Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


MfD backlog[edit]

Miscellany for deletion also has a number of open discussions, going back to late July. Most are non-controversial requests to delete old userspace drafts. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Resolved (for the time being). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"Period in country" category discussions[edit]

There are currently more than 20 open discussions about categories that are (roughly) of the form "Period in country", these discussions are listed here. Could an experienced administrator have a look at these discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD backlog[edit]

I'd like to request a close on the following RfDs. There are more, but I'm limiting this list to those initiated in July. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD Requests[edit]

First of all, apologies if this is not the correct venue, but it seems to be the most logical place to request this. The 2015 Arras attack article was nominated for deletion yesterday in good faith. I have no issue with said nomination, or the nominator for doing so. It was also listed at WP:ITN/C yesterday. Obviously, a current AfD discussion precludes an appearance on ITN. The significance of the event has become more apparent overnight. The article has been improved and updated. Consensus seems to have formed that the article should be kept, although this is not unanimous (Disclosure, I !voted "keep"). Therefore, I hereby request that the nomination be closed as keep, without prejudice to a renomination on or after 1 September. Such a closure would allow the article to appear at ITN should sufficient consensus be gained for it to do so. If there is a failure to appear at ITN, this request should not be seen as an attempt to subvert the AfD process, but more in the spirit of WP:IAR as an attempt to remove a perceived barrier to the article appearing at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Styling into regular infobox[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS[edit]


  • The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecate the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated? (and WP:VPPRO wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be WP:VPPOL, since this is not a proposal, but is an out-of-process attempt to override consensus at a WP:POLICY (i.e. policy or guideline) in favor of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nebulously hovering around some template talk pages, of templates for which there was never a consensus to begin with at MOS for "enforcing" MOS:ENGVAR in the heavy-handed manner these banner templates do plastered across the tops of article talk pages and in article and talk page editnotices, so that any editor there is constantly brow-beaten with them; many of the ENGVAR assertions in question have not been subject to a consensus discussion at all, and do not have strong national ties, thus these banners are a WP:OWN problem; these are only some of the reasons they were deprecated).

    I don't know what the intent/motivation is (not being a mind-reader), though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the WP:TFD for these and a categorization merger plan (the banner templates at issue do not categorize quite the same way as the unobtrusive mainspace equivalents of the banner versions). This pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. The proper next venue is WP:TFD, at which seen entries in the next day or two (there are some complications to work out, even two of the template are not ENGVAR templates at all, but usurping them for non-MOS purposes to assert a form of "specialized style"; so some proposals for what to do with their underlying intent will need to be worked in).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

    PS: The poster of this not-RfC has given out 30 or so "notices" about the VPPRO discussion, to (according to its wording) anyone who has "had some involvement with" the metatemplate in question (i.e. people who have edited it, i.e. people who are likely to be in favor of it, but who may have not paid attention to it in years much less participated in the recent consensus discussion). WT:MOS was not notified. This appears to be WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7#Varieties of English templates, I notified everyone that participated in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? first discussion, those currently in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:AmericanEnglish discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS#Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Wikipedia:Canvassing#WP:APPNOTE. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the accusation of canvassing is merited. The poster of the second RfC sent out notices even to people who voted for deprecation in the first RfC, including SMcCandlish, who is known to be a vocal and energetic defender of his views. Seems like reasonably balanced publicization to me.
The issue boils down to this: "We didn't have consensus because I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to rerun an RfC, but "We didn't have consensus because not enough people knew about the discussion" is. Did enough people know about the first discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with {{Discussion top}}, and normal TfD process should proceed. If someone wants to object to the merging and eventual deletion of the banner version of these templates, they can do so at the TfD, per standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion open long enough to be archived because there was no further interest in commenting on it, on one of the most-watchlisted pages on the entire system, that is actually the correct venue for ENGVAR-related matters, and clearly labeled that it was a proposal to deprecate this stuff, yes, that is sufficient. Anyone working on ENGVAR templates should be following the MOS (i.e. ENGVAR) page (how do they even know what they're implementing if they're not?), and this was a WP:POLICY discussion about whether ENGVAR should be "enforced" in a manner anything like this, not about template coding matters. It is headed next to TfD ("D" stands for "discussion" not "deletion") where everyone watching the template will get notification of the template-specific TfD discussion. The outcome of that discussion could be any number of things, including to rescope and redocument, to delete, to overturn the MOS discussion (maybe to come up with a narrower solution to the issues raised), to merge the other way around, or no consensus, or whatever. A "help save a template I like" WP:PARENT exercise at VP is just heat, not light. All you've done is whipped up a few panicky "huh?" opposes who clearly did not digest and understand the deprecation discussion. They're objections will be factored into the TfD discussion, so I guess I should thank you in a roundabout way. This will go to TfD discussion where it belongs shortly enough. The fact that this heavy-handed banner is used on so many pages without any consensus being found at more than a tiny handful of those articles' talk pages, has a lot to do with why this template was deprecated. That it has no consensus to be used in the majority of places it has been used is easily demonstrated by removing it from a bunch of talk pages, editnotices, etc., to which it has been added without a discussion indicating consensus to do so, and see how many times you get reverted (for me so far: zero). In the process of deprecation-tagging the templates, no one has responded other than you, days after the fact. Clearly the community totally WP:DGAFs about these darned things.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15 (Initiated 48 days ago on 12 July 2015)? A close is requested in the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closure requested .... Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page. (Initiated 22 days ago on 7 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015[edit]

Would anyone like to take a shot at closing Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015? It's been open for over a month now. Some level of knowledge about computer science/software(?) might be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine#Requested move 18 August 2015[edit]

Procedural closure due to ongoing existing request at Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 5 August 2015 which involves the same move request. Should be resubmitted after that request has been concluded. Rob984 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done by Jenks24. Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps[edit]

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 85 days ago on 5 June 2015)

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface ≠ Surface RT[edit]

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 80 days ago on 10 June 2015)

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 47 days ago on 13 July 2015)
Ping. It has been quite a while now without new discussion. A close by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
We have pretty much a consensus of all save one, a formal close here would probably help against a repeat of an earlier edit war. See in particular Talk:Microsoft Surface#Reaching Consensus. This should be an easy close at this point; especially concerning the use of the disambiguated "Surface (first generation)" in prose. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 62 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible? There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. (Initiated 40 days ago on 20 July 2015)? Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. Kingsindian  08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment The requester seems to have listed the date they requested closure as initiated date instead of the date the discussion started. I've fixed it. Tvx1 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality? Thanks, Tvx1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 55 days ago on 5 July 2015)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#RfC: How should we classify Baahubali[edit]

We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 34 days ago on 26 July 2015)


Should be easy, despite the length. This is covered (generally) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ#Specialized and is a perennial dispute at MOS, as shown by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive index binary prefixes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 65 days ago on 25 June 2015)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. (Initiated 88 days ago on 2 June 2015) Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not doneMOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines#How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I also think a close is warranted owing to the extensive discussion. The consensus in the discussion should be recorded by an RfC close and the guideline updated if it differs from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur a close is needed, and this would be significant enough it would need an admin closure, preferably by a panel. Francis Schonken is not an admin and his "Not done" is just an expression of what he's not doing. Tweaks to MOS:IDENTITY while that huge RfC was open about MOS:IDENTITY cannot (except by curious accident) represent consensus, but were out-of-process. Commenters at the RfC would have been taking such moves into consideration while commenting anyway (I know I was). It cannot be that an RfC can be WP:GAMEd and mooted by rushing to change the wording one-sidedly while that very wording is under discussion, or we'd simply scrap the whole RfC system as useless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described? (Initiated 52 days ago on 8 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall[edit]

Would anybody close this RfC? The proposer has signaled here that he is no longer interested in discussing this. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 24 days ago on 5 August 2015)


Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? It has been open since 10 August 2015. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 19 days ago on 10 August 2015)

Talk:I'm Coming Out#Infobox image[edit]

Assessment is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map#Controversial edit by LightandDark2000 - color of Hezbollah[edit]

(Initiated 74 days ago on 16 June 2015)

  • An uninvolved administrator is requested to close discussion concerning belligerent colors in Lebanese insurgency map. It seems all involved parties expressed their opinions, but there is no agreement for implementation - administrator ruling to close this would really help to avoid further disputes.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#Request for comments[edit]

(Initiated 29 days ago on 31 July 2015)

  • Discussion has been and remains quite nasty. The RfC has potentially serious consequences for the article, but it has been open for long enough and has had enough participants that a consensus should be clear. Admin close preferred because there is a real danger that participants would revert an NAC. From the reaction to Darkfrog24's intervention I would conclude that there is no danger of an NAC being reverted. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC). Edited 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated?[edit]

Request that an uninvolved individual close this discussion, which seems to have run its course. Issue is complicated by accusations that it was improperly raised. 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Its rather long. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, some admin close this, its to the point that there is rehash and rehash going on with nothing new in days. Its already past the 7 days most sections on WP:AN/I are closed by. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic[edit]

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: @Kendall-K1, Woodstone, Siafu, DVdm, Crazy Software Productions, Mike1024, and Dicklyon: @Mmeijeri, Roesser, Kvng, EncMstr, NavigationGuy, TomStar81, and EdJohnston:.) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with wikipedia policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Wikipedia article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [3][4] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and this just in: [5] siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [6]
  • "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [7]
  • "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [8]

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

and finally:

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster[edit]

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.[1]

It is also stated in the paper, [2], that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form.[2] The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.[1]

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"
[Please note that the above line, although written by me on a different page, was inserted here at WP:AN by User:RHB100, not by me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [1], 1991
  2. ^ a b Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.

Discussion (User RHB100 and GPS article/topic)[edit]

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres.[1] Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [2], 1991

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RHB100 - GPS[edit]

  • I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[9] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples from the talk page[edit]

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Wikipedia are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Wikipedia guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

(x-x_i)^2 + (y-y_i)^2 + (z-z_i)^2 = \bigl([ \tilde{t} - b - s_i]c\bigr)^2, \; i=1,2,\dots,n

or in terms of pseudoranges,  p_i = \left ( \tilde{t} - s_i \right )c, as

\sqrt{(x-x_i)^2 + (y-y_i)^2 + (z-z_i)^2} + bc = p_i, \;i=1,2,...,n .[1][2]

Comparison of these equations with the Equations in R3 section of Sphere in which (x-x_i) corresponds to (x-x_0), (y-y_i) corresponds to (y-y_0), (z-z_i) corresponds to (z-z_0), and \bigl([ \tilde{t} - b - s_i]c\bigr) corresponds to r shows that these equations are spheres as documented in Sphere.

Since the equations have four unknowns [x, y, z, b]—the three components of GPS receiver position and the clock bias—signals from at least four satellites are necessary to attempt solving these equations. They can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods. Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions are discussed by Abell and Chaffee.[3] When n is greater than 4 this system is overdetermined and a fitting method must be used.

With each combination of satellites, GDOP quantities can be calculated based on the relative sky directions of the satellites used.[4] The receiver location is expressed in a specific coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude using the WGS 84 geodetic datum or a country-specific system.[5] RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ section 4 beginning on page 15 GEOFFREY BLEWITT: BASICS OF THE GPS TECHNIQUE
  2. ^ "Global Positioning Systems" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2010. 
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Abel1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Dana, Peter H. "Geometric Dilution of Precision (GDOP) and Visibility". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008. 
  5. ^ Peter H. Dana. "Receiver Position, Velocity, and Time". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008. 
This is essentially the exact same argumentation used before, and as before not only do the equations not, in fact, represent spheres, the sources you have cited also do not, in fact, claim that they do. siafu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)"

Here, siafu is saying that the above equations do not represent spheres which I find to be absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what in the world he could have been talking about. I can't understand why anybody with any kind of an engineering education would make such a statement. I then made the comments below. These comments in this context are certainly quite proper.

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?" RHB100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And this whole discussion seems to be aimed primarily at taking frank and honest comments out of context and pretending there is something terrible about being frank and honest. But telling someone they need to review Analytic Geometry is sometimes quite appropriate. But the more important aspect of human behavior, putting correct critiques and proposals for improving the article is ignored. No one has been able to point out anything wrong with the technical content of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" which I placed on the GPS talk page. RHB100 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RHB100 time too valuable for Wikipedia GPS article[edit]

I have decided that in view of the fact that all indications are that I am better educated and more professional being licensed as a professional engineer, my time is too valuable to spend further contributing to the Wikipedia article on GPS. The fact that other editors seem incapable of comprehending the fact that the section, Geometric Interpretation is a disaster and should be removed causes me to conclude that these people are not of the quality I want to continue to work with. I have been one of the primary authors of the section now called Problem description and I have written much of Error analysis for the Global Positioning System but now we have very hostile, highly disruptive editors working on GPS and I do not care to work with these kind of people. RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to impose upon yourself an article ban on GPS and its talk page, as kindly requested initially; your understanding is very much appreciated. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus[edit]

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talkedits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talkedits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment[edit]

I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.

There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.

But per the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.

Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is my version of events.
According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).
As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian  13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian  14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant[edit]

Section transcluded from Technophant's talk page[edit]

Please do not directly edit this section; if you must reply in-line, do so on the user talk page.  · Salvidrim! ·  02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: The below text is transcluded on WP:AN and is being discussed there .

I would like to use this provision to appeal my 10 November 2014 block by Kww for block evasion by using IP edits which violated WP:ILLEGIT. The following are the Standard Offer terms:

  1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
  2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
  3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

As per #1, I have not edited enwiki for over six months under any account.

As per #2, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines.

As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and "extraordinary reasons to object to a return".

I started editing enwiki in August 2007 as Stillwaterising (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) with 6,600 edits between 2007-2012. I had stopped editing from June 2010 until April 2012 as a protest against the Wikimedia child porn (/explicit image) scandal and the failure to approve a reasonable policy to prevent future issues. (This account was retired July 2014 [10].)

I resumed editing in July 2014 under my legitimate alternative account Technophant (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (checkuser emailed). I declared it a Clean Start account and removed references to my previous account not to hide past misbehaviour but rather to avoid future contact with cyberbullies. This is an acceptable use of WP:Clean Start. Under my new account I have made 4000 edits, almost all in 2014.

Nearly all of my problems have occurred since my return in 2014. A large part of my frustration stems from the above mentioned incident. I've also had a hard time adjusting to all of the changes that had happened in my 4 year absence, and the extra scrutiny incurred from using a Clean Start account.

Wikipedia has changed over the years, and behavior that used to be unacceptable is now tolerated (and vice versa). There are also many new guidelines (mostly regarding content/quality control) are in place that seem to go against the founding mantra "Verifiability, not truth". One thing I've learned is that Wikipedia is a force to be reckoned with. It's one of the top sites on the entire web and often the top search result in Google. Teamwork and collaboration has become a major part of the experience.

Please note: during my block I have made constructive edits to Simple Wikipedia (contribs) including disambiguating Minesweeper. I've also, in the past, edited other projects (See my Global contribs).

Please also see my recent request on AN to unblocked my TPA and email here. Thank you for your consideration.~Technophant (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments from user:

@Nyttend: Re your question below. Yes, I posted an unblock request on AN 5 days ago asking for my TPA and email access to be restored which it now has. The link to this auto-archived discussion is here. Please note that there are comments relevant to this request included there.~Technophant (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: regarding the issue of lying. By saying "block evasion by using IP edits" above I was tacitly admitting to several IP edits at Special:Contributions/ from July onward. I was ashamed of my impulsive edit here and tried to claim it was made by other users on my shared IP (it was not). Remember "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." ~Technophant (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy, re Too Soon. I don't think there should be unnecessarily high barriers to obtaining a second chance. I'm not a new user that has little experience or has a long history of problems. If you check my Global Contribs for current account Technophant and my retired account Stillwaterising you'll see that I have over 1600 edits on over a dozen projects other than enwiki. If you look at the talk archives for Stillwaterising you'll see that I had no major issues except for a inappropriate block that was immediately reverted. That, and my 10k+ edits on enwiki over the past 7 years in a wide array of topics (including Vandal Patrol, WikiProject Help Project, and policy discussions) should be more than enough evidence of commitment to the Project. ~Technophant (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax:, re you comment below. Do you even know me (or GregKaye for that matter)? It what way was I uncivil towards him? If what your basing your vote on is simply the comments here I don't think you fully understand the situation. The users who have been involved with me in the past are best suited to make decisions. Users should only be banned if they impose a credible threat to the project. I implore you to find a Mainspace revision that does this. This wiktionary:kangaroo courtkangaroo court proceedings reveal several meatball:lynch mob actions against me, but for some reason I keep coming back for more. Truth be told I care a lot about the Project and these past months have been very difficult for me. I could have just created another account but I decided to keep my integrity and respect the terms. I've displayed "a basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively" what more could anyone ask? ~Technophant (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Technophant, In your edit of 21:55, 15 November 2014 you claimed that I was hounding you. I dispute this. I would prefer for either evidence of this to be presented so that the matter be discussed or for such claim to be struck. GregKaye 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Greg. Good to see you again! LTNS. The past is the past and I've long forgiven you and I can hope that you can forgive me as well. I would like to have a good working relationship with you like we did back when were were working on the ISIL timeline of maps. Let's agree to stop fighting and keep our disagreements out of the public's view. Time to move on, agreed? ~Technophant (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant I really appreciate the past is the past view but also hope that you can reconsider the context at the time. In a thread User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#"Jihadist" qualification and User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#Guido within which another editor commented: "I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, .." and "I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential." I made interventions in good faith and, from my perspective, there was no hounding. GregKaye 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I can not answer your request at this time. I suggest that you do more work in the vandalism project. Before Cluebot got so amazing a few dozen dedicated edits would stay up sometimes late at night trying to both quickly yet accurate pick out whether a revision should be warned, welcomed, blocked or accepted. I was demanding work and you couldn't do more than 3-4 hours without taking a break. I got so used to dealing with abusive editors through a system of escalating warnings then referring if they show a pattern of abuse, not heeding the warnings then they were referred with a simple keystroke to be banned admins. I think that we had a good collaboration and you took it way too personally. This incident was a one-time exception to "don't template the regulars" that didn't go well for either of us. ~Technophant (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant Please can you cite your comment "you took it way too personally".
Please substantiate your comment that you "can not answer (my) request at this time". Why?
You have had plenty of time to consider my question regarding the hounding accusation yet you refuse either to provide substantiation or to drop it.
Please, please do not raise accusation or cast aspersion. Citation is needed for fair opportunity to reply. Replies at times other than at times when issues have been raised in other places[11] and pings also may help. I only noticed your comment here following thank from BullRangifer on my 18 August post. GregKaye 07:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this standard offer process was left to be my only way to request an unblock. I had to ask for help on irq and then (in an awkward process) to first simply ask for the ability to edit my own talk page then devise a scheme to be able to put live content here.

This process isn't at all suitable for a full and fair hearing or discussion. I feels like a violation of my right to a fair hearing because I can't respond. I feel like a prisoner that is put on trial in a cage and there's no way to answer the questions correctly .

Here's what I suggest. Unblock me first. I'll agree not to edit mainspace. When I get back we can discuss any conditions in a more proper hearing. Also, please don't take a lack of response to a question as being evasive. I've learned that I am a survivor of abuse and my first instinct I have when I feel bullied, teased, or verbally attack is to freeze up and not respond. Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. It's sad that so many good admins have left the project and have little intention of returning.

See my comments in the section WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant. Your were given a 24 hour cooling off period by me (see #Other people's talk page edits). You disingenuously said that you were taking a wikibreak while simultaneously editing with an IP address (something you have recently admitted). Your response to your block was:
  1. "Now that I'm back from my Wikibreak I'm rather surprised to find this block notice. No evasion of topic ban was performed or intended. ..."
  2. "First of all the 24 hour "cooldown" topic ban was unfairly placed on both myself and User:Gregkaye. Gregkaye was clearly hounding me and my request for assistance on User:Anna Frodesiak's talk page were all appropriate. ..."
  3. "PhilKnight&Kww. I can't explain this edit either. ... The IP in question is a named "sockpuppet of Technophant" so if I really was intending to evade my redickulous 24hour topic ban why would i use an ip that is already identified as my own? I may be a lot of things, however stupid isn't one of them."
  4. Selective deletion of other people's comments leads to a talk page block (16 November 2014).
14 August 2015 restoration or talk page. AN request for standard offer made Two important points made by you:
  • "As per #2, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines."
  • "As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and 'extraordinary reasons to object to a return'."
The first bullet point shows that you have understood the mechanics of why you were blocked. But you seem to have completely missed that the block came out of an escalation of a 24 hour ban (where you tenaciously and deceptively continued along the same path of unacceptable behaviour). It is the attitude that lead to the behaviour rather than the mechanics of that behaviour that you need to address. The problem I see is that since your access to this talk page was enabled you have shown no understanding of this. The section #WikiProject Syrian Civil War is a sign of the same tenacious behaviour in the area of ISIL (most editors would have waited until their block was lifted before suggesting a new project which others have already rejected). Your comments above Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. is a clear indication that you really do not understand yet, the underlying reasons your account was blocked (you were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding"). -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
PBS you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I clearly remember reading on somebody's talk page that you agreed to lift the 24hr topic ban on my account. I had 100% expected to be gone before noon that day however the person who agreed to drive me (ahem!) changed her mind saying the she wouldn't take to the hospital at all if I wanted to go to one that she disapproved of.. so, now I've already said "i'm outta here" and in order to NOT seem disingenuous I logged out and spent my time anxiously refreshing my watchlist. I know what I remember and I'm NOT a liar. Trust is the true currency of the new economy so apparently right now I'm flat broke just because the "official notification" of the lift of the ban was an hour or so after I made the ip edit. Again, I didn't want to be called a liar so I made that very very minor tweak in the order of redirects (which in no way harmed the project). Does anybody else as retaliation for attempting to start a RFC/U for PBS exhibiting hostility toward users that question what the heck was up with law and order an the talk page of THE biggest news story of this century getting 2 Million page hits a day! Getting the ISIL page headed in the right was a task that needed doing and there was nobody else stepping up to the plate. I haven't had the time, energy or interest in keeping up with the ISIL page. I tried to to give it a quick look-over last night for the first time in a year and besides seeming very verbose, bulky and difficult for to read with my eye condition everything seemed in order. I'm happy to step away from the page knowing that early on (spring of 2014) the persons who were editing it were highly qualified, experienced, and the discourse was literally the best experience I've ever had enwiki. To see THAT turn into THIS just because I wouldn't do exactly as you asked which was revert edits that had already been commented on (a big no no in my book, supposed to strike instead) but when I refused you blocked me! This is insane! ~Technophant (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I very very very much appreciate the kind words of support from the editors (especially MeropeRiddle's) that actually knew me for who I was. There's a minority who see me as a fraud, a liar, a sockpuppet, whatever. For those who a reputation to uphold, or a position the would like to defend I'm seen as a threat. Whatever. I just want to get back to editing, and I've decided to return to my original account (SWR) and wish to end this insane experiment of literally splitting my psyche by creating confusion between the two identities. User: Adjwilley asked me to pick one account and now I regret my decision to use the newer one. ~Technophant (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Adjwilley also remarked here, with an edit summary "what a shame":

I'm also troubled by User:Kww's indef block over these issues, as I've seen him express strong views on the subject matter making me question whether he's emotionally "involved" in the underlying content dispute. It's also discouraging to see the blocks come at a time when the user was trying to come clean: voluntarily disclosing his previous retired account (several thousand edits with only one block) and unwatchlisting all pages related to alt-med. I was hoping that the topic ban would allow him to continue edit productively in less problematic I don't suspect he'll be editing at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}}

The reason why my unblock requests were denied were because KWW refused to allow it. Now that he's been "defrocked" his objections are irrelevant.

I do not agree that Kww's objections are irrelevant, and just because you say so does not make it so. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's curious that nobody has mentioned that this current block came after I posted Requests for Comment/User:PBS - Admin misconduct just prior to leaving on my break. My first negative interaction PBS was on his talk page here. My objection to closing a talk page discussion without giving a reason or signature was improper. I asked him to correct this on his talk page but he ignored me. Some people feel "shown up" when others point out their mistakes. I feel his actions toward me to be retaliatory and there needs to be some kind of discussion about this to prevent his misuse of his position of authority in the future. ~Technophant (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"When you are in a hole stop digging" (see Law of holes)

You are not doing yourself any favours. "I asked him to correct this on his talk page but he ignored me." See "here" This AN is about whether you should be unblocked, not whether I should have my mop taken away. I suggest that you follow the advise you have been given and stop trying to deflect the blame for your behaviour onto others, and start to persuade other editors that you recognize what was the issue is with your behaviour, and how you will modify that behaviour. To date I do not think you have done that. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Inconsistency"[edit]

User:Miniapolis, you wrote on AN: "Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed.Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)" You seem to mistakenly conflating the 2014 alt-med topic ban under my current account (Technophant) as being part of my 2007-2011 editing as Stillwaterising. That account is retired and blocked by KWW. Please see my latest comment above for clarification. Thanks. ~Technophant (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, please take into account that due to confusion and suspicion the (legitimate) use of Clean Start and alternate accounts, this case has become way more complicated than it needed to be. Please see User:Adjwilley's talk archive for more clarity regarding my earlier topic ban and account usage. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Messages for other users[edit]

  • @User:Lugnuts, thanks for pointing out that Kww was defrocked. I noticed here on User:Adjwilley's talk page and followed the trail of clues after I wrote my request. Kww's blocks, while being technically justified, were very harshly applied. A simple warning or 2 day block would had been more than enough for me to get the message. Also congrats on creating 23,000+ articles! I can't conceive the amount of hard work and dedication that must have taken. ~Technophant (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem and thanks for the kind words. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @LightandDark2000: Thank you for maintaining my transclusion scheme for the ISIL timeline [12] in my absence. Although it seemed too complex to some I'm glad that my novel use of transclusion was not discarded. ~Technophant (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)|
  • @Serialjoepsycho: I like to talk to you in private about the user problems you mentioned on my unblock request at AN. Would you mind emailing me please? Respectfully yours, Technophant (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There's really nothing to talk about privately. You don't owe me an explanation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion to have I be allowed an Iban is good idea. I was going to ask for it as part of my unblock then removed the request at the last minute.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Protective IBAN from Brangifer[edit]

I'm requesting an indefinite IBAN from User:Brangifer. This user has been a real thorn in my side, starting with a noedit threat on the acupuncture talk page. He's numerous ad homenim attacks (calling me a liar [13], foolish and showing a "gross lack of AGF".[14], describing me as an editor who is "simply incapable of learning") are just a few examples. He's exploited every opportunity to recommend that I be blocked for a year or permanently. Then when his actions are questioned (below) he's takes statements to protect his image.

The most egregious personal attack was made on User talk:Adjwilley. he made regarding my self-declared mental illness as not only a reason for having me banned, he also implied that I should be involuntarily euthanized with a link to the article that which in the most part describes [Action T4]]. Here is the edit he made a long list of reasons that I should be have my TPA removed:

I think it's time to remove their talk page access. There isn't a single sign of a positive learning curve:

  • no evidence that they understand and accept why they were topic banned and blocked;
  • no acceptance of responsibility for their current situation;
  • only self-justification and self-defense;
  • no apologies;
  • many personal attacks on opposers;
  • lots of belligerence;
  • battlefield attitudes;
  • lack of collaborative spirit;
  • lots of anger issues;
  • self-admitted mental health issues;
  • those issues are then used as excuses for bad behavior;
  • a huge time sink;
  • They seem to think that some positive contributions on two articles (1, 2) justify massive disruption elsewhere;
  • There doesn't seem to be a single plus to them being here, at least not anymore.
I think you get the point. Technophant (and socks/IPs) is not good for Wikipedia, and editing here is likely not good for their mental state in the real world.They'd be better off if they stopped editing and discussing here, and the community will be thankful. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hidden inside the words "They'd be better off" is a wlink to involuntary euthanasia page ([[Involuntary euthanasia|They'd be better off]] if they stopped editing). I feel like his remarks that I should be gassed as the Nazi's did to “incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.” as beyond offensive. It violates Wikimedia's [[Wikimedia:Non discrimination policy|no discrimination]], harassment, and no personal attacks policies. It specifically violates WP:NPA's "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" among others. Saying somebody should be executed IS a type of death threat in my book. I wanted to take this to ANI but I was blocked at the time so I commented about this on my talk page [15]] however the only response I got was that his remarks were "metaphorical" and "in bad taste" but not a death threat.[16]

Wikipedia has zero tolerance for death threats, broadly construed. "Metaphorically" saying a user should be executed against his/her will is a just a thinly veiled death-threat. The way BullRangifer hide his this reference in a Wikilink was sneaky and could easy be overlooked, but it still still threatening.

I get chills of fear down my spine just seeing this username on my screen. His continued presence should not be tolerated. I would like to be able to go to my next NAMI meeting and give a presentation on how Wikipedia is a fun, safe, stimulating place where disabled people can use their skills to help further the mankind's knowledge however this is not a safe place and such intolerance should not be allowed even in the slightest. ~Technophant (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

I am requesting that an uninvolved (but informed) admin please close this unblock request. It's been open for 10+ days and there's seems to be clear consensus.

Because of the unresolved matter of requesting protection from Brangifer, I'm requesting that the thread NOT be marked as "please do not modify" so the much needed discussion regarding the treatment and rights of the mentally ill can be brought to the attention of a wider forum. Thank you. ~Technophant (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Wasn't there just an unblock request here at WP:AN for Technophant? Did it get removed somehow, or am I just remembering wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Check out the last bit of his above post -- there was a request for his TPA/email to be restored so he could appeal the block properly. It was successful and TPA was restored to allow him to appeal his block.  · Salvidrim! ·  03:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to believe that the behavioural issues that led to this block won't return. Technophant was blocked both for the topic ban violation and for repeatedly lying. I don't see anything in his unblock request that addresses the issue that he lied and lied again when he was confronted about the lies. Instead, we get a big waffle about how Wikipedia policies have shifted away from "verifiability, not truth". What would be the motivation for unblocking?—Kww(talk) 03:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing it. The comments from Technophant in this discussion are not at all convincing to me that he's here to edit in a way that will improve the encyclopedia. My impression is that he is trying to Wikilawyer his way out of a block. That does not sit well with me. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Too soon. There are half a dozen edits, all in the short period since Talk access was requested. The purpose of the Standard Offer is to allow people to demonstrate commitment to the goals of the project and a track record of acceptable quality contributions - a handful of edits in the last 48 hours does not do this, and the last edits before that were in May. Come back when you have several hundred uneventful contributions over a period of months. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • JzG: Just to clarify, you are talking about the simplewiki edits, correct?  · Salvidrim! ·  21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. That's the Standard Offer, is it not? Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That consideration was taken out of Offer quite a long time ago. Blackmane (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting new use of "taken out" that I hadn't come across before. "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects." - Wikipedia:Standard offer #Variations. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed. Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The block was apparently related to this notice. This block was quite inappropriate: Technophant was simply remarking about his opposition to the use of "fringe" and using a commonly accepted medical concept as an example. Not alternative medicine and not acupuncture, and unless the ban were extended at some point between the initial banning and the block, this wasn't a ban violation. This is where verifiability, not truth comes in, if I understand correctly: he's saying (quite correctly) that WP:FRINGE is routinely used to advocate The Truth by demeaning positions that aren't widely accepted. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me translate that: FRINGE is routinely used to advocate accepted mainstream scientific and medical positions held by the vast majority of scientists and doctors and validated and verified by more references from reliable sources that you can shake a stick at, as opposed to unproven and speculative fringe positions not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and doctors -- yes, that is quite true. BMK (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Which perfectly illustrates the point that he was making. GregJackP Boomer! 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, it's sorta like complaining that "WP:RS is routinely used to advocate VERIFIABILITY by demeaning sources that aren't widely accepted." BMK (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Technophant: - note that Kww was recently desysopped. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock request. Editors are judging too much on past editing. Technophant has convinced me he has changed and I welcome him to return to Wikipedia. People make mistakes. We are all human. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Changing to Strong Support. Anyone you can handle this level of criticism by others and remain cool should be allowed to return. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per QG. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support User:Technophant are you requested both an unblock and a lifting of your topic ban or just an unblock? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would like to see reassurances that high quality sources will be used and paraphrased going forwards as their was issues with both of these in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, provided the Alternative Medicine topic ban remains in place and the user commits to stop "banning" people from their talk page and to be less combative. In my opinion the sock block stuck not because the logged out edits were disruptive (they were pretty much harmless) but because Technophant showed an inability to disengage from conflict. There was also some WP:IDHT exemplified by their choosing to interpret an (admittedly less than tasteful) comment as a "death threat" despite evidence to the contrary, and excessive "talk page banning". The user's statement above is encouraging, and I think they're a good candidate for the "standard offer", but I'd like to see more of a commitment to avoid the more serious problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Also, could this not have been done with a standard unblock request? This was just a regular old block, not a community-imposed sanction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    EDIT: Removing support based on edits of the past 24 hours, which go directly against the conditions of my "conditional support". Besides, I can't support an unblock request that attacks other editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Believing that any other bans should be raised separately, should Technophant wish to appeal, to avoid them overshadowing the central issue. Per wikipedia's blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users ". Banak (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's been long enough for Technophant to have worked out whether they are going to edit according to accepted norms. If they are, then an unblock is a good idea; if not, then reblocking won't be a problem. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that it's been long enough and they should now be prepared to edit under accepted wikipedia norms. I'm not aware of the topic ban on Alt med that Adjwilley mentions but if it was indefinite it should remain intact. Technophant can later ask that it be lifted. There also seemed to be somewhat of a personal dispute going on here at the time. I don't see a need for a iban but I would urge caution on the part of technophant in interactions. I'd also urge caution in any prior areas of conflict.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a reasonable request. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Technophant was blocked for somewhat minor infractions. I believe the main reason they have remained blocked this long is because of his generally unpleasant disposition, ridiculous talk page banning and his zero-tolerance for criticism of his edits and behavior, resulting is some comments and e-mail that exacerbated the problems. Aside from that his editing was generally pretty good and it has been 8 months since the block, so I'm willing to give another chance.--Atlan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Switching to oppose an unblock at time, per this edit, in which he snubs GregKaye, tells us he isn't answering questions pertaining this unblock request not because he's being evasive but that he simply won't respond to "verbal attacks", and that his block was a "silly misunderstanding". Clearly nothing has changed in the past half year. If you can't even muster a bare minimum of cooperation in an unblock request, you are not suited to edit Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was notified because he and I encountered some extremely peculiar oversighter behavior, where people were being prohibited from mentioning the name of David Cawthorne Haines even though all the non-British and even some of the British media were using it. That was around October 20 and by November 10 he was blocked over a Syria-related edit. I don't have the time let alone the patience to look up the whole history of his life on Wikipedia, but my feeling is that the breakdown in civil order here started at the top with heavy-handed oversighting decisions and that this loss of confidence in the system set the stage for any problems that followed. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This user was very thoughtful, kind, and patient with me when I was still learning how to navigate this site, especially in regards to censored topics and the lack of a documented policy in regards to an explanation regarding the need for the censorship. At the time, I had no knowledge of the undocumented policy of site censorship regarding hostages. In hindsight, I understand why it was done, however the lack communication from oversight (there was none) and the lack of an actual documented policy to help guide a new user of the circumstances, in combination with still learning how to navigate the site, created a very frustrating and confusing situation. This user was one of only a small number of users who actually made an effort to help me.MeropeRiddle (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that everyone ought to read User talk:Technophant#Other people's talk page edits, and consider if Technophant has addressed that issue in his unblock request. To read Technophant's talk page one has to look through the history because Technophant has in the past selectively deleted comments which Technophant dislikes (eg diff). While there is no prohibition on doing that, my experience is that editors who do that are often in denial when it comes to understanding why they have been blocked. It concerns me that in the new section User talk:Technophant#WikiProject Syrian Civil War (dated 18 August 2015), Technophant is reopening a contentious issue even before his block is lifted! Not withstanding my comment on Technophant's talk page at 14:13, 16 November 2014 (diff), I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors. I would be interested to hear if any editors have opinions on such a temporary ban option.-- PBS (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It has not been my impression that Technophant is emotionally involved with the subject, if you are referring to the ISIS page, where I used to edit regularly. His edits there were predominantly on technical matters (layout, etc), not on the subject matter. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved issues In his second unblock appeal here and, with no relation that I could see to a sock puppetry case, Technophant made uncited accusation that I was hounding him. I questioned this at the time in one of the sections of comment that Technophant is shown above to have deleted. In a recent post I again addressed the hounding claim, in what was turned into a talk page subthread to present the view that, "I would prefer for either evidence of this to be presented so that the matter be discussed or for such claim to be struck." Technophant then framed the issue within a context of forgiveness which, in effect, is just another way of revisiting a claim of wrong. I think this fits with the interpretation by PBS that denial may be an issue.
As context to this, on my own talk page another editor commented"I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, .."1 and "I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential."2. All my edits were made in good faith and I would welcome other editors thoughts on content. In contrast to my talk page interactions Technophant jumps into other editors conversations which in this case involved the cryptic leaving of a pain related reference to a Latin text that I still do not understand.
GregKaye 07:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I made this comment on a user's Talk page at the end of April this year: "Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return." I still hold to that view. I think there should be no more fuss and that Technophant should be unblocked. It seems to me that he has been given unnecessarily harsh treatment in connection with this block. He was a colleague on the ISIS page from July last year and was very helpful to this neophyte editor. He was also a valuable contributor to the ISIS page, dealing with technical issues in a way that no other editor could match at the time. His loss as an editor would be Wikpedia's loss, in my opinion. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This was exactly what I didn't want overshadowing the unblock request, and why I specific didn't want any other blocks or bans to be mentioned here, so they can be appealed seperately. Let's focus on the matter at hand. Banak (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry the comment upset you. This unblock request has to be taken in full context, in my view. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly to counteract influence of other involved editor P-123 and to present further information relating to the information above. Firstly, Worldedixor, who has not otherwise been mentioned in this discussion, was banned following an I think highly evolved content at User:Technophant/Requests for comment/Worldedixor 2 that I allege was gratuitously co-presented with P-123 and which I have called into question here. In the final section of the RfC Technophant's behaviour of repeatedly refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent and this is a behaviour that Technophant currently persists with on his talk page. Editors must be accountable for the things that they do and say.
The IBAN between P-123 and myself came in response to a reaction of mine to an edit on the ISIL talk page with content "... Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me. It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else. ISIL are also terrorists by any common sense view. Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries." Not wanting to escalate drama on the talk page I raised issues privately with P-123 in this then much edited thread. In my third post on the thread I overstepped the mark by saying "you continue to argue dirty". Again, this wording was presented privately on a talk page, was instantly redacted on protest and came in context of substantiations presented in that thread.
To, I think, P-123's credit her 11:27, 13 December 2014 (as at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 23#RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL) was redacted to remove not only the uncited accusation of the weasel out and twisted or denied with sophistries accusations and also to remove opposition to a proposal that, I think, had otherwise been entirely opposed on the basis of OR.
My only issue with P-123 was on the basis that I did not view it as practical for two editors to edit the same contents effectively with an IBAN in place I, for this reason, raised a number of issues at ANI, a process that we both contest should be for dispute resolution. We both had qualms in regard to the rapid closing of the case which occurred prior to final evidence being presented.
I can also cite efforts that I made to circumvent a difficulty that was arising between Worldedixor and P-123 at latter date and this is just to contextualise both his irrelevant mention here and the irrelevant mention of other bans.
None of this, however, has relevance to the current case which other editors should consider on its own merits. GregKaye 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:GregKaye says there "Technophant's behaviour of repeatedy refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent" in the RfC. This comment has to be put in context. The RfC collapsed because Worldedixor was failing to answer the "charges" brought in the RfC and diverted proceedings by asking Technophant questions irrelevant to the RfC. The RfC collapsed after that last set of questions from Worledixor on that page and was then closed down (but not by Technophant). (I might add that GregKaye knew nothing of the events that led to the RfC and his comments on it are out of order, in my opinion.) ~ P-123 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, should editors want to you can follow the links such as at the final section of the RfC in assessment of Technophant's behaviour in regard to the irrelevantly mentioned Worldedixor (whose actual misdemeanors, BTW, I am not defending). GregKaye 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per BMK, Atlan and Guy. This editor is not ready to rejoin the community, as I see it. Jusdafax 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (This is a withdrawal of previous support.) I'm rather shocked by the "Protective IBAN" request above. I got to my PC and found a ping about this among the 72 tabs(I love Firefox!) I currently have open. It's rather bizarre, considering I actually was among those requested to comment on whether Technophant should be allowed to return. I !voted for them to be allowed back. Now I regret doing do.
  • I hate to retract my initial support. I extended an olive branch and was really hoping for the best. My trust was obviously misplaced. I hate to be naive, and when in doubt I like to AGF, but this repetition of former behavior makes it clear that we cannot AGF in Technophant. They still have the same basic mentality which got them blocked. (There were many other, and much more serious, issues involved in their blocks than just block evasion and socking.)
  • The repetition of the weird paranoia over a supposed "death threat" is even more bizarre. Does Technophant have a very short memory? When they first complained about my comment, I explained to them very carefully that they had nothing to fear and that my comment was obviously metaphoric. Then, when they persisted, several other prominent editors and admins also explained to them that they were wrong to persist in this way of thinking. It should be a long-dead matter and deeply buried, but instead of letting this go, they now revive it! There is a lot of deja vu over this behavior. Wikipedia will not be well-served by allowing this unbalanced (by their own admission) individual back.
  • We have a boomerang situation here. Of all times, while seeking reinstatement here, this is the worst of all possible times to immediately launch into attacks on other editors. It totally violates point number three at the top of this whole thread:
  • 3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
Their response to that was:
  • As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and "extraordinary reasons to object to a return".
  • Well, we now have a nasty demonstration. We don't really care much what blocked users do in their private lives while they are blocked and not active here. We DO care how they behave here, and this is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Note that the long list of undesirable behaviors in my posted list above was very carefully worded and considered. I didn't just throw out some vague, emotional, personal attacks. Each point will be recognizable to multiple editors who were dealing with Technophant before and up until they were blocked. This attack on me demonstrates that those issues are very accurate, serious, unresolved, are currently lurking, and are already breaking out as behaviors we can assume will reoccur when Technophant returns. I therefore must oppose any return, and we may as well rescind their talk page access and email privileges once again.
  • My response here may scare Technophant into retracting their request for an IBAN, but that won't solve the matter. They have tipped their hand and we now know what they are really thinking and what they are really like. We're dealing with the same old Technophant. I was prepared to completely let bygones be bygones, AGF, and really start over with a fresh page, but this is a total dealbreaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • More observations:
  • As I look through his most recent comments during this proceeding, I find disturbing signs that he still does not acknowledge or understand his faults in this whole debacle. He says he was blocked for "a silly mistake", when it was much more complicated. Socking and block evasion were only a minor part of the problems, but since it's easier to make a sock block than a behavior block, the socking was used as the reason for the block. Actually a whole lot of serious behavioral problems were involved, and they were anything but "silly mistakes".
  • When he again minimized his problems as a "silly misunderstanding", User:PBS rightly called him on it. (Edit summary: "You were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding."") His very unwise and revealing response was to say that PBS was "making a mountain out of a mole hill."
  • He also speaks of this AN proceeding as "kangaroo court proceedings" He is clearly not taking this very seriously, but just as something to be endured as a means to getting back here. There is no contrition or understanding.
  • Here he addresses User:QuackGuru and says that he will forgive/forget QG's past: "People should be judged for who they are now and not what they've done in the past." Yet he then requests an IBAN against me, who poses no threat and has had no interaction with him after his blocks/bans. He's not very consistent.
  • This adds more damning evidence for why he should not be allowed back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Technophant's Request for closure[edit]

There is definitely no consensus. In fact, some editors have stricken their support and changed to oppose because you have yet to show any understanding for why you were really blocked. You even attack other editors and still try to shift blame to them. This is the very worst time to do such a thing. You have really shot yourself in the foot.

By failing to respond to other editors' comments about you right now, in this very AN, including mine above, you demonstrate that User:GregKaye is right when he says that you repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions and deal with problems brought to your attention. You haven't even responded to comments above or even tried to defend yourself. Serious charges against you have been made above, with diffs and quotes, but you show no evidence that you have even read them.

Your way of dealing with such things has been (this is a very exact description):

  • to call critical comments "personal attacks",
  • to claim that editors with such concerns are "hounding" and "harassing" you,
  • then block them from your talk page,
  • then seek IBANs against them, and
  • continually refactor your talk page and delete unpleasant information so that it was unintelligible what was going on.

That's the exact behavior which got you blocked! This is not how we deal with conflict and disagreement here. First of all, we try to not get into trouble in the first place, than we act like adults and discuss things, even if they are difficult and unpleasant matters.

For the thousandth time, you are NOT in danger! NONE AT ALL! No one has threatened your life. Many editors and admins have explained to you that you misunderstood the comment originally and are now deliberately misunderstanding a metaphoric comment. Even though you misunderstood it in the beginning, I and many others reassured you of the actual meaning and that you had nothing to fear. Here is a notable one from admin User:Adjwilley to refresh your memory:

  • "Note: BRangifer's comment on my talk page was not a death threat any more than your "cease and desist" comment above was a legal threat, and I have already seen several users correct you on this point. Continuing to repeat this claim in the face of contradictory evidence is not helping your case. (It's also slightly ironic that you invoke WP:AGF in the same paragraph.)" - [User:Adjwilley]]

That you resurrect the matter is on your own head and reveals you have a real problem, one we can't help you with. Your perseveration over an explained misunderstanding is pathological, and Wikipedia and its editors can't help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brangifer, I think you are taking this way too far. Technophant is obviously extremely stressed and seems to be suffering from medical problems at the moment. He seems to think that you somehow have it out for him, and your extended participation here seems to be proving him right, further aggravating him. He's already done more damage to his unblock request than anybody else could have, and you've already had more than your say above. Also, with the many times your less-than-tasteful comment as been dredged up I don't recall seeing anything that looks like an apology from you. That alone would have gone further than all the free advice you've given Technophant. Rant over. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I support Adjwilley's judgment and comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Adjwilley, yes, you "probably shouldn't be posting angry rants this late." Let's get some needed perspective here. If you were aware of it you wouldn't have written as you did and you would retract much of what you wrote. Here's the timeline:

  1. I have had no interaction with Technophant since he was blocked (except for getting that very nasty email from him, resulting in him losing email privileges). I had completely dropped any issues with him.
  2. When he applied for removal of the block, I was notified and posted a tentative support for his return. I was trying to help him!
  3. Then this whole AN proceeding started on August 16 without my knowledge. Note that I still have had no interactions with Technophant.
  4. Suddenly I get a ping that he's posted an IBAN request against me above. That was a shock, since I expected a favorable response to my support.
  5. THAT is when I wrote my long Oppose !vote above. He had provoked me without ANY cause and I responded, but only after carefully examining all his edits since his attempt to return. In that search I found plenty of evidence that he's not ready to return, is still the same old Technophant we knew from before his many blocks, and I did what we are supposed to do; I presented that evidence, with diffs, and no one has refuted it, not even Technophant.
  6. Then, still without having responded or interacted with me in any manner, he posts his "Request for closure" above, and in it he doubles down on his attack against me.
  7. That's when I wrote this response. I have only responded to his direct attacks on me. I have not initiated any type of aggressive actions against him. I had supported his return!
  8. Now you object, but I suspect it's because you don't know this history.

Please reconsider/retract some of what you've written. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@BR, I was well aware of the timeline, including a point you missed: on 18 August you got a notification of this discussion on your talk page. (Minor point, but it seems relevant between items 3 and 4 in your list.) Anyway, my issue isn't with your reaction to Technophant asking for the interaction ban, or with the substance of your arguments. I too changed my vote when he asked for an I-ban with no provocation. What is bugging me is you becoming accuser #1, creating an entire new section to counter Tp's request for closure, and this when you know that he's in a bad state and wants nothing to do with you. It's like continuing to kick somebody after they're down, when the right thing to do would be to walk away and let an uninvolved admin take care of things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Adjwilley, first off, I totally agree that we shouldn't kick someone when they are down. My impression is that, although he is now placing notices that he's having an exacerbation of his mental health issues, at the time he made the attacks on me he wasn't down enough to keep from making strong attacks. I responded. What would you have done?
If you'll look here (Special:Contributions/BullRangifer), you'll see a gap from August 14-22. That notification was on the 18th. I was on vacation and literally out of internet and cellphone range. I was in the mountains and fishing. It was a blessing to get some fresh air and take a break from internet activities. (I also caught 29 trout.) When I returned I had literally hundreds of emails to deal with and many other duties. If I even noticed that message, I chalked it up to a duplication of the other similar notification higher up on my talk page from August 10. The notification you mention had no link to indicate the location of activity, so I didn't do anything about it.
As I wrote above, the first thing I knew about this discussion was when I was pinged by his posting of his IBAN request. I followed the link and discovered that the old discussion was gone, the one where I supported his return, and that there was a new thread in progress. I had no idea it was happening.
I will take your advice seriously and will try to back off. I have not been the aggressor here and have only responded to his attacks. I suggest someone get him to drop his attacks on other editors and follow his own declarations that he was prepared to forget the past. He is obviously not prepared to do that, but seems to be returning here in battlefield mode. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@BullRangifer, Thank you, I think the closing admin will see it that way as well. My own hypothesis is that the stress of having this thread rolling for over a week and not being able to respond in-line contributed to pushing him over the edge (figuratively). Also, I wasn't trying to say that you knew about this new discussion and had chosen not to participate...I figured you had gotten the two threads confused, as did User:Nyttend above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Useitorloseit unblock request[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Useitorloseit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user requests a WP:OFFER unblock:

I'm requesting the standard offer. It says to contact willing admins by e-mail/IRC but I can't find a list of the willing admins nor anyone's e-mails, so I'm just posting this. I have stayed away for over 6 months, and while I am not the world's most frequent Wikipedia contributor (I am not an expert on a lot of things), I believe I have made helpful contributions and can make more, and I'd like to move past the drama that took up all my time/attention before. (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What went wrong: I made a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. 1000% guilty there. After that point (mid-February 2014), I think I was a lot better at keeping to the rules, but by then there were understandably very few people who had the time/inclination to bother with me. One person who did, retired admin SGGH, noted the before/after split by saying my earlier behavior was "not particularly good" but later I had been "appropriate and diplomatic." But arguing about changing consensus for a contentious edit that is not that important was not going to convince many other editors, for obvious reasons. Going forward, to avoid a repeat of the situation I would: follow the rules very closely and ask if I was uncertain about the proper etiquette; work collaboratively and if faced with contentious editors, use the dispute resolution process and let the chips fall where they may; understand that not every edit is worth a huge amount of time fighting over; and remember that there's no time limit on improving an article so some things take time and that's fine. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts. Max Semenik (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know what the sanctions mentioned in the block log were, and where we can see any discussion that may have resulting in your final block. Chillum 22:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Assuming that the IP is assigned to Useitorloseit, the claim that they have stayed away for 6 months may be a tad premature([17]). However, the edit done under that IP address ([18]) was not disruptive and appears to be a good edit. That being said, I weakly Support the user's petition for unblock. User has owned up to their past mistakes and I believe that the user has demonstrated that they understand why they were blocked in the first place. In addition, editor has promised to strive towards following Wikipedia's editing guidelines and to follow WP:DR in the future. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Stabila711, the April usage of this IP address is irrelevant: it's assigned to George Mason University. It's highly likely that these edits were made by other people, especially if it's a dorm address. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well then, let my comment be stricken. Thank you for clearing that up Nyttend. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for striking it. I found my on-campus IP addresses changing almost daily when I was in graduate school, so I know how unlikely it is to get an address you had months ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User clearly acknowledges what was wrong before and what will be different this time if they're given a second chance. Yeah I'd have no problem accepting this request per the standard offer, WP:AGF and WP:ROPE. Swarm 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:OFFER. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, all the right noises being made here. Worth giving them another chance. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose, He was reblocked in august for abusing alternative accounts so i dont think he should be unblocked
  • That wasn't a reblock. That was a change in settings done so the user can edit his own talk page to request WP:OFFER. The last time he was actually blocked was in July of 2014. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Lankiveil, WP:OFFER and WP:ROPE Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The worst that happens is that we end up coming back here in a few days. Second chances are cheap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. All water under the bridge - give him another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appeal against Topic ban[edit]

With a sense of disappointment and most humbly i wish to appeal against a topic ban enforced against me at the article Bhumihar, here. I must admit that i could see the ban coming for some time, or may be some harsher sanction, given an administrator's continued displeasure , expressed at all times, at any suggestions made at the talk page Talk:Bhumihar and some previous unsuccessful effort of his to get me sanctioned for similar reasons at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_at_Bhumihar. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The eagerness to ban me could be gauged from the fact that the last edit i made at the talk page Bhumihar was partially accepted , although grudgingly. The other part of the edit , which was rejected and is the apparent reason of my ban (apart from some perceived POV pushing) consisted in my removing a vague reference made in the article sourced from a book by Jeffery Witsoe (citation no 16 ). The reference in question commented upon the official categorization of the Bhumihar caste as Shudras by some "earlier British colonial censuses" conducted in India (Earlier here implies - prior to 1889 A.D.). The colonial census in British India is a well documented , systematic, annalized historic record which can be easily accessed and is not so inaccessible so as to be left to speculation and guesses. The administrator instead of appreciating the records made some unrealistic speculations as to the date of the census without ever giving the catual date or the exact census in question.

The edit and removal act i did at the article was at least 4-5 days after i requested all editors to clarify the vagueness of the reference in that it neither gives the date of the census it refers to , nor it's number nor anything about it that could make it identify which exact census it was referring to.

The reference to categorisation of Bhumihars as Shudras is wholly incorrect and unfounded as they were never categorised as Shudras. Many people had pointed out the same thing on the Bhumihar talk page earlier than i, but none was replied to.

The same administrator has dismissed authoritative sources such as James Prinsep as every Tom , Dick and Harry unworthy of being quoted and didnot even bother to reply to my suggestions insofar as i did not edit the article.

That i did not edit the article after the warning and yet the ban.

That i should be 'judged' for my last edit which was partially accepted and is worthy of full explanation and eventual acceptance should anybody bother to verify.

I call upon all the reviewers in supplication if any to afford me a just hearing.

rahila 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talkcontribs)

rahila 20:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: The above may be a little confusing, but I've followed this user somewhat, and so I know that by the references to an/the administrator they mean User:Sitush. Chrishitch, Sitush is not an admin, just an editor like you, and he didn't topic ban you. Abecedare did. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
Up-arrow What Bishonen said. Some relevant links for reviewers:
If there are any questions, feel free to ask. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledging the ping from Bish. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They strive to see a pattern in my editing (disruptive) with the intent to push a POV but what they can't see is the simple fact that each one of the suggestions i made on the talk page (yes precisely the talk page) were different from the other.

I raised some very relevant issues , few of which were addressed very reluctantly and after repeated pointers at my incompetence ,tendentiousness ,disruption and the rest.

They say it's been a long circular effort on my part to push my POV. Well, there was a series of efforts ,linear in shape and undefined in dimensions with many marked by article improvements and marred by warnings and complaints which was as is solely aimed at pointing out the flaws in the sources and vagueness in the content.

If anybody wishes to research a bit in order to help the article , go through the fallacies i have pointed out; because i follow the errors , not any patterns -neither circular nor rectangular.

User:Chrishitch rahila 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you having problems, signing your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban. There are competence issues here, exemplified by the inability to learn how to sign a post, despite attempts to educate. The request for overturn is phrased in such a strange manner that it does not give confidence in the opening party's ability to contribute constructively. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

May i hope there could be issues more important than the One about my signature ? The particular wiki article is spreading lies and whosoever points at it is met with a stern warning not to indulge and is accused of being a POV pusher. The new editors are scoffed at and reminded about their incompetence subsequently. I don't deny i am taking time to get used to wiki methodology and technicalities to say the least . However , i am very sorry to say that the other editors seem so much more concerned about my inability to contribute Constructively ( i don't know if pointing out the specific misinformation or lies in the article, albeit with trusted sources qualifies to be called so) that none appears to have had the time to read the talk page or even spare a few minutes to get into the details of the article.

Is anybody interested in going into the details of the ' dispute ' ? Or is my incompetence the biggest issue facing the article Bhumihar on wiki ? Can anybody spare some time and efforts to check the veracity of article ? rahila 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Business picking up at WP:COIN[edit]

This is a heads-up, not a request for admin action at this time.

COI editing is picking up over at WP:COIN. The latest generation of COI editors mostly follow Wikipedia rules. They disclose their COI, they don't edit war, they add references, and they write well. The end result is heavily promotional. Writing by COI editors is not from a neutral point of view, and presents WP:NPOV problems. Such articles contain only positives for the article subject; negative info is not mentioned. Advertising-like language is used. (My current favorite: “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.” - article about a proposed condo for sale in NYC.) Subjects of marginal notability are pumped up with weak references to give the subject a Wikipedia presence.

All these problems can be dealt with within Wikipedia policies. It's a lot of work. Balancing an article written by a PR firm requires searching for references and writing substantial amounts of text, and may require subject matter expertise. It's not a quick "delete" or "block" action. Toning down promotional language per WP:PEACOCK is quite possible but time-consuming. Dealing with paid editors is a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Deleting a promotional article where notability is marginal means a full AfD, which requires the attention of many editors, especially when the COI editors argue strongly against deletion. For uninteresting articles, getting enough votes to close the AfD may take weeks.

We also seem to be developing an ecosystem where PR firms use a pool of paid editors recruited on freelancing sites, so that no one editor is associated with many articles. (Many ads for such editors are showing up on freelancing sites).[19][20][21] There are people advertising as their portfolio the actual Wikipedia articles they edited for pay.[22].) This is probably sock/meat puppeting as Wikipedia usually defines the term, but it's hard to detect and deal with. This is a growing problem. See the last few weeks of WP:COIN. Somehow we need to get a handle on that. Suggestions?

It was easier when the paid editors were incompetent. Their actions were blatant and obvious. Eventually, they'd be blocked for disruptive editing or sock puppeting. The new generation of COI editors present new problems. We have no way to block a PR agency and all its minions. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The problem is that this pulls people off quality article writing to instead having to clean up the COI editor's mess, in order to get it to Wikipedia standards, so we are essentially working for the PR firm, for free, instead of on core articles. Allowing COI editors to edit if they disclose is better than trying to disallow it and forcing it into the shadows, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that WP:CORP has the bar too low for many of these, which get just enough mentions on marginal sources to slide by. The only way to deal with it is to change GPG/CORP to a higher standard for inclusion, from what I can see. Then we AFD the fluff off the site. Changing GNG (and by extension WP:CORP) in regards to corporations would require an RFC and would be a fairly large undertaking with plenty of contention. Personally, I think we have the standard for WP:N too low as it is. Yes, we are digital and there is no risk of running out of space, but the manpower to police every song, every minor band, every minor company is huge and takes away from our core responsibility. The entire encyclopedia suffers due to all this marginal baggage. Dennis Brown - 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis. Since policing is becoming impossible, raising the notability bar will help. Miniapolis 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Darn! I was just looking for a NYC condo that is an integration of volumes that flow into each other that follows a coherent formal language to create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble. The place I am living in now has a really incoherent formal language and no overall ensemble sensibility at all.
Seriously, though, other than what we are already doing (COIN, encouraging the good guy paid editors who create encyclopedic and non-promotional articles) there is another method that Wikipedia has not tried. Now I am just throwing this out as an idea, not a polished proposal, but what if the WMF used a tiny percentage of the millions it has in the bank to run some sting operations and get some lawyerly cease-and-desist action going? We could pretend to be a customer, contract for a page that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, study how they respond to our current anti-POV efforts, then sue the bastards. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We might not need to change policy, just interpret it more strictly. WP:CORP, WP:PRODUCT, WP:GEO (which covers buildings) and WP:BIO set out tougher notability criteria than Wikipedia generally enforces. WP:CORP discusses whether all NYSE-listed companies are notable, and says even some giant companies might not be. WP:PRODUCT discourages product articles separate from company articles unless the product is really well known, as with Diet Pepsi. We could take the position that, in the presence of promotional/COI editing, Wikipedia's existing rules should be strictly enforced. We need to think this through, to keep it from being used as a bludgeon. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. A major problem is that people take a way-too-loose interpretation of policy in many cases. Nominate an article for deletion because it's gotten nothing but flash-in-the-pan news coverage, and all the keepers claim that they're secondary sources because they're not affiliated with the company. Close a different deletion discussion as "delete", ignoring the keepers because they make the same argument as in the first discussion, and you get hauled to DRV and shouted down by the Randies who call you an idiot and idiosyncratic when you attempt to explain slowly and carefully (using academic sources) that their precious newspaper articles about the subject's latest activities are primary and unable to demonstrate long-term significance. We need to begin more systematically ignoring "keep" votes at AFD from people who haven't a clue about the actual meaning of the terms they throw around. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is entirely within expectations that as WP becomes the major place people go for information, every commercial and noncommercial organization in the world will want a page here. We have various mechanisms to deal with the undeclared paid editors, but we will never eliminate them as long as we maintain that the principle of anonymity is more important than anything else. For declared paid editors, we need to deal with the articles, not the editors. I have three suggestions, which would help individually, but would help best in combination:,
One This requires no policy or guideline change, just a change in our attitude: At afd, accept the argument that Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion.
Two Increase the notability requirements for organizations, particularly new organizations. That's not where all the problem is, but its the key area at present. The problem is how to do it fairly across all organizations. I like a previous suggestion, I think by Kudpung, that the presumption for a new organization is that it is not notable. This would be a change in the WP:Deletion policy or in the guideline WP:ORG.
Three accomplish the same effect by a change in the guideline for WP:ORG or WP:RS that Sources primarily giving information about the motivation for founding a company and its initial financing are not reliable for notability on the basis that they are inevitably PR or inspired by it. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur entirely with everyone here. However, the major problem that everyone is missing is that we only have one firewall against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It's called NPP and it's the most important single operation on Wikipedia; anything that slips through, 'patrolled' and untagged, is safely and securely in Wikipedia for ever. The total paradox is that unlike Rollback, PC Reviewer, or the AfC that persistently creates more talk than action, NPP requires absolutely no prior experience and no demonstration of maturity or clue whatsoever to check 1,000 pages a day, and the New Pages Feed & Curation Toolbar which I/we fought tooth and nail to get the Foundation to build for us is only as good as the people who use it.
In order to seriously address the issue of professional spammers, we would have to start by significantly racking up the criteria for AUTOCONFIRMED, insisting that all non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs create their articles through the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard in the non-indexed Draft space, merge AfC to NPP (we already have consensus for that), add a couple more boxes to tick in the Curation Toolbar, and merge Rollback and PC Reviewer together with NPPer into a user right with a suitably high threshold of competence. What's left of AfC which is basically a minor project, could be merged to WP:ARS.
It still wouldn't completely solve the problem of spammers who apply for and get those rights in order to patrol and pass their own articles (it happens more often than one would care to believe) but it would be a major step in the right direction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
DGG's proposal, "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," sounds like a good start. That would presumably apply to AfD, deletion review, and proposed deletion, and would make it much easier to remove promotional material. How can we make that formal policy?
We might also want to reconsider who can remove a PROD. Right now, WP:PROD policy says "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag". That's an old policy, and predates newer restrictions on article creation. This forces many promotional articles to AfD, which takes a lot of editor time. Many such AfDs fizzle out, simply because few editors spend time on the boring process of voting on AfDs for uninteresting articles. Perhaps PROD removal should require the same privileges as those required to create an article without going through Articles for Creation. Also, at present you can remove a PROD on an article you created. Is that a good thing? This requires a bit more thought. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And who tags articles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and AfD? The NPPrs. Some of them (far too few) do an excellent job, but far too many of them don't fully understand what they are doing and haven't read WP:NPP or WP:DELETION before starting to use the Curation tool as a MORPG. If I spend an hour a day at NPP, I find myself spending more time educating the patrollers and correcting their tags than actually patrolling the new articles myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:CorporateM who I suspect may have some valuable insight on this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition the article side points that many bring up (and I'm mostly in agreement with), there's also the user side stuff that Nagle brings up. As a first step I think we should start changing our SPI titles in such cases to the names of the PR companies itself, and not the first user. Take a couple of SPIs -- Smileverse and Kabir Vaghela. The former includes a bunch of freelancers who have been working together for multiple PR firms but typically coordinated under the Bangalorean name, while in the latter it is from "EveryMedia Technologies" and the sock farm is plain ridiculous and they've covered everything from Hyundai to Hindi films. Getting the firm names provides COIN patrollers easier identification marks and also a list of clients is more easily accessible to do the spot checking here. At the end of the day this is wasting the time of numerous good-faith editors because these sockfarms are relentless. In less than a week I've had to block a dozen socks for just one article, most of them off SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps not entirely related, but there is also an issue with inaction. Regularly I see or I nominate article for deletion that are promotional or plain advertising but not entirely scream that of the roofs. Unfortunately, those article are hard to deal with. Quite often there will be comments like "this can be solved through normal editing". Comments that are blurted out and that nobody, not even the commentator, will act upon. And the article is kept afterwards. This inaction is also allowing a lot of advertising in Wikipedia... The Banner talk 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015[edit]

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike VTalk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi[edit]

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book)[edit]

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book)? The MfD template says, "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." I would like to move the page to mainspace, but the MfD notice says to wait for a close first. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can move it anywhere until the MfD has been closed as "Keep" or "No consensus". And if it's closed as "Delete" there won't be anything to move. BMK (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I am asking for a close instead of moving it. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, an admin should close it on the basis of whatever the consensus is, not because you want to move it, so that's pretty irrelevant. Why is it so darn important that it be closed right now? Are we on deadline or something? BMK (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been open for 17 days, I don't see the harm in asking for a close. Jenks24 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup help[edit]

At articles for creation we have a category of submissions declined as copyright violations. Many should have been deleted under G12 but were instead simply declined and retained. Many of those that were not proper G12 candidates should have been sent for copyright investigation or the violating material removed and the history assigned for RevDeletion using {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Regardless, it is a bad idea that we have a category that amasses an index of copyright violating drafts with the copyvios retained in most of their page histories. Anyway, I have spent the past few days cleaning out the category in various ways, and created a new template function and category for the CV cleaned drafts. The CV declined category had 657 entries when I started and I have it down to just 232 left.

If everyone reading this will do just five, we can clean out the majority in no time. Here's my suggested procedure, if anyone is willing to help:

  1. Go to the category and choose five (maybe use the third letter from your last name or something like that to select what letter in the category to take from, so randomness will avoid duplication of efforts);
  2. The AfC reviewer's copyvio decline will state what page they found text copied from (in some you will have to click edit to see the url);
  3. Compare the draft against the page flagged by the AfC reviewer and delete copied text. Then, as is often the case, the balance of the text will also be a copyvio, but from one or more other sites. Take a few small but unique snippets of the remaining text and throw into Google in quotes. It's fairly fast if you delete and save as you go. See the history here for an example;
  4. Delete under G12 if appropriate (no non-infringing revision to revert to and substantially all is a copyvio);
  5. If G12 is not appropriate, Revdelete the history to hide the infringing content;
  6. Change the decline parameter on the page from cv to cv-cleaned – that is, the existing decline template will appear in edit mode as (parameter you will be changing in underlined red):

    {{AFC submission|d|cv|URL|u=username|ns=118|decliner=Username|declinets=some numbers|ts=some numbers}}

    to (change in underlined green):

    {{AFC submission|d|cv-cleaned|URL|u=username|ns=118|decliner=Username|declinets=some numbers|ts=some numbers}}

  7. Go to the talk page and add {{subst:Cclean|url=URL(s) copied from; just place a space between URLs if more than one}} (note template automatically signs for you).
That's it. For each admin that does not help, God will kill a kitten. Please think of the kittens.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we allow IPs and socks to file requests for arbitration enforcement?[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, which is a low-traffic page. Putting this proposal there would hardly generate sufficient discussion, let alone a reasonable consensus, so here I am. A couple of WP:AE requests against Collect have been filed recently by IPs: 20 August and 23 August. (The second link is just a diff, sorry. Unfortunately I can't give the most helpful kind of link, to a section, since there's an absurd number of recent requests against Collect, all with the same headers.) People have complained in the discussions:

Neverthess, the requests have essentially been discussed in the normal way (then declined), which I believe is noticeboard creep and a waste of time. Of course there have also been earlier AE requests by IPs and new accounts — I think I blocked one of those for abuse of process myself once.

We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (=IPs and less than four days old socks, I'm sorry, I meant to say new users) filing AE requests. I propose that we don't allow it, and that any user in good standing be encouraged to remove such requests. People should use their main account to complain about others. If indeed that main account isn't blocked; if it is, they shouldn't be posting at all. To believe that a user who genuinely doesn't have an established account would know the background of arbcom sanctions, would find their way to WP:AE, and would comply with the requirements and templates there, is AGF run mad. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

  • Support as proposer. I'll add that IMO, if a request is filed by an account that is gaming the autoconfirmation requirements, or is otherwise an obvious sock (on this particular board it's not really that hard to tell), it shouldn't be removed, but the AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Support While I suppose it is possible a new user would know enough about our proceses and how to find out if an editor is subject to AbrCom sanction it is so unlikely that any potential 'injustice' suffered by the 'new user' is far outweighed by the injustice of bad faith enforcement requests. The same can be said for IP editors although I have heard of, but never seen, a few long time editors who edit only as IPs. Those people have been around long enough to know that there are some things that IPs can not do. Again, the potential 'injustice' of not allowing IP reports is far outweighed by the actual injustice and potential harassment suffered by those who the anonymous report would be made. JbhTalk 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Additional comment. - Disagree with "...AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly" as per the recent AE ArbCom case this would be an Admin action and not easily reversed. If an out of process case is opened by an new user or IP it should be closed but that should not be a bar from an established editor filing an Enforcement request based on the same issue. Otherwise false false reports could be easily used to game the system. JbhTalk 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)