahid. User Middayexpress ( i had to write that right because apparently he takes it seriously) reported me several times on different occasions. He accused me of having multiple accounts and sock puppets but this user check proved him wrong. I was blocked again not for having multiple accounts but for edit waring because i believed that this edits were unjustly reverted. So i was blocked for 48 hours and i was told to engage in a discussion before reverting even if i did not break the 3 reverts rule, so i did. I did not revert their edits until i could receive census in Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and the usages of words like "black" and "Ethiopian Slaves" in the article because apparently user Middayxpress perceive them to be offensive or " too general", therefore specifications must be made.

Regarding my other account, User middayexpress said that an admin gave me a second chance! You should not have resulted to this because anyone can check the page history. The admin indeed thought that i had a sockpuppet account but the user check proved that it was not. any admin can check that i have the same email for both accounts, this one and the "kendite" account. i explained myself to many editors that i have simply changed my name in Arabic language wikipedia from "kendite" to "Yousef Hussain" and did not create another account. I did upload a lot of pictures to commons indeed and maybe i forgot to log out i really do not know what happened. But one thing i am positive about is that i did not claim to be a different person or engaged in disruptive editing using multiple account. User Middayexpress keeps bringing this issue up even though the case is closed and i have read somewhere in here that this is against Wikipedia policies.

As for my edit warring in Yemen, the reason i got so convinced that arguing with user Middayexpress and his group is pointless, was because i got engaged on multiple discussions where the users disregard every modern scholarly work and reference to prove their own personal views. So i decided not to argue with what i perceived them to be "Afrocentrists" or "Pan Africanists". I still believe them to be but i realize now that by refraining from engaging in a debate i was only hurting my position. I got blocked for being unwilling to talk to any one of them any more without explaining my reasons to any admin. The block was lifted but as you can see user middayexpress and his friends keep bringing that up every time, here or in Talk:Yemen and i do not think that constitute a good faith. User Midday express accused me of every obscenity one can make while editing in Wikipedia. His friends called me a "liar" and "stupid" and above that they kept threatening me that they will report me, as if they own the project and have some sort of superior power on me. [60][61]

I never threatened User Middayexpress or claimed that i own the article. Read Talk:Yemen#Najahid to see what i am dealing with. This user disregard every source i provide to prove a preconceived notion. In all of his contributions, he never made a solid argument but kept referring me to Wikipedia policy pages and reminding that i got blocked for edit warring. He accused me of incivility and calling him out of name. I did not pay much attention to his user name and sincerely thought of it as Midwayexpress , i did not see the big deal but apparently it is. Nevertheless, they kept referring to me using my previous user name to indicate that i was accused of having a scokpuppet account. His attitude in general was not that of someone who wants to reach census on an issue but to discredit me and disregard my efforts to show my side of the story. Because i did try to reach a common ground with him but instead of agreeing he jumps on talking about a completely different topic. like he did here. I agreed about his usage of an awkward term like "Jazali slave" instead of "Ethiopian slave" although these "Jazalis" are basically an Abyssinian tribe which makes them Ethiopians in the end of the day. But i agreed to his condition and asked him to keep the historical narrative. He refused and started talking about another group in Yemen called Mehri people, to prove that the "original Yemeni" ( a term that i first saw here) public are black.

User middayexpress accused me of taking his words out of context. well, he quoted this text :

the culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically

and said that this a prove that "dark complexion" of Tihama is a native feature of Yemen. The reason he is so preoccupied to prove that the "original Yemenis" whatever that means are black, is to say that usage of words like "black slaves" or "Ethiopian slaves" (mentioned in the references) is not logical in the Yemen article since the population is black! that's his main goal behind all of this effort. I refused this interpretation and quoted the sentence just before the text he quoted :

Ethiopia is Yemen's nearest sizable non Arab neighbor and one that had an important impact on Yemen over the ages

and told him that the author he quoted is actually agreeing with what i have been saying that slavery and emigration (back and forth) between the people of the two opposite coasts, contributed significantly to the ethnic admixture of the Tihama region (western coastal strip), as i proved with many sources i provided. He insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis.

Bottom line is, proving that Yemenis are black is a big deal for him, and i as someone of a Yemenite background absolutely refuse to alolow such notion to be emphasized in the article. That does not mean i am a racist, Yemen is almost a failed state so there isn't much to feel cocky about but i do not want Yemenis to be described as something they are not. He stubbornly refuse to understand that the Najahid Dynasty did not rule the entire coastal strip of Tihama. Tihama is a geographical term as i tried to explain, it is not a name of a country or a specific land. It stretches from Aden in South Arabia to Aqaba in the far North. I told him that the Najahid were princes of Zabid and its surroundings. No sign of understanding was ever presented and he believes that this black slave dynasty ruled the entire coastal strip of Arabia just because he so badly wants to believe so.

regarding my smiling at his friend, i told him that i have received a message about an edit conflict. I was debating with user Middayexpress and asked his friend to please leave the discussion relevant. He started talking about how stupid that comment of mine was and i was just recently blocked. He came to support his friend and i told him it's fine (meaning that it does not bother me not that i own the talk page) just keep it about the topic not me personally, because he started the discussion by saying :"I see you are using the talk page now!". I do not think there is any problem with me believing them to be Somalis. That's not a snide comment i totally believe that they are and there is nothing uncivil in pointing that out.

As you can see user middayexpress keep circling around cases that had happened in the past, about the usage of the word "negro" or me telling him or his friend to "stay away from any Yemen related article" . I stopped using the word "Negro" because i was told the word is not proper in modern English, and i stopped and i only used it once or twice in my talk page. i never claimed owning ship to anything but i was disgruntled by his group effort to emphasize a sort of ethnic link and connection between Yemenis and people from the Horn of Africa. and as evident, that is their primary concern in editing the Yemen article and its related pages. He removed a sentence and a picture [62] about Sheba from the introduction and ancient history section of the Yemen article because according to him, "it's not widely viewed as such" even though the link he himself uses in the article identify Saba as biblical Sheba.And he then removed the picture because the source in common says :"own work"!! i am not proposing anything other than sticking to the sources not your personal interpretations. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite being told about how a page is supposed to be used he comes here and writes a book. This is not the place for discussing the specifics of an article, And I wonder who this ip is ip out of the blue. The above text and the general attitude of this users is characteristic of an unreformed person who needs editor a block or a mentor. Now he says he did not know the word "Negro" was offensive. I cannot WP:AGF with this editor.--Inayity (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't advice your friends about "how a page is supposed to be used"? and yes it's really not offensive since i was discussing Ethnic features with your friend. He used the term "negroid" himself. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindly stop making things up. The only time I mentioned "Negroes" or variations thereof is when quoting your own apparent Freudian Slip [63]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not deny using the word negro in my talk page, so you posting a link to my talk page is pointless because i never denied using the word. But you used terms like "Negroid" or "Negrito" or whatever in a previous discussion. I am pretty sure of it but i am not apologizing for this because first, i used it in my talk page to describe an ethnic group. I did not know that "it fell out of favor after the civil rights movements" because i thought the other famous variation of the word is the one that i should avoid using. Anyway i used it once or twice in my talk page and by the way, the word Negro is equivalent to the word Zanj and neither are considered offensive. You will never get them to ban me on racial grounds, stick to "disruptive editing and second block in a weak" --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not posting your use of the word "Negro" just to show that you stated it. That's indeed already been established. I'm highlighting the fact that that's not my word use. "Negro" is indeed equivalent to "Zanj", but it's considered antiquated. Thanks for the tip, all the same. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good for you, glad i could clear that up :)--يوسف حسين (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kendite/يوسف حسين apparently missed the instruction at the top of this page stipulating that this noticeboard is not intended for continuing disputes. This is for actual editor behavior, which Kendite/يوسف حسين has indeed had continuous problems with. The rant above is an excellent, typical example. Those are not at all the facts of the situation, nor what I stated or how the discussion actually transpired. For starters, Kendite/يوسف حسين's claim that I supposedly "insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" is a fabrication. What I did actually do was quote a passage from a book stating "it has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea" [64]. So that assertion was neither coming from me personally, nor did the source itself even mention any "black" Yemenis or whatever. But since Kendite/يوسف apparently believes that anybody dark=black, he came to the personal conclusion that this is what I had asserted. Another example of the user's problems with the truth is his claim above that I supposedly "removed a sentence and a picture about Sheba". To "prove" this, he then proceeds to link to an edit by User:AcidSnow (!). Furthermore, although the user claims otherwise, he has indeed made many snide remarks about what he presumptuously believes is my ethnic background as well as those of the other disputants (please see AcidSnow's summary of those here). He has likewise repeatedly called me out of name in both talk page comments and at least one edit summary (e.g. [65]), which I have had to textually correct a number of times where possible. But of course, like his gratuitous use of the epithet "Negroes", he probably chalks this up as yet another "accident". From his rant above, it's also clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين still refuses to assume responsibility for why he was blocked (twice), even though an admin had to literally spell it out for him ("you were edit warring, plain and simple" [66]).

Bottom line, Kendite/يوسف حسين has long had major behavioral issues. They almost all in some way or another involve association of Yemenis with individuals and populations he perceives as being too "dark" (not "light" peoples, mind you; he doesn't seem to have any problem with that association). Although he tries in his rant above to re-frame the Yemen/Najahid dispute as one between him and "Afrocentrists" (I actually oppose Afrocentrism), the reality is, accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi. He employed the same tactic in an earlier, equally heated exchange with another user on the Sheba page. Predictably, that discussion also in part involved pigmentation; Kendite/يوسف حسين strenuously opposed an historical manuscript depiction of a dark Queen of Sheba for what his opponent described as "apparently biased reasoning" [67]. He actually revert-warred on two separate occasions to remove that image, and was reported for it too [68]. Similarly, he just attempted another non-consensus revert on the Najahid dynasty page despite admin sanctions [69]. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can read the pointless discussion at Talk:Yemen#Najahid and Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture Middayexpress , if you know the page policy better than i do why did you start talking about the "dispute" now? you could've just let me rant for ever. i'll be back shortly to respond.--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since user Middayexpress couldn't just let me expose myself with my rants, i think i am obliged to respond. He claims that i have fabricated facts about his work. I am quoting him right now :

You also automatically presume that the Tihama's dark complexion (which is hardly exclusive to them amongst Yemenis) is a legacy of recent admixture ( i actually never claimed that) , when there are in fact several alternative explanations. The main one is that the Tihama were the earliest inhabitants of the region i.e. the first/original Yemenis : "It has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea

So where did i exactly fabricated your words Middayexpress ? Aren't you trying too hard to prove that the "original/first Yemenis" are black or "dark skinned"? Your source does not describe them as the "first/original Yemenis", he stated that it has been assumed that this confederation which is the largest in the southern Tihama, was the earliest inhabitant of the region, but he does not know whether they were of Arab of African decent and may i add that your quote was a snippet review? i am pretty sure there is more to that quote of yours. Meanwhile, i provided many texts, WP:RS that can be used in the demographics section. You disregarded and said and i am quoting you :

the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen

and you attempted to back your own personal claim with a picture of Mehri people. I think that is your personal opinion that you are working too hard to prove. You can say the author is mistaken and bring a reliable source to debunk his conclusion, Because nobody wants to read your own. I think Wikipedia has a clear policy regarding original research. The fact that i got blocked after your bogus accusation that i had multiple accounts does not count because i do not have multiple accounts and user check proved so. I do not have to explain myself over and over again, the fact that you keep bringing that up proves who is suffering from behavioral issues. My edits are not disruptive and they never were, and i think i explained my point of view regarding the Najahid ruling of Tihama before. As for the discussion with user "Till Eulenspiegel" that absolutely has nothing to do with you, he was disregarding modern scholarly works and archaeological evidence and say stuff like :"these Europeans with their arm chairs what do they know about Ethiopia"? or "you have agenda against Ethiopia". How am i suppose to discuss anything with such users? anyhow, stick to your encounters with me because the discussion i had with user "till Eulen.." in Talk:Queen of Sheba was normal. Even assuming that i had a " biased reasoning", that is not enough to ban me from editing and i haven't completed my discussion with that person. Do not take it personally man --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The above is another prime example of Kendite/ يوسف حسين's low regard for website policy, including this noticeboard's instruction to not drag disputes here. He asks where exactly he fabricated my words, something I literally just pointed out. I never stated that "these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" like he claimed in his first post above. In fact, not once in my entire discussion with this user have I mentioned any "black Yemenis". Only he has and repeatedly, as a look at the Yemen talk page readily shows. As I wrote, the user does not make a distinction between "dark" and "black", and instead readily conflates the two even if his interlocutor does not. He also does not appear to understand how the "earliest inhabitants of the region" is essentially the same thing as "the first/original Yemenis". Regarding Kendite/يوسف حسين's first block, it was over one User:YemenWarriorBoy. While Kendite may not have been guilty of malfeasance here, that whole episode and especially YemenWarriorBoy's aggressive, precocious remarks definitely does not inspire confidence. His second block was over "edit warring, plain and simple", as an admin put it [70]. Further, while Kendite above disassociates his previous encounter with Til Eulenspiegel from the Yemen/Najahid affair, it's definitely related since it too involved the intersection of Ethiopia, Yemen, rulers and complexion. That discussion was more "normal", though, in the sense that Kendite back then actually used to write much shorter, more concise, and often even polite posts, including during my own initial encounter with him on a related issue [71]. Unfortunately, something changed along the way, and he inexplicably became really agressive under his new يوسف حسين account, now writing long-winded, semi-coherent rants. I nor any of the other interlocutors actually had anything personal against this user. However, from his numerous antics and snide remarks, it's apparently not reciprocal. That said, if Kendite agrees to from now on communicate with myself, Inayity and AcidSnow like he used to under his previous account -- i.e. using short, concise posts, no personal jabs, actually listening to others and working with them -- I am willing to close this thread. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is sad. I am not repeating myself and i would advise you not to keep posting the same diffs over and over again. This is all you got? I used to be "polite"? i have the courage to apologize and retreat when i realize i am wrong about something. I was not rude to anyone and you can't prove that i was. My discussion with another user about a completely different topic is irrelevant but thank you for admitting that the discussion was normal and polite. I'll tell you something you fail to understand, ethnic admixture of the tihama people. As many source pointed out, "slavery and long-term migration have resulted in mixing with the peoples of East Africa, particularly in the Tihama region on the Red Sea coast". What part of that sentence you did not understand to come up with your "original/first Yemenis" theory?

Don't even get me started on your vigorous campaign to establish some ethnic and linguistic links between Yemen and East africa! Just read the shameful content of Yemeni Arabic and Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic, where in the world did you learn that Ta'izzi Arabic is also called Djibouti Arabic [72]?? Yeah what "Warrior Yemen boy" or whatever said here [73] (you accused me of being the same person but user check proved that was a gigantic lie [74]) about your contributions shows that i am not the only Yemeni who is sick and tired of your contributions about Yemen and its related articles! Yemen has nothing to do with the Horn of Africa clear and simple and you will have to learn to live with that. My god! anyone reading articles about Yemen in this cite will definitely assume that it's an East African country thanks to your effort.

Speaking of listening to other users, i was not the one who tried to prove a personal point of view with a picture i found on Google. I am not the one who reverted an edit and posted a link that actually support the sentence that got removed! i am not the one who is throwing baseless accusations at users and keep reminding them of their past mistakes. good luck--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

YemenWarriorBoy was no newbie, that much is clear. He was blocked for it too. According to Ethnologue (not me), Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic is also indeed known as Yemeni Arabic ("Arabic, Ta’izzi-Adeni Spoken[...] Alternate Names: Djibouti Arabic" [75]). But I'm not surprised that you have problems with even this much given your previous antics. At any rate, I tried reasoning with you and giving you yet another chance at improving your behavior, but it seems you're too set in your ways. Too bad indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

whatever he was, it shows that we are really sick of your emphasis in Yemen related articles. Ta'izzi Arabic is a variation of Yemeni arabic, it's not "also known" as Yemeni arabic. There many dialects in Yemen. Ethnologue does not say that Ta'izzi Arabic is also known as "Djibouti Arabic" as if the Arabic spoken in Tai'izz came from Djibouti!!! it says that The Arabic speakers over there ( pop 36,000) may speak Adeni Arabic. They speak french too and standard Arabic is an official language apparently. In their definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic as a "language" they never mentions anything about it being called "Djibouti Arabic". I and others have a problem with this and so many other contribution of yours. I read Yemeni Arabic article and i swear it was as if it's discussing an east African population. You are not in a position to give me chances here. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are sick of me editing the Yemen related articles (which you don't own, by the way), but that is what WikiProject Yemen participants such as myself do [76]. As for Ethnologue, not only does it list "Djibouti Arabic" as an Alternate Name for spoken Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, it also gives an actual figure for the total number of speakers in the country (36,000). It seems you overlooked that too. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course i don't own it but that does not mean that i can't point at your mistakes. uh i did look at that just read the post again :" (pop 36,000)"! I am talking about their [main definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, no where does it say that this Yemeni accent is also called Djibouti Arabic. The Arabic that is used by 36,000 people in Djibouti may be the same or close to the arabic used in Aden but that is not enough to call it Djibouti Arabic since it was originated in Aden or Ta'izz. You have languages of Djibouti article, you can write that the Arabic dialect used there is that of Aden and an alternative name for THEIR ARABIC (Djibouti people) is Djibouti Arabic. Because the people of Ta'izz are not speaking a form Arabic imported from Djibouti or share some historical or ethnic link. People of Aden may be but not Ta'izz.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Djibouti Arabic" is not an error. Alongside "Southern Yemeni Spoken Arabic", it is what Ethnologue indicates is an alternate name for Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, as shown. So does the Open Language Archives Community [77], Babelverse [78], and Multitree [79], among other official linguistic repositories. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please not revert my edit here? It was quite impolite. AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not revert any of your edits here! you and your friends should stop making things up. It's pretty sad and desperate--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd that you would continue to lie when everyone can see your edits. If you did not revert my edits than what is this, as it clearly shows that you did? Maybe you thought it would be "funny" to go and edit my response; though it does not seem likely. AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You spent a long time bolding your comment, ok? I did not change your edit or thought of it as "funny". try something else--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*, even after I showed you that you have, you somehow think that it is a good idea to continue to deny it. As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit and assume full responsibility? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, do you really think he well stop just because you asked him to again? We have all requested him countless of times before to stop; so what makes you think he well stop this time? He has even asked to get reported several times and this is exactly what he got. So why change his ways now when he was told several times to stop and asked to get reported? Most of all he has broken the precursor to his return which was to receive consensuses for his edits which he would ignore and continue without it several times. As we can all see from his actions he has no desire to change. So what good well come out of a third chance to "reform" himself? AcidSnow (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looks that way. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Inyaty", Didn't you ask me to tell what term the sources use about the slaves? didn't i answer you? and than you moved on talking about me and how i supposedly "threatened" your friend? In order to receive census you must discuss the topic first. not removing my edit and posting a link that actually supports me!!--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place. Inayity's comment is further up. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Where were we told to receive "census"? If I remember correctly you are the only one here that was told to receive consensus for your edits. In fact you would ignore that precursor and go on without it several times. Its quite impolite you would do that after you were given a second chance As for the link, I have already explain what had happened. Maybe you should stop ignoring my responses so you would not be constantly bring it up? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Don't revert an edit with a link that is actually supporting the edit that got reverted!! You are the one who should have talked and discussed before reverting my edit. Here is the situation, i added a sentence to the Yemen article and you removed it because according to you, Yemen is not widely believed to be home of the Sheba. Fine, where is the source to back up you claim? because i definitely presented mine. You did not present any reliable source or even a reason to justify your revert and kept posting a link that actually mention the Sabaeans as Biblical Sheba! Why in the world should i be talking to you now? As for the art of ancient Yemen picture, whoever uploaded it took it from the British museum in London. True the upolader did not say that the sculpture is Sabaean but it's mentioned that it dates back to 1st century AD. (Sabaean Era). The British museum is discussing Sabaean art while using a picture of the same gravestone [80]. In any case, there is no reason to remove the picture even assuming that it's not Sabaean, (it could be from another tribe associated with them) it's of an object from ancient Yemen nevertheless. you could have objected the picture description not its usage in the Yemen article!--يوسف حسين (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss the issue here as I have already done that before. I am really sick of "Kendite/يوسف حسين" continuous inappropriate behavior, as have constantly asked him to stop it yet he continues to do so. I would also mention the things he did before he was banned, but Middayexpress already did; for example when he threaten me to "stay away from any Yemen related article". Anyways, after I had originally told him to please not to call me Pan-Africanist, Afrocentric, etc, he still would not drop it. All of this is part of his "theory"; which is significant flawed as he also thinks that Til Eulenspiegel is African when he is not. He has also straight up lied when he claim that there was "support" for his "theory" from EdJohnston and that he said we are "pan-Africanist". In fact he said not such thing or even supported/agreed, but rather "As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.". So where did he get that EdJohnston agreed/supported him when there is no evidence?

I also never called him a liar (so once again he has twisted my words), which he claims, again and again with no evidence. Inayity also never called him stupid, but rather his comment was. I have also not attacked him in any way, but he on the other hand has continuously attacked me through the discussion; for eexample when you threatened me.

After he finally kept his "theory" to himself he began to move on to speaking for me, put words in my mouth, and try to twisting my words against me. This does not help him in any way as anyone can see what I have written. After each time he attacked me I would tell him to please stop, yet he would not, but rather use a different technique to so. As for "threatening" him, his diff does not show that. In fact it says "would you also like us to file one on the racial overtones of your messages and edits?. I said this in response it to "file a complaint!" to see if he would also like to include that as well in the report. This is no where near a threat, but clearly was a question. As you can see from this discussion he got what he asked for. I don't see the point of him doing that as everyone here can clear see and read the diff.

He also continues to tell me to stop "talking" about him when I am not. Its even more frustrating because he is doing the exact same thing! He tells me to stop when all I am trying to defend myself from his false accusation. He also told me to stop "ranting" about him and stick to the discussion. As you can see from here he would rather ignore all my request for him to stop, be hypocritical and pin the issue all on me!

He also claims that I have "completely ignored" his quotes when I have responded to them in every single one of my responses. When I told him that I was unable see his "quotes" because he deliberately changed them, he said in response, "if you can't find them than it's your own problem". I have no idea why he is acting so inappropriate even though I constantly told him to please stop. He not only says that, but that I have no even discussed the issue at hand. Its odd that he would continue to lie when anyone can see that I have. It appears that he would rather ignore most of the things I have written and would rather see what he wants to. Besides the "quotes", he goes on to claims that I have not even talked about his sources! I am really hoping he is joking as I have been doing it through the discussion. For example, if his "quotes" are coming from his book and that am discussing them am I not also discussing his sources too? He also continues to mention the picture I removed and says all this stuff about it when there is nothing besides Art from Ancient Yemen, in the image summary, so I have no idea where has gotten it from, but he claims to be "sticking to the sources and not personal interpretations". Maybe this is just another way for him to discredit me? He has been doing it before through this discussion, on his own takepage, and on the Yemen talkpage too! He also knows fully well that there are sources that go against him for the Sheba discussion, yet he continues to add it. This is why I never bothered to bring up sources that go against him, as he clearly from his past action would not even bother to read them. He has done the same by ignoring my comments about his "quotes" and sources and even continues to claim that I never said anything about them. "Just read his latest response on the matter. it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand", as you can see here he is being deliberately annoying. I highly recommend everyone in this discussion to read my second to last entry at the Yemen page and decided if I have discussed the issue or not!

I also never claimed that the link was mine; it just happen to come with my revert. Could you show me where I said it was mine/my own? Not just these, but he was also asked to use the talk page before he made edits so he could receive consensus. He, however, went on without receiving it not once, not twice, but rather three times! Odd that he would continue to act so inappropriately after generously being given a second chance. So what good well come out a third chance? I wont revert him right now since nothing good could come out of it.

Unfortunately, with no evidence he still believes that this issue is a "personal matter" of mine; once again he is still bring up his "theory". Just as EdJohnston said before, I am loosing interest following his continuous inappropriate behavior. AcidSnow (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of bolding. I thought you were trying to tell a story-within-a-story, but I can't make it out. Should I read it in reverse? 134.241.58.178 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be a "story-within-a-story" nor how reading in reverse well "help" you. If you want to by all means go ahead. Anyways, who are you? You are the third "ip" that has "found" his/her way into the discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As if i am going to read all of this. Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture and Talk:Yemen#Other sources regarding Sheba you were suppose to discuss this with me but you did not. I don't care whos link you used, you were reverting my edit with a link that actually support my contribution. --يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I knew you would not, just like all my other responses. I also never told you to read it so it does not really matter. I have already explained the link; maybe next you will read them so you would not be constantly bring it up? Anyways, who else did I discuss this with? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

All i know is that your revert is pointless since you are using a link that is actually approves my edit. You either discuss my edit in the article talk page like you are supposed to and bring reliable sources to back your claim, or your edit will be considered simply disruptive--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually read my response you would not be saying the same thing overt and over again? AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support – per OP. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support – This issue came up with another editor not too long ago, and the difference was he wanted to contribute by changing his ways, I do not think this is the case. And using ip addresses to tell me my comments are garbage means we have a problem personality.--Inayity (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support – see original post AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a dispute over content and sources. Have the participants been pointed towards dispute resolution options? —Neotarf (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This AN is not about content dispute, but rather his continues inappropriate behavior after generously given a second chance. AcidSnow (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see he changed your comment here [81] to make it look like you had added bolding to it, but he was the one who added bolding. That's not right, and he should be asked to undo it. But it seems you are also arguing about sources. I have seen "Sheba's palace" in Ethiopia, and all the little tourist statues of Solomon and Sheba together, but would love to see the Wikipedia with more information about the Yemen sources. Arabic sources are terribly under-represented in the English Wikipedia, and I think it very worthwhile if more of them could be added in a way that respects the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But if you have so many disagreements, maybe a third party would help to keep the discussion on task. —Neotarf (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not change his comment or even came close to it.He was the one who added bolding to his own comment.--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*, even after being caught red handed by two editors and shown clearly that you did you continue to lie (though not surprising its getting annoying). As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have unarchived this unclosed site ban discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 for further community input. When an admin believes there has been sufficient discussion, please assess the consensus.

  يوسف حسين (talk · contribs) was blocked on 15 February 2014 for four days at User talk:يوسف حسين#Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic (permanent link) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent archiving. Time step one week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Persistent tendentious editing, including vandalizing people's posts in discussions and then lying about the vandalism, means they are a net negative. And I'm not seeing the positive side of their contributions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per too much verbiage, too few diffs. If an editor wishes to have another editor sanctioned, especially with a site ban, the burden should be on them to present a concise summary supported by diffs which clearly show the issue(s). NE Ent 13:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm seeing plenty of diffs in there, Ent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that all the fault is on one side only. To reply to a long comment by making a long diatribe against long comments is not particularly helpful. I see this as essentially a series of ordinary content dispute, of the sort which is best solved by agreeing on a acceptable wording of the points at issue. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bleach (manga)#Proposed merge with Bleach (anime)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Proposed merge with Bleach (anime) Hei Liebrecht 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for unblock: Swiss National Library

Some background information: Swiss National Library (talk · contribs) was an account created 30 January 2014 in order to help with one of the Wikimedia Foundation's GLAM outreach projects, see Wikipedia:GLAM for details on this. The reason they have done so under a shared account, as explained by Micha L. Rieser (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:GLAM was because of the concept of corporate personhood, and the desire to attribute all contributions associated with the account to the organization and its free license. On 4 February 2014, JohnCD (talk · contribs) blocked the account under the Wikipedia:NOSHARE policy, and it was reviewed here where it was found to be an appropriate block under current policy. JohnCD's block was entirely appropriate at the time, and I would like to make clear that I do not dispute it as it was then.

But after having had time to review the contributions of this account, spread across German Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, I believe that this block and the policy behind it is actively discouraging a potential contributor from improving Wikipedia. I've given a little bit of the explanation here as well. Therefore, I wish to invoke Ignore all rules for this block, which states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, a policy even if properly applied is harming the English Wikipedia. I would like to make a temporary exemption of this GLAM account, and then immediately afterwards we would revisit and review the NOSHARE policy in the future, to see if it needs further adjusting, or if a permanent exemption could be made for certain organizational accounts. If discussion of the NOSHARE policy proves fruitless, with no consensus toward exempting such accounts, then we could reinstate the block against Swiss National Library (talk · contribs). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Due to the licensing agreement and copyright/attribution aspects, wouldn't this be more of a WMF Legal decision rather than an admin decision? Rgrds. --64.85.216.32 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As you may have seen on the GLAM talkpage, there was a link back to outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/January 2014/Contents/Switzerland report which claims that the organization in charge of the Swiss National Library account have already filed an OTRS ticket to the German Wikipedia. I assume that this is sufficient information to prove that these edits can be linked definitively back to the actual organization; that is, the account name and the organization are one and the same. If the concern was about determining which user should be attributed while operating the account at any particular time, Rieser demonstrated that the attribution was legally necessary to ensure the organization gave permission to license its own contributions under Wikipedia's license. Individual users within the organization, rather than the organization itself, may choose to license their own contributions differently. Rieser also gave the example of an IP address, like yourself, which has edits attributed to multiple people, according to whoever has the IP address at any particular time. And if the concern overlaps with accountability, Rieser has suggested that particular users operating the account name, if engaging in discussion on Wikipedia talkpages, sign with their real name, whilst also on behalf of Swiss National Library. I think that, given this extensive explanation and accommodation by Rieser and company, we should give this account a little more leeway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this should belong better in the RFC discussion, but I'd like to reexamine the spirit of the blocking policy for starters. In an ideal sense, the block tool is meant as a last resort to prevent possible disruption to Wiki(p/m)edia's mission. There are two different but related targets of using a block: 1) against a possibly disruptive account as a technical measure, and 2) against the person (or in this case group of people) operating the account directly. The latter is more often referred to as a ban. So far, the account has not shown any promotional behavior or violation of COI that I know of, and has even managed to work peacefully within the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons communities without problems. We can therefore rule out #1. Then perhaps it is the nature of the organization that is under question here; in a sense, the organization itself is "banned", but not its individuals. Rieser has indicated the need for the account's contributions to be attributed directly to the organization, due to licensing considerations. He also suggested that for the shared account to participate in discussions, any member operating it at any particular time must also sign with the initials of their real life name, thereby ensuring more transparency and accountability than most of the pseudonymous editors here. If the account itself is proving problematic in other areas such as COI, then the account itself can be blocked. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I raised this question at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants and offered there to start an RFC on a change in the WP:NOSHARE policy if there was evidence that there would be support, specifically support from other people engaged in GLAM activity. I was particularly looking for statements from existing GLAMmers such as Wikimedians-in-residence that this would help their operations, but none have come forward to say that, and as far as I know this is the first time any GLAM institution has made it a requirement.

The policy against institutional shared accounts is not peculiar to en-wp: on it-wp the SNL account has also been blocked as "Nome utente inappropriato: ente istituzionale", and on fr-wp, though the account has not been blocked, an administrator has advised them here of a preference for individual accounts. Even if we make an exception for them, insisting on using a shared account will make it difficult for SNL to contribute cross-wiki,

The NOSHARE policy is long-standing. The last proposed exception, for couples editing together, was decisively rejected at this RfC in 2012, and I think it unlikely that a GLAM exception would be agreed in the absence of strong support from other GLAMmers. That being so, it would be a mistake to make a one-off IAR exception for the SNL account now, leading to a re-block with consequent ill-feeling later. An RFC should come first. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As the GLAM newsletter points out, the German WP accepts corporate accounts, once oTRS has been convinced the account is genuine. We could avoid a great deal of complications by doing likewise. We have the authority to do so in any particular case via IAR, and I think we should use it, An RfC would be appropriate, so we can make it a general rule. Accepting an obviously helpful special case for a very important partner would be the first step in this, to get accustomed to the idea. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support IAR for use of this account, as limited by other behavioral and editorial policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support IAR for this account, and also support a discussion about how to adjust our standard practice to cope with WP:SUL-related reality. These kinds of accounts have been accepted for a long time at some projects, and if they make an account with a "legal" account name there, then they automatically have the same account name here. So the question becomes, do you want one user to maintain separate accounts (and woe betide the poor image-uploader who forgets to log in and log out every time they switch from Commons to en.wp), or do you want greater transparency (e.g., it's trivial to figure out that the uploader is the one adding it to the article)? And how could we reduce the practical problem with (actual) shared accounts (as opposed to accounts that have a corporate name, but are operated by a single human), which is people claiming that their little brother/classmate/co-worker is the one that screwed up and/or read the warning you posted last week? (I'm thinking that we reduce the problem by telling them that we don't care who read it, they're all responsible for knowing what the other guy did. Also, it'd be nice if they'd tell us when the account changes hands.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose the use of IAR to make a single exception here, but I support an RfC on this policy, and would incline to support modifying it so as to make this and simialr institutional accoutns legitimate. I agree with JohnCD above, it is best to come to consensus on the rule, rather than to make a one-off exception. If This was done via IAR, any admin could later re-block and point to the existing policy to justify such action. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, I should probably have included some huge disclaimers at the top for the TL;DR folks, like:
  • DISCLAIMER: This block review is not meant as a reflection on JohnCD's actions, nor his good standing as an administrator.
  • DISCLAIMER: This particular case is not meant to create precedent for allowing such future accounts, although it may be referenced in the RFC as an example why the NOSHARE policy is problematic. If the RFC results in no consensus, upholding NOSHARE or anything otherwise, we can easily reblock the account. In particularly egregious cases, like if the account were to edit the article on Swiss National Library, we can always reblock for COI. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: your first disclaimer is quite unnecessary, your proposal was most courteously worded and I did not in the least take offence. With regard to the second, this may not be intended as a precedent, but how do we explain to the next applicant why this case was special and theirs is not? Also, I am not so sure that we could "easily reblock the account": there would be another row and more calls for IAR to let them continue. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Allow all accounts to be shared, limited types of accounts to be shared or no accounts to be shared. It is a slippery slope here to allow one account to be shared. The next unblock request will reference this and ask why that account and not ours? Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ignoring the policy and allowing a shared institutional account. Determine if there's a consensus to change the policy, in which case "Joe's Burger Stand," "Hungadunga High School," "Greasepit Motorcycle Club" or "University of Michigan Football Fans" could also send in an OTRS ticket showing that the account really represents the organization in question, then share the logon among all the members. No convincing case has been presented that "IAR" is appropriate here. Edison (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, although this really is a proposal that belongs at the Village Pump. The big problem with role accounts is copyright compliance: when multiple people are using the same account, there's not a single author who can be credited. Here, we have an OTRS confirmation that this account is being used by people who work for the same entity: their edits are all basically works for hire, owned by the Swiss National Library. Since the Library's willing to release its rights to these edits under GFDL/CC, we really don't have any reason to object. Response to Ravensfire: when the next unblock request comes, we'll need them to confirm through OTRS that all edits from the account are works for hire for the organisation that's sending the OTRS. If they can't or won't do that, we tell them that the situation's different, so we can't unblock. Finally, DESiegel, since we're having a discussion about the situation, this isn't quite the same as a random admin reblocking: if we choose to unblock this account, the reblocking admin will be going against consensus on this specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to Nyttend's comments (and to some extent Thincat's), if this becomes an established practice, we would need to have some sort of procedure for the organization to confirm that it will control the account, that it will have responsibility for all edits, and assume accountability for what is done with the account, and that all people using the account have signed a work-made-for-hire agreement or something similar. Some of the details of such a policy would probably need to be vetted by WMF legal, but no need to involve them until we decide, as a matter of policy, that we want to do this at all. The we can ask them how to make it work. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest consulting User:WMF Legal about whether it is appropriate to have shared accounts. Thincat (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Good block. One person = one account is a cornerstone of WP; allowing exceptions would degrade the 'pedia's integrity. With shared accounts, it's impossible to assign responsibility for edits. Miniapolis 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support like named accounts such as Swiss National Library1 (talk · contribs) and Swiss National Library2 (talk · contribs). This, I think, addresses all of the issues raised. If User:WMF Legal weighs in with an opinion to allow a single account, we can go with that. But if not my suggestion provides a reasonable alternative that could make all parties happy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For this particular account, on principle per WP:ISU. The username and account policies are not currently set up for something like this, and I would object to an IAR unblock. As has been already been mentioned, if we allow this then we have to explain to User:Joe's Super Crab Shack why we are blocking them under our apparent double standards - without the benefit of a clearly spelled-out policy or guideline. There are also attribution, licensing and legal issues that can and will get complicated. In any case, accounts named "Becky at Swiss National Library" and so on would be certainly acceptable under current policy, and I think would be preferable anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  If the issue is that's a double standard, then clearly it's the policy page that is the problem and preventing us from improving Wikipedia proper, which is why I've decided to invoke IAR. The RFC designed to change the policy to meet this practice would follow immediately after unblocking the account, referencing it as an example of the problem with the policy page itself and why it needs revising - and then we can finally get around to explaining why this shared account is allowed and others are not. Right now, it is my belief that the block is harming Wikipedia's mission. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have sympathy for the argument that a GLAM organization should be an exception, but apart from the problems mentioned above, my concern is that an organization that insists that their work must be done their way is not likely to be helpful in the long run. They have their rules that say "Joe at Swiss National Library" is not acceptable, and likewise we have good reasons for our procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE hooks into the principle of being a free encyclopedia and who to attribute information to. Also, I see no problem whatsoever with having 10 or however many personal accounts which all openly and clearly disclose their connection to the Swiss library. They can all edit in name of the Swiss Library, and even can hold legitimate alternate accounts for different editing. I agree with Johnuniq's solution that they can use 'User:Joe' for personal editing, and 'User:Joe at Swiss National Library' - if the latter is against their internal policies, then by all means, let other users do the work for them - they do not have an obligation to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support' Because account names like 'User:Becky at Swiss National Library' don't work. I can create an account 'user:Micha at White House'. This account does not guarantee that I actually am authorized to edit in the name of the White House. Or maybe the name 'Joe at Swiss National Library' is not just a fake account. Joe maybe works actually in the library but as a member of the cleaner team. The community can still not be sure that Joe's opinion and actions reflect the meaning of the library and that he is authorized to speak in the name of the library. - An account of the library solves a lot of problems. It is an official account which is actually authorized to contribute to wikimedia/wikipedia. - For other company accounts two simple rules would solve the problem of PR and POV: No substantial changes are allowed in the encyclopedic namespace and no contributions are allowed on their own article at all. We would accept this two rules without difficulty and other GLAM account would be able to accept that also. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Look, we have some people from the Swiss Library here, obviously - if some editor in Far Far Away would think to be funny and create a username 'John Doe from Far Far Away at Swiss National Library', then the other Swiss Library editors (who could identify themselves officially) would directly say that that editor is not from the Swiss National Library - and that would IMHO be an immediate indefinite block for that John Doe. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • But how do you know the other Swiss Library editors are themselves genuine? They could be from Mars for all we know. John Doe would just come back and say they're the real editor, and claim the others are false. What do we have but their word and hearsay? On the other hand, the organizational account Swiss National Library has OTRS-identified to the German Wikipedia. That's more accountability than the numerous pseudonyms we got floating around here. Would you trust me if I said my real name was TeleComNasSprVen? Would you even take me less seriously? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bad idea (that's oppose). Let's say we do this and joe editor comes across it and knows it's against policy, so they file at WP:UAA. Now what happens? Either an admin who missed the discussion here blocks and causes a ruckus, or doesn't block and politely tells the user it's a "special exception" or freaks out 'cause there's some note on the user page joe editor missed -- so what's joe editor do the next time they see a sketchy username? (If they're like me, they're gonna say "Not my problem.") Long story short, lots wasted time for no particularly good reason. Accounts are cheap and easy to create. NE Ent 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

However, I do see an issue here, in that the Wikimedia meta:Unified Login policy conflicts with English Wikipedia's no role account policy, which I understand conflicts with German Wikipedia's. So we do probably need to change that rule, but we need to do it in a across the board coherent manner, rather than a one off ad hoc way. NE Ent 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My aim of the newsletter report was to initate the discussion about rules and about the requirements for working together with GLAMs. But an exceptional case of that account could also be a good test case and an example how further collaboration with GLAM accounts could work in the english wikipedia. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is likely to come up again and again; is anyone actively working on drafting an RfC? 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE is pretty clear; this is a no-no. If they're refusing to change their ways to edit here, why should we bend over backwards to let them edit? And how on earth do we know who is editing under this account? The answer is; we don't. For all we know, this could be a bunch of banned editors, or a group containing at least one banned editor... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing this. The German Wikipedia have opened their door to corporate accounts - why should we? If they won't fit our rules, tough. I'm not sure that the reasons for them to be editing as a corporate person have been explained clearly enough, or what edits they are planning. Just what are they hoping to do that requires a corporate identity? Their editing must be subject to our usual requirements of referencing and copyright compliance - why should they not by subject to NOSHARE? As the above post points out, how do we know who has access? Quite a few of our banned and indeffed accounts belong to very intelligent people, one or more of whom could just work there. For those who can't view their deleted user page, I quote in part: "To the collections of the library belong more than five million documents. They are accessible for everybody. If you need help with your research about Switzerland then just ask us. This account won't take part to any encyclopedic work on the English speaking Wikipedia. Its aim is to provide a communication channel to the community, to facilitate collaboration around our projects." Deleted as advertising/promotion. Quite correctly. IMO. I see no need for any more than one account belonging to one person creating a neutrally worded article about the library, which can contain an external link to the library's site. If this is a genuine statement from the library, they don't need a corporate account as they are not going to edit. If it isn't, well then... Peridon (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I don't see anything wrong with a shared account being used to demonstrate editing to the site. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of UserTalkPage Access

User:Colton Cosmic, who is subject of a self-created RFC/U has now twice inappropriately used the WP:ECHO function in order to WP:CANVASS specific people to comment on his RFC/U:

• February 14 Canvassing
• February 17 Canvassing

Although he is aware that this is inappropriate (I even noted it in my "view" on the RFC/U), he continues to do so. In my view, as he continues to do it, he should have his talkpage access revoked - and ensure that he does not have "email this user" enabled in order to prevent e-mail canvassing as well (something he's done in the past) DP 14:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove it yet. The RFC will run its course and it doesn't appear he's attracting a lot of positive responses by canvassing. After the RFC, salt the account. I don't see how that name can be resurrected. --DHeyward (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions, which is going to close in a couple of days. The reason I'm posting this here is that the RfC is about material that is transcluded here onto WP:AN, and is of significance as to how it will appear and be used here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot

I am going very briefly without references. BracketBot constantly interferes with editors who make small edits under WP:OWNFEET which I and another editor wrote a few years ago. I have tried to find a way to disable this bot, but nothing is mentioned on the talk page of the author, to which I have asked twelve hours ago, nor on the page of the bot itself if you can actually find it. The author of the bot may have forgotten about parentheses, ellipses, guillemets and punctuation in a foreign language, but I muhgst admit I am losing my good faith and it surely is all right for a good faith editor to stop a bot but I can't find any link to do so. The Google search mainly shows that it has been a nuisance. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of false positives so problematic they warrant shutting it down? In my experience this bot is remarkably helpful and very rarely wrong. Mogism (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the opt-out instructions are clearly explained on the bot's user page; have you tried them? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC

It is hard to give examples because it tends to be edit conflicts, that it gets in the way too quick when making small edits. I correct those edits myself but BracketBot gets there before me and has an edit conflict. I know it does good work but the author does not seem to be willing to respond to any complaint about it; in which case, that is not a good housekeeper and should not run a bot. Most bots have a stop and link from the author's page so if in any doubt a good faith editor can stop the bot; this one I have still not found the bot's page. Si Trew (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the bot's user page; I couldn't find it. I hit the emergency shut off button and it says permission error. That's wonderful. I thought Wikipedia was improved by individual editors trying to add little to little, now I don't even get a chance to stop a bot ruining my attempt to improve Wikpiedia. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you're talking about the right bot? Bracketbot only ever posts notices to user talk pages and has never made a content edit, so you can't possibly be getting edit conflicts with it. Mogism (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since according to the bot's stop page you have to have administrator permissions then what am I to do? I brought it here for you to stop it because I don't have them and don't want them. But a bot should be able to be stopped by a normal editor, just under the usual WP:BRD, and you can't discuss things with a bot, especially one that cannot be disabled except by an administrator. How did this ever get approved (in mid 2003) was someone nodding? Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't given a single example of this bot actually doing anything wrong, and you're accusing it of doing something (edit conflicting with you on articles) which it's literally impossible for it to do since it's never edited article space in its entire history. What exactly are you expecting the sysops to do? Mogism (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I may be mistaken. You are probably right that it just warns you rather than changes it. The thing is, the warning in itself when you are in the middle of editing is a distraction. I said at the top I am not going to give examples because there are kinda none, it is just a continual distraction when one is editing. I have asked the author of the bot if it could stay off for an hour or two after editing, kinda gasp of breath, before it puts its oar ian. That would be fine and I would be happy. As it is, as one is editing an article before one has even checked a referene BracketBot tells you you have missed a closing bracket (as if it knew the difference between a bracket, a parenthesis, a brace, a guillemet). That gets in the way. I am not asking for this bot to be deleted, it does good work: But i am asking that its author be responsible. I find it quite absurd I can't stop it myself, it seems all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting any editor can stop a bot like Cluebot and Sinebot? No thanks. Maybe add an per-user opt-out mechanism like other bots have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It already has one; I linked the instructions up in my comment at the top. @SimonTrew: why not just opt out, rather than try to turn it off for everyone? That's why it's there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, missed that, thanks. Maybe add a sentence to the bot's message like DPL bot has? "It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably a good idea. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Instructions explicitly linked to by Writ Keeper, at User:BracketBot#Opting out, many thanks to him. Reproduced here for reference (and it's not just about the big red button at the bottom which is for administrators only):

* Opt out – the bot will ignore your edits.

• • Add [[Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of BracketBot messages]] to your talk page or your user page.
  • OR Add {{NoBracketBot}} to your user page or your user talk page.

If you need help putting this template on your talkpage, I can do it for you. Hope this information resolves your issue. Regards, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, as a copyeditor I get my share of BracketBot messages on my talk page; they used to bug me, but they've also made me a lot more attentive about closing parentheses. Don't be too quick to opt out; it's pesky, but useful. All the best, Miniapolis 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can opt out on a per-edit basis, too, by adding "!nobots!" to your edit summary to make the bot ignore only that edit, rather than all one's edits. Really, the opt-out system for BracketBot is actually quite accommodating. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• If bots were opt-in, newbies would be starved of the very useful information they provide. It is always helpful to be informed when you've made an error, and I'm surprised that anyone would be so upset by what is quite a gentle nudge in the right direction - BracketBot even tells you exactly what to fix! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Let me add my kudos for Bracket bot which has warned me several times, and been right every time. I haven't yet understood the OP's complaint. The only think I can think of is that they get the message warning while working on an article, but I don't get why that is a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion on an unblock

I'd like to unblock User talk:Texasgov14 based on the discussion we had on their talk page, but as the blocking admin is unavailable could I please get a second opinion? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, per non-punitive. NE Ent 10:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring a 3RR warning is generally bad, but I can easily understand how it happened here. Getting a welcome template, with all the wide-ranging links and advice about how to edit Wikipedia, together with a warning, wouldn't make it easy for a new user to realize that, of the overwhelmingly long and link-rich post on their page, the second part was the meat, and was meant to set off an alarm bell. After reading the discussion on their page, I'd unblock. The conduct issue seems resolved. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Unblocked, thank you both. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Improvement

Seeing that my relative Babe Ruth is somehow out of my reach as to make article edits about him according to this gang-mentality approach, I would rather be inclined to regretfully inform you of the nature of this exercise. In accordance to the grievance, make community "cards" to appropiate levels of distinction to help the unaminity of the legistlation. InternetHero (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To the comment here: "huh?" *scratches head* What are you saying? As to your edits at Babe Ruth, they are not helpful. Chris857 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted most of the infobox and replaced it with the nonexistent Template:Grandpa. How could this be considered an improvement? Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruptive editing. Anyone should feel free to reverse this block if they think it warranted. –xeno^talk 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold on, did he say Babe Ruth was his relative? And he's editing on behalf of him? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Looking at their contribution history, a most cromulent block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I concur, this block embiggens the noble spirit of the block policy. -- John Reaves 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag overdue

I'm really unsure if this is the right place for this as I'm not posting about an already-deleted article, or an article at all for that matter. Anyway, a file I uploaded (File:Skullgirls screenshot 2.png) was tagged for speedy deletion on January 19. I refined the license status to argue my reasoning as to why it should stay. However, a week has come and gone quite a while ago and nothing's happened in terms of keeping or deleting the file. If an admin could take a look at it real quick and make a decision, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new Marvelous AQL game pages

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Forbidden Magna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Judgementwolf/Forbidden_Magna

Harvest Moon: Connect To a New World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Judgementwolf/Harvest_Moon:_Connect_to_a_New_World I am requesting that the redirect privilege be instated for these two pages. sincerely, Judgementwolf

Taylor Trescott

The above user - unhappy at this discussion going against him, duly started another one in order to get rid of an image anyway. I feel this is unacceptable and against wiki practice. Will any action be taken? 94.194.111.16 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I kinda wish I had seen this when it was an active discussion - in November. The case for keeping both images from the episode and pilot seems to be pretty clear. And the NFCR discussion did not have a whole lot of participation, so it's not the overwhelming consensus you'd need to close a discussion at ffd as "Procedural Close - this was just discussed at NFCR..." or some such. I'd recommend taking this to DRV and making your case for keeping both images - I can assure you that the image will not be restored just because an editor forum shopped a bit. You'll need to make a good argument on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're required to notify people you discuss here. I've done that for you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? I can't really see anything wrong here. When I first nominated the book cover, the only people who had commented were J Milburn and Masem who expressed support that the screenshots were OK but the book cover was not. Those "keep"s came in later. Also, WP:NFCR is not the same thing as WP:FFD. The action you should take here is filing a DRV. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Concern about User:Drsjpdc editing in violation of his unban agreement

In January 2010, Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) was permanently site banned from Wikipedia for having demonstrated a consistent record of working to promote his own POV regarding chiropractic, rather than maintaining the proper NPOV.

Later, in June 2010, he wrote an open letter to the community requesting that he be unbanned. At that time, he stated:

Open letter to the Wiki Community;

I would like to apply to end the ban on my editing privileges, so that I can make constructive contributions to the general body of knowledge on Wikipedia.

I certainly admit that I made some typical newbie errors when I began editing, and those errors came back to roost, even when I started making constructive edits and articles. Most certainly, I realize it must have seemed to all of you, like I was trying to promote myself, (though I promise that was not my purpose) when I initially started, and, as I said, that impression made it nearly impossible for anything else I did to be seen as anything other then POV when editing in the area of my profession. So, for that I have no one to blame but myself, and I am truly sorry.

If the ban is lifted, I propose to make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so.

Д-рСДжП,ДС 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, he communicated with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) to plead his case, and Jimbo endorsed his plea to be unbanned. Amazingly, the community agreed with Jimbo, and Drsjpdc was [unbanned, presumably with the understanding that he would keep his promise to avoid the topic of chiropractic and alternative medicine altogether. Discounting edits regarding OurMed.org (a site now defunct, so I can't assess its focus), Drsjpdc took exactly 31 days before he violated his promise. Admittedly, his infractions were minor at first: updating the president of an organization, adding some names to the list of notable chiropractors, etc. Nothing that could be considered controversial, but still, a violation of his self-imposed exile from topics related to chiropractic that was the basis of his unbanning. His foray into the World Chiropractic Alliance article in June 2011 represents the beginnings of some non-trivial changes in the area of chiropractic, adding his own POV regarding this organization with whom he had apparent differences.

His subsequent editing history shows greater and greater involvement in the areas of chiropractic and sports medicine. Although he never vowed to remove himself from the sports medicine field, he has always shown a decided POV and self-promotional tendency in this area, and policing his activities in this area has long been the bane of other editors.

Now, in 2014, we find ourselves policing him again on articles such as Chiropractic oath, Chiropractic professional ethics and Association of Chiropractic Colleges. (That last one was a doozy, as I can personally attest as the editor who cleaned it up. He basically wrote an ad for the association and its conferences, including a "why you should attend" section.)

He wrote at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard that he was the victim of a "...movement to obtain the community ban against me" and that the whole affair was "so vicious and unfair, that Jimmy Wales himself felt it appropriate to intercede to get the ban removed." I am not privy to the email communications between Drsjpdc and Jimmy Wales, but based on Jimbo' endorsement of his plea to be unbanned, I would be hard-pressed to call this "intercession" on his part. It's not like Jimbo went to the arbcom and said "You have to remove the ban on Dr Press because he's just the nicest guy ever." Drsjpdc emailed Jimbo, and Jimbo endorsed his appeal, but ultimately, it was the community that unbanned him.

Drsjpdc further wrote, in the same post the WP:FTN,

As I promised then, I have refrained from working in this field for four years. How long does the stigma remain???

Since Drsjpdc's original plea included the promise to "make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so," the stigma remains until the rest of the community decides to lift it, which it has not. The original community ban was not temporary, but permanent. That ban was only lifted because Drsjpdc promised to avoid these topics, because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to maintain the proper neutrality on them. But now, here he is again, behaving in a non-neutral fashion, and blaming the rest of the community for his woes.

I believe the community should reimpose the ban (or at the very least, a topic ban) on Drsjpdc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Unban" agreement was with Jimmy Wales, who had to intercede, after I was viciously attacked by this same group of narrow minded people. save you all the trouble. I resign as an editor. I'm gone\. You win... happy? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС}