Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

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

Contents

Requests for closure

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

XfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21[edit]

There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 2[edit]

Seven discussions need to be closed. Every one of these discussions has been going on for three weeks or more. Paperpencils (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

All complete, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8[edit]

Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Now down to three. SD0001 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Down to one. --QEDKTC 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Violence against Muslims in India[edit]

Request for closure. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Plowback retained earnings[edit]

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at this one? It was originally opened on Feburary 19, but was the subject of a deletion review and was overturned as relist on March 19. (Initiated 58 days ago on 19 February 2015) Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 46 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Korean American#Requested move 11 March 2015[edit]

Requesting closure on Talk:Korean_American#Requested_move_11_March_2015. (Initiated 38 days ago on 11 March 2015). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As-yet untitled Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move discussion[edit]

Pursuant to the discussion currently being held at the Village Pump, if there is determined to be a consensus that another move discussion is permissible with respect to Hillary Rodham Clinton, such a discussion will likely be initiated sometime within the next few weeks. As with the previous effort on this matter, it is requested that a three-admin panel be convened to determine the consensus of the community in this discussion. Such a panel should be composed of three administrators who are experienced in closing RMs, and who are uninvolved with article at issue, and have not previously participated in these discussions. The panel members would be expected to monitor the discussion and enforce civility and protocol, and close it at the end of the allotted discussion period. In light of the last experience, it would also be appreciated if the panel members were to make sure to be available to close the discussion and make a determination of consensus quickly. bd2412 T 04:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for? (Initiated 76 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Exceptions to Small Caps[edit]

An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accommodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this request for closure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Max Verstappen[edit]

Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus in the following four closely related discussions on the above page:

Nationality of drivers

Nationality: official rules according the FIA International Sporting Code

For real

De morgen

Thanks in advance, Tvx1 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done Users on that page have agreed to a compromise, and edited the wording accordingly in early April. No RfC was opened, just talk page debate, no need to close anything. No need to take further action. Kraxler (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Dicklyon and mass moves[edit]

Would an administrator please deal with this thread? Much obliged. RGloucester 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gun show loophole#Merger proposal to Universal background check (6 April 2015)[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin close this, please? Discussion died April 7. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bob Simon#Christians in the Holy Land[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bob Simon#Christians in the Holy Land (Initiated 65 days ago on 12 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bob Simon#RfC: Should the controversey over the Christians in the Holy Land story be included in the article?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play? (Initiated 63 days ago on 14 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

There's a section called Judge Roy Moore is Coming to Dinner about a play which is a parody of Judge Roy Moore. If it is notable it should probably have it's own page as the play does not feature him at all. However, there's limited WP:SOURCES on this and the play's creator. Seems like WP:FRINGE ...

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC (Initiated 57 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the lead include the sentence from the body of the article:

... and to same-sex marriage, but does not now oppose civil partnership.[6][7]

Or should the lead remain simply:

O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Walter O'Brien#RfC: Founding date of Scorpion Computer Services?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Walter O'Brien#RfC: Founding date of Scorpion Computer Services? (Initiated 54 days ago on 23 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tyson Fury#RfC: How should Fury's nationality be described?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tyson Fury#RfC: How should Fury's nationality be described? (Initiated 32 days ago on 17 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Billy Mackenzie#RfC: Inclusion of a fan sourced playlist of Billy Mackensie's work linked to a second skin music steam system enriches Wikipedia's digital vellum. Please see following discussion / dispute[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Billy Mackenzie#RfC: Inclusion of a fan sourced playlist of Billy Mackensie's work linked to a second skin music steam system enriches Wikipedia's digital vellum. Please see following discussion / dispute (Initiated 64 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel (Initiated 63 days ago on 14 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article? (Initiated 61 days ago on 16 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization#RfC on Steve Haas' recent article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization#RfC on Steve Haas' recent article (Initiated 58 days ago on 19 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Supersessionism#RFC on pertinence of the land promise to supersession, in Protestant views[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Supersessionism#RFC on pertinence of the land promise to supersession, in Protestant views (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done RfC was withdrawn. Sunrise (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC  : How should the DOJ report be summarized.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC  : How should the DOJ report be summarized. (Initiated 43 days ago on 6 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done AlbinoFerret 01:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar#Is the António de Oliveira Salazar article seriously out of balance and violating neutral point of view (NPOV) policy?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar#Is the António de Oliveira Salazar article seriously out of balance and violating neutral point of view (NPOV) policy? (Initiated 43 days ago on 6 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden#RfC: Should a cited source include what the article has where the citation appears in its text?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden#RfC: Should a cited source include what the article has where the citation appears in its text? (Initiated 40 days ago on 9 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 33#RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 33#RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox? (Initiated 35 days ago on 14 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of Scotland#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Scotland#RFC (Initiated 38 days ago on 11 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:William Street (Manhattan)#Lede image dispute[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Street (Manhattan)#Lede image dispute (Initiated 36 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Editors seem to have established consensus independently. Sunrise (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} to record the consensus. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Littleton, Colorado#Request for comment: Historical reference to the 1999 Columbine shootings[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Littleton, Colorado#Request for comment: Historical reference to the 1999 Columbine shootings (Initiated 36 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done AlbinoFerret 04:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? (Initiated 37 days ago on 12 March 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 16#Capitalization of universe - request for comment, closed 4 March 2015, in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Einstein Cross#This needs to be renamed to the quaser[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Einstein Cross#This needs to be renamed to the quaser (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes#Replace with summary, or merge?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes#Replace with summary, or merge? (Initiated 67 days ago on 10 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City? (Initiated 60 days ago on 17 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done AlbinoFerret 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2 (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)#RFC: Can the plot summary contain a separate/block quote?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)#RFC: Can the plot summary contain a separate/block quote? (Initiated 45 days ago on 4 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done AlbinoFerret 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings#Picture should be removed[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings#Picture should be removed (Initiated 62 days ago on 15 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings#Request for comment. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs#RfC: How should the funding section be presented?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs#RfC: How should the funding section be presented? (Initiated 34 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Philadelphia Fire Department#Line of duty deaths[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Philadelphia Fire Department#Line of duty deaths (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels (Initiated 37 days ago on 12 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Army Ranger Wing#Unit size RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Army Ranger Wing#Unit size RFC (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kokuchūkai#RFC: Keep previously referenced sources or remove them[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kokuchūkai#RFC: Keep previously referenced sources or remove them (Initiated 42 days ago on 7 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Arab Spring#Proposed merge with Arab Winter[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Arab Spring#Proposed merge with Arab Winter (Initiated 44 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Please consider Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring (Initiated 12 October 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes (Initiated 46 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC: Should the lead include accusations of demonstrators?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC: Should the lead include accusations of demonstrators? (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#RFC re Democratic Party "All of the Above" Energy Policy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#RFC re Democratic Party "All of the Above" Energy Policy (Initiated 49 days ago on 28 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hinduism/Archive 30#R f c : Should we revert to a former version?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hinduism/Archive 30#R f c : Should we revert to a former version? (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Kadampa Tradition#Should the Intro in the Third Paragraph be fixed??[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition#Should the Intro in the Third Paragraph be fixed?? (Initiated 29 days ago on 20 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gender variance#Definition: "Males and females" in the lead vs. being ambiguous[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gender variance#Definition: "Males and females" in the lead vs. being ambiguous (Initiated 57 days ago on 20 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Gender variance#RfC: Should "males and females" and/or "masculine and feminine" be used in the lead?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games (Initiated 119 days ago on 20 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places (Initiated 64 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX (Initiated 51 days ago on 26 February 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Links related to paid editing. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC - Nested links[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC - Nested links (Initiated 35 days ago on 14 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greek–Turkish relations#RFC: Should this article be re-titled Greece-Turkey relations?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greek–Turkish relations#RFC: Should this article be re-titled Greece-Turkey relations? (Initiated 64 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed it. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first (Initiated 36 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward Griffin#Use of term Quackery in the lede, Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on sources[edit]

Open since 22 March, well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Infobox[edit]

A discussion about the use of infoboxes in articles about classical composers. Open since December 24, it isn't a formal RfC but the consensus is not clear, so I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has started again, and more !votes were added. This should be removed from this list, not being stale. Kraxler (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Template:Infobox_British_Columbia_school_district[edit]

Seemingly it is about to be deleted, but any experienced admin may have a look. Hajme 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggested_Limited_Interaction_Ban_between_Users_Alansohn_and_Magnolia677[edit]

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

The consensus is overwhelmingly (unanimously) in favor of the suggested limited IBAN between Alansohn and Magnolia677. The subjects themselves have expressed approval, but seem to waver and continue their unfriendly interaction during the discussion. In any case, it seems not a single unintersted party who's read the case opposes the suggestion, and I am basically requesting a snow close by an uninvolved admin to effect the limited IBAN. (This case has come at least one way or another to ANI or ArbCom 21 (!) times.) BTW, I've templated the page, but that doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, in addition to the ten or so supports, zero opposes, AND the two disputants, this is settled. The sooner an admin effects the IBAN the better for everyone. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done --Jayron32 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Talk:Jihadi_John#Requested_move_7_March_2015[edit]

This has been running for more than a month. It could use a close. Please also take into account Talk:Jihadi_John#Requested_move_26_February_2015, it is about the exact same thing and was opened about a week prior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review Request at MOS page[edit]

NO CONSENSUS:

There is no consensus to overturn the close. A new discussion was started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Guidance on commas before Jr. and Sr.. The new discussion's result should supersede this RfC's result since a wider cross-section of the community is participating. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Some of these are easier than others.
I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.
The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.
If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 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) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[1][2][3][4] sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:
    If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)
These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.
DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. ...

This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.
If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Wikipedia. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Wikipedia's style, not the style of individual subjects.
The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of Closure Review[edit]

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.
It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:
(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)
(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)
(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)
(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)
(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)
sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)
Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Wikipedia go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Wikipedia, as documented in our MOS. Wikipedia routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New RfC[edit]

A new RfC has begun at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas before Jr. and Sr.. As the above discussion has stalled and is being made redundant, I have removed the {{Do not archive until}} tag added by Cunard so that it may be archived in due course. sroc 💬 04:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


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


Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88[edit]

So ruled, an iBan it is. Standard iBan rules. Report violations on ANI or with any admin but me. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not at all interested in who is right or wrong, only in what is best for Wikipedia. In this instance, an interaction ban is the obvious solution. There is an ongoing request for Arbitration [5] which looks likely to be declined specifically because no solution has been sought at AN/ANI first. There was a discussion that was archived and which I was forced to hat here [6] It contains enough links (as does the Arb case) to provide a convincing argument as to why an interaction ban is the best solution here. Then if that is not enough, further action could be taken. I would recommend standard IBAN rules, as there is nothing that extraordinary here, just two editors who simply are never going to get along. If we put the needs of the encyclopedia first, it is my opinion that this is an obvious first (and hopefully last) step in achieving peace.

Comment: Actually, per recent history, I would myself support an additional i-ban between Hijiri88 and myself, possibly joint i-ban if necessary. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You can propose that as a separate item below, as some might pick one and not the other, so we can't lump them. Dennis Brown - 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Support, probably long overdue. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - like Dennis, I can't work out who on earth is right and who's wrong, but I do know that the conversation on WT:WER was not conductive to retaining editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - This does seem like the obvious solution. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - As I myself have requested for an i-ban here [7]--Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that the i-ban will include other accounts/names used by the other party involved. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please take note of my comment here: [8]. I will not interact with user:Sturmgewehr88.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Catflap08: an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Catflap08: Yes, if he interacts with you under another username (or IP) then he would not only be violating the IBAN but he would also be violating WP:SOCK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There may be a problem in proving that the IP or other account is the same, and that might require input at ANI or elsewhere, maybe at WP:SPI, but any time an individual already under an i-ban abuses socks as well, then the penalties tend to be rather longer than they would be for either behavioral problem individually. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case then the procedure does have some flaws. If an IBAN is indeed imposed a WP:Sock should take place at the same time or not? Given the facts presented to me via mail the wish to see me being banned for Wikipedia is indeed a reoccurring pattern of past behaviour. On a side note I did indeed initiate a small number of articles – most of them alive and kicking without the need of a further input by myself – I do not regard the input on Wikipedia to be a contest on winning or losing. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please look into this suspicious email contact? It's almost certainly my long-term stalker continuing to harass me and mislead people years after being site-banned. (I know he's still watching because of his other off-wiki activity.) The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account. Additionally, I would like Catflap08 and John Carter to provide some shred of evidence that I have been editing under sock accounts or undeclared IPs over the past year before continuing these ridiculous allegations. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that you may have a stalker that’s really a bummer for that to happen. For my part I must say that I only use this account and this name. There is an about ten year old catflapXYZ that I do not use. As far as I can see other others have no problem to reach me via email. The only evidence for sock puppetry is the result of a sock puppetry investigation. The procedure is known.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri, this statement above, "The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account," demonstrates to me a very strong possibility of irrationality on your part. There is no rational way to jump to the conclusion that simply not publicizing an e-mail address automatically means that the person in question has sockpuppets, and such a profound violation of WP:AGF is problematic, particularly when someone attempts to use it as evidence against someone else. Your obvious jumping to concusions which clearly violate AGF in your comments about others above raises further questions regarding your decision-making and ability to work with others. Also, Catflap created his account in 2012, and I created mine in 2007. I think there is a safe bet that if either were a sock of someone else, it would be known by now. Apparently, you seem to be persisting in the belief that the only person who could hold negative opinions or make negative comments about you is the sockmaster. I believe the evidence rather indicates that is false.
P.S. I should add that, when I became an admin, I received an e-mail from another now less active admin in which he told me not to indicate my e-mail address, or even enable e-mail on site, because as someone active in a lot of the "religion"-related content he said I would get a lot of e-mail asking for help with personal religious issues independent of wikipedia, like marriage problems, crises of faith, and the like. We actually do have a few other editors around here who even recently get messages on their talk pages asking for help with exorcisms (really!), and, thankfully, I haven't gotten much of that, but I think my e-mail address is well enough known around here that I couldn't use it to establish a second account if I tried. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Repeatedly choosing to read AGF violations into other users's good-faith comments even after you have been told exactly what was meant several times is itself a pretty blatant AGF violation. I told you both on SilkTork's talk page and on your own that I didn't mean you or Catflap08 had sockpuppet accounts, or that you should have public email addresses (I don't). I meant what I said: if you don't have a public email address, then the only way my thoroughly blocked stalker could have emailed you was through the Wikimedia email service, which means HE (NOT you or Catflap) must have an active sockpuppet. Would you please stop making me repeat myself like this.
Additionally, both you and Catflap above made not-so-subtle insinuations that I have violated or intend to violate WP:SOCK by making undeclared logged-out or sock-account edits to get around an IBAN or to inflate "support" for my point of view in a content dispute, something I have never done and for which no evidence has been provided. I would appreciate it if you would realize that this puts you in a glass house when it comes to making dubious claims about others violating AGF.
Also, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus here, so why hasn't this thread been closed?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well before the final curtain draws I would like to underline where the current dispute erupted [9] and what the article on Kenji Miyazawa and more specifically its lede looks like now. Also the result of the RfC [10] most of all saying “The consensus is that the lede should cover what is in the article and is policy based.” In that respect I am pleasantly surprised that the lede should indeed cover what is written in the article – that’s how I interpreted the guideline too. Please note that this has nothing to do with the “nationalist” debate as it was discussed and decided on prior to that.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per my statement at ArbCom. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... Snow let's rap 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that Catflap08 has provided few diffs to illustrate my "personal attacks" and "stalking" of him. This is because any fair reading of the evidence would indicate otherwise.
I don't think an IBAN is appropriate, given that I have done nothing wrong here. Catflap08 has a particular POV and when other users respond by saying the sources don't support him, he responds with forum-shopping and personal attacks. A mutual IBAN would protect his more disruptive edits from me. A one-way IBAN would at least protect me from his continued and unapologetic personal remarks. But the project as a whole would be much better served if Catflap08 was indefinitely blocked.Opposition withdrawn.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A one-way IBAN? Sorry, that's not how it works. I didn't even know you two were still going at each other (in the past, I asked for an admin to put a stop to it myself), so I fully support an IBAN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The purpose of an interaction ban isn't for the sole benefit of the two users, it is for the benefit of the community. It is an alternative to using the block tool, so we get your contributions, you both get to stay unblocked. At this point, it is obvious that interactions by the two users is causing problems outside of a single article. Who is to blame? Frankly, I don't care, as it is clear that any interaction is disruptive to the project as a whole. What I want is a good editing environment for all editors, which takes precedence over any single user's desires. Dennis Brown - 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My only concern is that we've already seen administrative involvement fail to separate these two. By the way, did anyone remember to inform SilkTork about this, since he was the last admin to attempt to halt this nonsense? As its now down to a community vote, I'd like his insight in particular and I think he might want to know what happened here, in light of the conduct he requested during his mediation of the issue between the pair. Hijiri seems indignant at the implication of the IBAN, but I think, in opening this discussion, Catflap may have spared him a block for that whole affair and his persistence in seeking this conflict out. And that's rather the point I started out to make here. IBANs only really work when both parties really want them to and have accepted there is no solution but to cooperate in not cooperating. It's silly, but if it works and stabilizing the problem, who cares, right? The problem is that one or both of the parties is determined to continue the fight, IBANs collapse in on themselves and become the community fabric equivalent of super-massive black holes, sucking up indescribable amounts of community effort and contributor man-hours in acrimonious discussions of the IBAN itself and whether it's being violated and, if so, whose fault it is. And it can be unending. And you can bet it won't be long before these two cross paths again, because they both operate in some shared (and very niche) spaces, and both clearly have strong feelings on said topic. In short, I don't see this IBAN would work, short of a mutual TBAN in those areas as well...
I really honestly sometimes think IBANs are broadly a mistake and ought to be abolished for anything but voluntary application. If someone is not behaving in accordance with our behavioural policies and can't be convinced to, they really ought to just be blocked. The rationale behind IBANs is "Well, we don't want to lose two or more valuable contributors, and this seems to be limited to their interactions with eachother, so let's just remove that factor." The problem is that, if an editor shows a willingness to break with our community principles of conduct in one context, there's almost certainly another context in which that user could be compelled to do so again. No matter how specific the frustration seems to be to that user, there's at least a handful of other editors out there who will rub them the wrong way in basically the same way, and if said user can't comport themselves in those circumstances then, at a minimum, the community should acknowledge as much (and probably impose sanctions as necessary), not try to patch around that core issue. When two editors lock horns and can't let it go, when they come to uncivil words and personal attacks, an administrator or the community broadly should step in. If they can't head the advice being given them in those administrative/community processes, then a line should be drawn for them, beyond which their behaviour cannot be tolerated, as was done in this case by Silk. The party that next insists upon that problematic behaviour should then be blocked. This is all spelled out in policy.
IBANs attempt to allow us to avoid assigning blame and/or spare someone a block, but in the long run in most cases, I don't think they do the involved editors any favours and certainly not the community. All they ever seem to do is prolong the ugliness. So I think we need to think carefully about whether to institute an IBAN here if both parties are not going to embrace it. If that proves to be the case, I say we ask SilkTork if he wants to apply any of the blocks he seemed prepare to implement if his administrative proscriptions were not followed. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in this case and I suspect at least one of the involved parties will fail to hear the IBAN, so if both parties are not going to work at settling this issue, we should send a message composed of substance, of the type that starts at 24-hours in size. Snow let's rap 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The whole idea is that instead of reading through walls of text, it is possible to simply block them if they violate the iban, without having to get bogged down in the merits of the arguments. I am not a fan of ibans, but sometimes, they are the lesser of all available evils. This is one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support two-year IBAN Okay, I've changed my mind. I've had enough of this hassle, and want the IBAN if only to get Catflap out of my hair. But I think a definite-but-very-long time limit is preferable to indefinite for the following reasons:
  1. Past experience has taught me that even having a block log is enough for AGF to go out the window, so having a ban permanently in effect is not attractive, especially if the ban has no purpose (see 2 and 3 below).
  2. Catflap has announced his retirement/semi-retirement. If this is genuine, then there's no point keeping what would effectively be a one-way IBAN in effect indefinitely.
  3. My CIR and NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND concerns regarding Catflap still stand. Even if I am not the next one to take him to ANI, his state of always being in conflict with one or more users has not changed. If he doesn't retire voluntarily, I am 90% certain he will be blocked within the next two years.
  4. His comments on this thread make me think that if he doesn't retire, he will immediately violate the IBAN himself by accusing the next Japanese IP he comes into conflict with (it happens a lot) of being me. He's already done it on the Kenji article, but there was no IBAN then.
  5. If after two years of us both editing English Wikipedia constructively with no violations, one or both of us wish to renew, it can be discussed at that point.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Also an IBAN without further clarification would be technically difficult. Before imposing the IBAN, could someone take a look at the Kokuchukai article and clarify whether one or both of us would be banned from editing it? Catflap created the page first, but 90% of the current article is my work, and both of us are intimately aware of these facts. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:IBAN and see exactly what it discusses. It refers only to direct interaction, it does not rule out the possibility of developing articles independent of discussion between individuals, or much anything else, just directly discussing each other or each other's edits. And I would myself
Support indefinite i-ban as per the standard form, with perhaps a possibility of review after no less than one year. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: So Catflap is allowed knowingly alter my wording, and I am allowed knowingly edit an article he started? Unless someone else radically alters the page again (not likely) or the page is deleted and recreated (even less likely) this situation is not going to change. Please actually read my question before posting an inane remark that doesn't answer it at all. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88, stop with the personal attacks. You've been told this before. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: What are you talking about? Where in my above question is there anything approaching a violation of NPA? Yes, I have been told to cut out the non-personal-attacks-that-other-people-choose-to-read-as-personal-attacks before, but you (and Catflap08, and John Carter) were also told (repeatedly, by multiple users) to stop choosing to read such things as personal attacks when they very clearly aren't. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, your use of the word knowingly seems a rather obvious jump to conclusions contrary to WP:AGF. And, yes, Hijiri, I did read your comment to which I responded. Only after the fact did you do something to indicate that you saw a problem. Rather than rather presumptuously assume bad faith of others, maybe it would make sense if you bothered to make coherent statements which actually say what you want them to say from the beginning, rather than make irrational assumptions that everyone will automatically as a matter of course review the entire edit history of the article and find edits with which you disagree. So, in the future, if you have reservations about others, please show the good grace to actually indicate what they are. And I note you still have not provided the clear evidence by diffs on this page to support your insinuations, which is generally considered good form. And, finally, Hijiri, although I think it has been rather obviously indicated by multiple users now, maybe it is time for you to realize that if other people consistently say you are wrong about something, like your personal view of what are and are not personal attacks, even if you believe otherwise, maybe you are wrong. This lack of clarity in speech and thinking might also extend to other matters, like your refusal to actually support allegations through diffs, or even specifically indicate what they are in a timely manner, as per your above revisionist comments which indicate allegations only after the fact, and then insultingly put down others for not having reviewed everything for you, rather than do the polite thing and actually indicate the behavior you are objecting to from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was simply referring to the "inane remark" comment. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: No, you see, if I have already directly stated that I know Catflap started the article, and Catflap has already directly stated that he knows 100% of its current wording is now mine, then it can't possibly violate AGF to assume that one or both of us know the things we say we know. I made all of this clear in my initial question before you posted a response that didn't answer said question. Also, could you please stop insisting that multiple users have consistently told me I am wrong? You are literally the only person who has disagreed with me on any of this, which is precisely why I am certain that unless Catflap radically alters his Wikipedia activity he will be blocked within the next two years with or without an IBAN. I am not the first person to say this, and in two months you are literally the only person to say otherwise.
@Erpert: Well I can't very well say "your intelligent and considered remark that completely ignored my question", can I?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support with a degree of extreme prejudice that the first offender is blocked. We are no longer at the stage of second chances or listening to any more time-consuming chest beating or excuses. With warnings given to both of them for their behaviour it is either this ban or a time-out. Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works. And Catflap's refusal to back down or strike inflammatory comments indicates a user who is sucking the energy out of those drawn into this personal dispute. We are an encyclopedia not social services - if folks can't conduct themselves reasonably we are not here to counsel them and hold their hand, we simply restrict them or ask them to leave. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@SilkTork: So you're supporting a two-year IBAN, given the circumstances that Catflap is retired and/or semi-retired and the odds of us continuing to "interact" with each other after an IBAN working for two years are infinitesimally small? Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A "retirement" or "semi-retirement" is more often honored in the breach. Best to have things covered for the (almost) inevitable return. And if the retiree doesn't return, the IBAN has no effect on you whatsoever, because there's no one to interact with. BMK (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused, Hijiri...you seem surpised that SilkTork is in favor of the IBAN, yet you were the one who proposed it in the first place. Have you changed your mind or something? (Wait, maybe you have.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: Why would you think that? I wasn't the one to propose an IBAN (John Carter was first, then Catflap08, then Dennis Brown), I opposed an IBAN for the reasons given above until after the current thread started, and I'm still skeptical about an indefinite (read: permanent) IBAN, since punishing me by having a "permanent" ban on my record seems to be Catflap and John Carter's motivation (why else would Catflap propose an interaction ban with me specifically if he has no intention of interacting with anyone on-wiki anyway?). I know this isn't the actual meaning of "indefinite", which here should actually be "as long as necessary", but that's clearly not how some users are reading it.
@BMK: Technically you're right since if I alter an old edit by Catflap by accident AGF should protect me from accusations, but what if someone reverts such an edit and calls it an IBAN violation, I'm then effectively not allowed to revert back. This means that even if Catflap is retired I am still restricted by an IBAN while he is not (a de facto one-way IBAN).
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I mispoke. I meant to say that you were in favor of it in the first place. But just like all the other discussions about the issue, this is really going nowhere, so IBAN or not, this needs to end. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: Hold on a sec, I didn't say I was against an IBAN, I just said that making it indefinite, given the fact that one of the subjects is retiring, seems more punitive than preventative. I agree this needs to end, hence my above agreement to the IBAN. Unlike Catflap, I actually want to get back to creating articles, which I was doing happily in accordance with SilkTork's advice until Catflap and John Carter decided to reignite this dispute on the editor retention talk page. (Seriously, check the dates: that's exactly what happened, and I don't appreciate people insinuating that it's my fault that it came to this.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't do two year bans - the ban will be indefinite. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, it means that the ban's time is not fixed. We generally don't listen to appeals to lift bans until 12 months have passed, but after 12 months if an appeal is successful the ban can be lifted. The arguments you are making are part of the reason we want the ban. Our priority is building the encyclopedia - folks who suck out the energy of those building the encyclopedia need to be restricted or removed. The community is patient and tolerant, because pretty much everyone has encountered problems in editing at some point, but after a reasonable period of giving advice, assistance and warnings, our patience and tolerance wears out. It has now worn out. The more you persist in arguing with folks, the clearer it is that something needs to be done. It is time for you to take a deep breath and let it all go. The community loves a user who can handle themself and walk away from a disruptive dispute. As regards damaging your reputation by getting an i-ban - well, your reputation is already damaged. But you can start to rebuild it by the way you deal with this situation now. And as regards Catflap making an edit you disagree with - well, if the edit harms the encyclopedia someone is highly likely to remove it without your intervention. From my own involvement in an editorial conflict between you two, I found your editorial stance to be the one that was the more inappropriate, and Catflap's edits to be what we expect of users. Your attempts to suppress his edits were unpleasant, and you were close to being temporarily removed from editing Wikipedia for such an approach. In your favour you initially listened to my advice, and responded well. But you have since lost the plot. Listen to me again - stop this chest beating, and adopt a more collaborative approach to editing or you will find yourself not just facing a restriction on interacting with one user, but a restriction on editing Wikipedia. What is being adopted here is designed to help Wikipedia and to help both you and Catflap. Take note of that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Okay, I understand all that, and that's why I'm prepared to accept an indefinite ban that's actually indefinite (i.e., not permanent, but that can be lifted after an appropriate period of time if certain conditions like one user not actually editing the encyclopedia any more for one reason or the other). But (Decided the rest of this reply belonged on SilkTork's talk page, since it has nothing to do with the IBAN discussion.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@SilkTork: From my own involvement in an editorial conflict between you two, I found your editorial stance to be the one that was the more inappropriate, and Catflap's edits to be what we expect of users. Your attempts to suppress his edits were unpleasant, and you were close to being temporarily removed from editing Wikipedia for such an approach. From a look over the issues raised, and linked here, I think that is a good assessment. Hijiri88, you may not "appreciate people insinuating that it's [your] fault that it came to this." You should seriously consider it, though, regardless of "appreciation". Begoontalk 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Begoon: SilkTork asked me and Catflap to strike our ad hominem remarks from a talk page. I did, Catflap didn't. Catflap was asked to do so again; he openly refused, and actually continued posting further ad hominem remarks. I complained about this, and SilkTork told me to go edit articles in an unrelated area and forget about it. I did. Catflap and John Carter then started calling me "ignorant" and an "idiot" on an entirely new forum. I showed up to defend myself against this. Even if you think the latter move by me was a bad idea, it should be pretty obvious who the aggressor was. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Hijiri88: Please be informed that I never called you an “idiot”. As I made it clear this was a general note as indeed under current rules anyone can come along and edit any article under any IP address. The famous word “penis” can be inserted into any article and unless the article is patrolled by somebody that word can stay for a considerable time - certainly some bot will run over articles, but the current situation I find to be unproductive and the “penis” example to be the most extreme one. It might come as a surprise to you but I do not have you on my mind day in and day out. I am on my part only interested in certain subject areas. So yes if somebody does insert words like “penis” or any completely unrelated statements into an article is to me an idiot and this in my books is a current flaw in en. Wikipedia, but this in the long run ends up in another discussion and this thread is not the appropriate space. My work in Wikipedia is related only to certain subject areas and Hijiri88 is not one of them. Also please note that I have been active on Wikipedia not since 2012 but 2008 ([27]) under this name and ever since have not edited under any other name unless I forgot to sign in which was then taken care of automatically. Please also note that your ongoing enumeration of edits and once even a statement made about “winning” a dispute are to my mind disconcerting to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You posted a retirement notice immediately after I rewrote the Kokuchūkai article to say what reliable sources say about it rather than what you want them to say about it. You said you were retiring because of an "ignorant clique" of "POV pushers" and the fact that "any idiot can edit an article". You clearly think I am a member of this ignorant clique of POV pushers. Was I wrong to interpret your use of the word "idiot" to refer not to users who insert the word "penis" into random articles, but to people who deem generally ignorant of the subject matter? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I find this statement to be worrying to say the least [28]. To me it is at this point a futile task to interpret your actions here or elsewhere. You seem more interested in a feud and so far I have no IBAN between me and any other editor – and you?--Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit I find this edit to be somewhat sad as well as it is about the city I currently reside in [29]. I do make my own conclusions now. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a rather obvious, and, frankly, rather obnoxious, evidence of petty misconduct, particularly as the sentence is sourced. It is to my eyes clear evidence that there is a very real chance Hijiri will continue to engage in forms of harassment and abuse perhaps independent and outside of direct interaction, and to my eyes is at least potentially, under the circumstances, grounds for a block. @SilkTork:, and any other admins, any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talkcontribs)
No John Carter, Catflap is shooting himself in the foot with these last two posts. If you actually looked at the edit history, Hijiri is talking about an edit made yesterday, where Catflap replaced a sourced sentence with an unsourced one. It was only today that Catflap basically readded the sentence with its sources and changed a single word (excommunicated→expelled), which is what he and Hijiri have been fighting over this whole time. If anyone should be blocked, it's Catflap. He shouldn't be editing that page while this discussion is ongoing, because it might appear to others that he's trying to "lock in" his version of the page just before the IBAN comes into effect and Hijiri can't revert or alter it. That coupled with him being "[worried]" that Hijiri called him out on a talk page rather than revert him, and him thinking it's "somewhat sad" that Hijiri tagged a vague sentence for clarification (who speculated?) simply because he has a personal connection to the article's subject. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: BTW you should sign your posts. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You did know that what Catflap was talking about was the Karlsruhe page, which Hijiri has only edited once here, as is indicated in the link Catflap provided, right? If anyone is shooting themselves in the foot here, it would seem to me to be Hijiri, by so obviously seeming to add dubious claims to an article which he has never displayed any previous interest in, but is now, apparently, interested in perhaps because Catflap lives there, and, well, you, for not bothering to actually look at the link Catflap provided. And considering you have chosen to make a rather obvious insulting overreaction to a single mistake in a rather long history of editing, I think that maybe, BTW, I can ask you to actually read the comments to which you are responding before making comments which have nothing to do with the topics under discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Sturmgewehr88Nope sorry. As I am not active in Wikipedia 24h a day I do take things step by step. The edit on the excommunication business I reverted since sources presented were unbalanced. I waited for what to happen on the talk page and then inserted additional references. Please note that editing the article on the city I reside in to be a somewhat abnormal act. This is not about content but a feud – I have no time to engage on that level. So who is shooting who’s foot is to questioned after all. At this point I do really ask myself if some individuals do not have a life to live. This is getting way out of hand. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Seeing what has happened which in my books is a somewhat irrational behaviour by the editor in question I would only not only ask for an IBAN but a TBAN against Hijiri88 to edit any articles within the category Nichiren Buddhism. This is the area I mostly concentrate on and I want to carry on doing so in the chain of events he can edit the article on my home town to his heart’s content if he feels a need to do so.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I did know which article he was talking about, and you claim that Hijiri edited said article just because Catflap lives there. And how exactly did Hijiri come across this information? I see a link to Baden-Wurttemburg on Catflap's userpage, but no link to Karlsruhe. So, how did Hijiri come across this information? How do you know he came across it at all? And so what if he added a "whom?" tag; is it insulting for him to edit the article just because Catflap lives there? I think Catflap is overreacting if he honestly is taking this as a personal insult. So yes, I looked at the diff. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Catflap08: So you read Hijiri's challenge on the talk page, and then you readded the text with your preferred wording (which you already know Hijiri objects to). You are willingly partaking in this feud if that's really what it has come to. You now think he should also get a TBAN because he challenged you on a talk page rather than reverting you? I can already tell you that I won't support one. If he had vandalized the article on your hometown that's a different story, but considering the edit he actually made, you just need to chill out. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh and look, someone other than Hijiri disagrees with you over Nichiren Buddhism. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, for the record I don't personally have a preferred wording for the Gakkai sentence. John Carter and Catflap made unsubstantiated claims that the "facts" were such-and-such and that "consensus" had determined thus. I pointed out that they needed sources for this, and Catflap reinserted the previous sources that couldn't possibly back him up (the one I checked clearly says nothing of the sort, two of the three that I haven't checked predate 1997). I pointed this out. Since this thread has not been closed yet and WP:EDR not updated yet, I took the IBAN to not be in place yet, so my posting on the talk page can't be a violation. I left the talk page notes in the hope that either Catflap or John Carter would finally learn to edit in accordance with WP:V (and WP:VNT) and fix the problem themselves. For all I know, they could be right about the "facts", but I merely pointed out that they needpost-1997 sources that support these facts. This appears to be a chronic problem with Catflap, and is why I am certain he will get a CIR block sooner or later.
As for the Karlsruhe edit: I (occasionally) make minor gnomish edits to articles outside my preferred field that I am reading, if I find an obvious problem like what looks like one non-notable author's opinion being cited in the lead as a commonly-held view (apologies to Mr. Ihle if I am wrong). I had no idea Catflap lived in the place, or that he had ever edited the page before. The assertion that I somehow magicked knowledge of Catflap's current residence in order to make an innocuous edit to an article on the town just to harass him is patently ridiculous.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE Perhaps this has gone on long enough and should simply be decided by an uninvolved administrator. Keeping this open any longer is not likely to produce a different, nor a better result. Dennis Brown - 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been open a week now, and I agree it would be not unreasonable for it to be reviewed and closed now. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I was the first one to support closing, and I'm still eager to see this finished at the earliest opportunity. Close. Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I would only like to add that the existing warning to Hijiri documented at WP:RESTRICT about "User:Elvenscout742 (now renamed to User:Hijiri88) [has] been warned to neither poke the bear nor "grave dance"" be perhaps mentioned again, to ensure that he does neither as a result after this i-ban either. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
While I would request the closer to review whether the edit to Karlsruhe qualifies as "poking the bear", behavior Hijiri has previously been warned about, I would also request that the nature of the existing comment at WP:RESTRICT is at best somewhat dubiously worded regarding whether Hijiri is included in the current phrasing "They are also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed," or whether the "they" in that case is supposed to apply exclusively Tristan noir. If the latter, it would be I think appropriate to change the phrasing to more clearly indicate that. If the former, then we may have had some violations already. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: stop trying to find every way possible to get Hijiri blocked. The sentence "they are also topic-banned..." by itself does seem vague, but coupled with preceeding sentences and even the following sentences it should be obvious to anyone who speaks English who "they" refers to (i.e. not Hijiri). He was not "poking the bear"; he didn't even know Catflap lived in Karlsruhe until after he made the edit. And again, Catflap shouldn't get upset over something so trivial. This is just getting ridiculous. A question for the admins: will an IBAN between Hijiri88 and John Carter also be in effect? I would strongly support one. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree, request closure from an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just gonna add this before contacting an admin to close. Recent events, combined with the fact that both users have openly admitted to at least receiving email contact badmouthing me, make it pretty obvious that Catflap08 and John Carter have been engaged in off-site collusion and coordinating for the latter to fight the former's battles. This would also explain the frankly bizarre interpretations John Carter has had of this dispute all along (getting Kenji Miyazawa mixed up with Daisaku Ikeda, for instance): he might have been just repeating what was in the emails, without looking at the actual content. I will not pursue repercussions for what's already finished, but if it seems like this behaviour is continuing after the IBAN is in place further action may be necessary. It is entirely inappropriate for one party in a mutual IBAN to be making off-wiki contact with their non-IBANned friends to get them to oppose the other party on their behalf. John Carter and I never directly interacted once in ten years before the recent Catflap affair, but for the last month or so he has been on my tail constantly; if this continues after I stop interacting with Catflap it will be pretty obvious which party has violated the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


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


WP:PRECISE and pornographic film actresses[edit]

This seems a little too long to post at WP:ANRFC, so...

There was a debate that seemed to start with this thread over whether pornographic film actresses with a common name should use the identifier (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). As is proven from the aforementioned thread, the result seemed to be the latter, shorter identifier. But...Number 57, an admin who possibly didn't see the result of that discussion (and who does appear to have been acting in good faith, mind you), closed two smaller related discussions ([30] [31]) in favor of the former, longer identifier.

After the Aja (actress) move, editors were directed to this discussion, which has stalled. Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier, I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency. The first time I submitted a move request, it was open for nearly a month; and, as you can see from that diff, I then posted it at ANRFC, and that request was then almost open for a month itself. (SN: I'm not sure if Number 57 even has any more interest in this, as s/he made no comments in this discussion that took place on his/her own talk page.)

There are also two more open move discussions that need assessing: [32] [33] Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be simply solved by removing any article that is not sourced to reliable independent sources (the porn fans have redefined reliable and independent to allow them to include a number of unreliable sources with vested interests in the industry, because the vast majority of porn "stars" are not covered in the mainstream media at all). Guy (Help!) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to quote others who I feel have made excellent and salient points on this topic. These are from various discussions. Pings are included so the User know they are begin mentioned here...
  • [34]Film may be pornographic, actors or actresses are NOT. The usage is derogatory and cannot be condoned, especially in a BLP. Instead of this terminology, pornographic film actor/actress should be used. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 12:24 pm, 4 March 2015, Wednesday (1 month, 10 days ago) (UTC−8)
  • [35]From the Aja (actress) discussion, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: "I know it when I see it." Porn is a genre (is it even listed on the Film Genre template?), but those who perform in its films are acting. They are thus actors. What, do people actually think it's like a reality show, with hidden cameras or something? They are acting, they get paid to act. If she was offered the next "role of a lifetime" in the next Star Wars or something she and her agent would jump at the chance. Acting, thus, is the profession, not the type of acting (are people who only do Stage work listed as "Stage actor"?). (EDIT:Just looked at her page, and the 'pornographic actress' label is given to her in the lead, so that makes clear her preferred genre type.) Randy Kryn 18:40 3 April, 2015
  • [36]From the Savannah (pornographic actress) discussion, per WP:PRECISE. There is absolutely no reason to include "pornographic" in the disambiguator, and none of the oppose !votes here have given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, to insist on using the adjective when it is not necessary is POV, as it carries with it the implication that she is not a legitimate actress. That is not our call to make.  — Amakuru (talk) 4:06 am, 9 March 2015, Monday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−7)
  • [37], same discussion as above, Came across the Aja discussion and realized that some people may think porn actors are working in some kind of reality show (or worse, hidden camera program). They are actors, acting in a film. They get paid to act. I don't think Wikipedia lists other actors according to their genre (Horror film actor, Comedy actress, etc.) so it seems odd that one genre (and I know it when I see it, which, my first name withstanding, isn't often) has been selected for more title identification. Randy Kryn 14:07 5 April, 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with the basic reasoning that performing in pornographic productions is what these people DO not WHO they are, plain and simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what administrative intervention is being asked here. Are you trying to restart the debate? Scalhotrod appears to be summarising arguments for one side (BTW I don't accept that porn performers get paid to "act". They get paid to be filmed having sex, which is not "acting" by any definition. Indeed it is in some ways closer to a "reality show" for that reason. Any acting is incidental. As for the last comment, we always disambiguate by what people do not "who they are", so I don't even begion to understand what point is being made.) Paul B (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Paul B, that's a fair question about my point. What I was trying to say is regardless of how we characterize the nature of their work, porn performers are still actors and actresses. The Internet Adult Film Database, roughly the IMDB of porn, is full of thousands of entries for "Non-sex" roles for these same people. If they weren't being recorded on a reproducible and distributable media, we could just label them all "sex workers" and call it day, but that is not the case. Even you admit that they act, even if its incidental. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought what I was requesting was pretty simple, Paul Barlow: whether to use (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). Some of the articles that are still listed under the longer identifier can't be moved, and their respective requested move discussions have stalled; thus for those, an admin does need to assess them. (SN: JzG, with all due respect, your feelings about pornography in general isn't even the issue here.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You have no idea what my personal feelings are about pornography. I only commented on the substitution of unreliable sources for reliable ones by groups of like-minded editors after echo-chamber discussions where they agree this is the only possible solution to the absence of actually reliable sources for the content they want to write about. Same applies to bandcruft. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Um...your first sentence was the only part of your response that I understood. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Two users from WP Pornography are on a drive to remove the distinction between film and film actresses and pornstars in disambiguation, which is being discussed at WT Pornography but not at WT Film and WT Theatre. The citing of WP:PRECISE is a misunderstanding since (dab) terms use category terms such as (John Lennon song) not (Lennon song) which are not WP:SHORTEST. The two users have placed several RMs, most of which have failed, but 1 cited above is an exception in having passed. There have also been repeated undiscussed moves, which hopefully have now been reverted by admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In ictu oculi and JzG are right on target. There's an established practice/naming convention which enjoyed consensus support; there's no consensus to change it; but a small number of editors now are using fait accompli tactics, forum shopping, and WP:CANVASSing to get their way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have documentation of disruptive editing, then an editing restriction may be imposed. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In ictu oculi, if the discussion was also being held at the other two forums, that would be forum shopping. The whole purpose of this thread is to ask for consistency; nothing else. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for some users to understand. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The OP is attempting to take a local consensus from a single page move discussion, with comment from a handful of editors, and turn it into a project-wide consensus to be applied to all pages. This is not how consensus works. If nothing else, one discussion closed one way and two others the other way; why not see that as indicative of the global consensus? If you want to establish a global consensus to change 'porgnographic actress' → 'actress' then this needs a discussion at the proper forum with wide input from editors, not just the result of a single RM that happened to go the way you like. GoldenRing (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You're completely incorrect. I did state: "Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier..." but right after that I said: "I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency." In other words, some shouldn't say (pornographic actress) while others say (actress); they should all say the same thing (how is this still not clear?). And it's ironic that you bring up WP:LOCALCONSENSUS considering the discussion that closed in favor of the shorter identifier had more editors comment in contrast to the two editors that commented in each of the other two discussions (which I was neither aware of nor commented in, btw). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update Erpert has just created a new bio at (actress) and another editor moved Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress)) to Talk:Taylor Hayes (actress) despite a RM having just closed against the move. So these editors are determined... In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing you're talking about Casey Calvert (actress), and if you'll recall, a consistent result to the issue has not been done. And another user moving the other article has nothing to do with me. (Have I moved any articles since the discussions started? No, but you have.) Why are you still holding that stick, anyway? (You've even been told to stop by several editors.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Erpert, anyone who looks at the article history can see that your claim that "moving the other article has nothing to do with me" is transparently false. You initiated the move at Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress); you edit warred without opening talk page discussion after your move was reversed, and you refused to substantively participate when talk page discussions were opened, instead casting aspersions and personalizing the discussion. You've been told to stop this, over and over[38], and this needs to stop now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) , 14 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Where in the world did you get the idea that WP:HOUND was a suggestion? You're not above the rules here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no evidence that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above is WP:HOUNDing you or anyone. As for Talk:Aja (actress)#Japanese actress "been told to stop by several editors" is bizarre, I hadn't noticed it, but I find it bizarre that you as a non-admin take it upon you to put a purple "procedural close" round anyone disagreeing with you on a Talk page. Never seen anything like it.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The evidence is listed in a different thread, so instead of steering the discussion in that direction, I'm not going to bring that here. But as for closing the discussion you just mentioned:
  1. Non-admins can procedurally close discussions.
  2. I clearly stated in the rationale why I closed it: to avoid forum-shopping on the issue. There are even diffs in the rationale that state that the suggestion to close it was given by different editors; did you not read them?
Anyway, as I said to Number 57 when I alerted him/her about this discussion, I'm not complaining about the way s/he closed the two discussions s/he closed at all; all I requested was title consistency. But I gave an additional comment in the now-revived (thankfully) discussion on the porn WikiProject talk page, so I have no problem if someone closes this thread. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Not so fast, Erpert. An involved editor cannot close a discussion, admin or not. You were obviously involved. Your explanation of the close shows reasons that don't justify a non-admin closure. And the outcome wasn't clear-cut, as policy requires. And closing it based on comments in a different discussion, in which you were also involved, is completely unjustifiable. As In ictu oculi quite accurately pointed out, this is an unprecedented departure from policy and practice, and should be reversed without any further delay. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this close would have been completely inappropriate even if coming from an uninvolved admin, since it suggested (wrongly) that the result of the discussion was to move discussion of a mainstream Japanese actress and fashion model with an ambig problem with the article in question to WT:PORNO(!). Has anyone asked User:Steel1943 if closing the "Japanese actress" thread was actually what they were "suggesting" in the linked diff? Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What I was stating on my diff was that the result of one article's RM isn't an appropriate reason to close a discussion on a naming convention page. I had no opinion on what was to be merged into that discussion, but yes, essentially, I felt as though he close was inappropriate given the discussion's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Technically, though, both discussions had to do with naming conventions. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Moderation of Collections?[edit]

Greetings Admins,

Two weeks ago, Extension:Gather was enabled on beta for English Wikipedia mobile users, allowing logged in mobile users to create lists of articles. More stats will be shared soon on how the feature has been used so far. Meanwhile, we have drafted a document to discuss further moderation of created Collections--how flagging would work? What do we want to avoid, what do we want to achieve, etc. Please check and add comments/suggestions. Many thanks. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Under current policy WP:Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site it seems any such user pages would be speedily deleted if they don't relate to our work (for example non-editors making a random collections of their favorite bands). It seems to me there are a few possibilities here.
  1. We could enforce existing policy and delete-on-sight all collections unrelated to our work here. (Possibly assigning a bot to just bulk-delete them.)
  2. We could make these pages an exception to WP:NOTWEBHOST and work up some new acceptability policy for them. (For example a list titled "Likely Rapists", including convicted rapists along with politicians-they-hate would be flagrant BLP violation.) And we could devote substantial editor-time to policing (?)hundreds of thousands(?) of such pages.
  3. We could accept this as a WMF project and exempt such pages from our policies and Community management, and let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them. Alsee (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the final option. We already have too few admins to perform the work; no good reason to add an extra responsibility. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As already mentioned in the shared draft, this is not meant to overload admins, if it is agreed that moderation scenarios could depend on different user groups, then be it, that is why we have this discussion. :-) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, but I still have to ask the question: Does the WMF actually know what editors and Admins actually do here? My contributions are small, but getting larger as time goes by and I learn. This "Gather" application creates "collections" of articles, to be personally maintained by end users, right? People they are somehow expecting to register as editors in order to make their collections? So, in effect, we will be creating a whole new class of editor; one who is interested in generating information for personal use, but not necessarily contributing to actual content. And the Admins will be expected to clean up the mess made by these inexperienced "collection editors" who know nothing about our policies and guidelines? It has taken me MONTHS to learn how to navigate Wikipedia policy and culture, and there are plenty of editors who are familiar with it - and refuse to abide by it! No wonder the Admin corps is shrinking - they are already overworked.
And to follow this, the WMF is going to suddenly allow 1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook automatically? Again, without experience - and suddenly where is the anonymity we swear by? The mind boggles at the vandalism, intentional and otherwise.
Do you know what us "little guy" editors really want? How about an easy way to connect with my Watchlist from my phone? THAT would be something cool to have. To be able to conveniently and intuitively respond to Talk Page messages from my phone, or to see when somebody has vandalized a page I care about. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Endorse ScrapIron's sentiments and option 3. These collections, having no encyclopaedic value, should not have to be managed by administrators of the encyclopaedia. BethNaught (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Eternal April? In all fairness, I don't mind getting lots of new editors, and who knows but that maybe this will attract new people. However, (1) there should be higher priorities for improvements, e.g. the watchlist-via-phone suggestion, and (2) when there are so few admins, don't expect us to start moderating something else. Unless you hire some paid editors to be professional admins, you'll have to remember that we're all volunteers here. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, we can decide that in addition to AbuseFilter, which is planned to run on the lists, moderation scenarios, if agreed, doesn't have to depend on admins.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Further, I would suggest to all admins that they decline to deal with collections (having no encylopedic value), but if something problematic is brought to their attention, that they ping a random selection of WMF staff to deal with it. I'm sure they'll get very bored with that very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"1.2 BILLION new editors, logging in from Facebook": citation needed. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not realize that citations were required on the comment boards, but suffice to say the WMF plan is to complete their "Unified Login" project, where one user logs in to all WMF sites - followed buy the "Facebook Unified Login" initiative, where people can log in directly from their facebook accounts - as many websites already do. A recent report shows 1.2 billion unique Facebook accounts log in at least monthly.Treat the information as you desire; as I am not putting it in an article, I don't plan on providing citations. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Like i figured. You are totally wrong. The WMF's unified login has nothing to do with the unified login of Facebook. You should read the latest announcement before making unfounded statements. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If it were true, Wikipediocracy wouldn't have covered it on April Fools' Day. (Or would they? ...) BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I got caught by an April Fool's Day joke, so be it. I had not read a follow up on it, and - to be brutally honest - I would not put such an idea past the WMF. "mea culpa; mea maxima culpa" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)I find the whole WP:NOT thing a total bogus argument here. It's too black an white. Because we are also NOT an encyclopedia (in the traditional sense) and we ARE a web host (also in the traditional sense).. and we are even a memorial site. All are (in)valid up until some vague gray area that we sort of collectively 'sense' that is right. If we start throwing everything that doesn't fit what we currently are under the bus on first sight, then we might as well put a bow on the entire website and call it quits collectively. A sentiment I personally tend to gravitate towards more and more every day. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I really, really try not to be one of those people who automatically poo-poo every new idea the WMF puts forward, but I cannot help but wonder how out-of-touch with the day to day realities here the staff has to be to come up with an idea this terrible, and then two weeks after they enable it ask us admins how we are going to police it for them. We aren't. Do it yourselves if it such a great idea. Don't dump new responsibilities on unpaid volunteers who can already barely keep up and expect us to just craft a policy out of thin air for a feature we do not desire or even understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just had a look at the list of "collections" linked to from the above page, and it already had one called "stupid" that contained a single BLP. (I've "hidden" it.) This will need policing if we want to keep it vaguely compliant with policies like BLP, if the WMF are counting on getting the community to do this then they should have asked first, and I doubt they'll find many volunteers given the very limited value of this feature. Hut 8.5 22:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The first experiment in this project is a pilot feature for providing users with an opportunity to create and share lists of articles - How is this different than a Watchlist? The only difference I can see at first glance is that these new lists would be static, unless you took off articles or put them on, while a watchlist is continually updated when a page (and not just articles) gets edited so it is dynamic. So, these would just be pages with lists of articles and you could "share" them basically how you can share any page, by linking to it...I'm not sure how much supervision would be needed unless these were annotated lists. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A few hours ago I came across the list "Evil Corporations" and hid it, but had no way to find out what other lists had been created by the same person. So this is not just wrong in theory, it is problematic in reality. It is difficult being an administrator on this site if people are going to inflict this sort of burden on us. ϢereSpielChequers 04:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Currently, when you click on the username from the list view, or from the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GatherLists page, you are directed to a page with the user's created lists in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Gather/by/username. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But when you've hidden a page you no longer have a username for it in the list view.... So normal admin workflows don't apply because these are not standard pages. Make this a way of creating pages in userspace and much of the problem goes away. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, how is this different from Wikipedia:Books, a feature we've had with little controversy for, oh, 6 years? Some people complain first, and then later try to figure out a reason to complain... --Jayron32 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It has a PDF export functionality that is actually useful. This extension has no redeeming value. MER-C 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it primarily provides a similar functionality of making collections of articles, but with a focus on mobile usability. It should lso help with learning lessons on how to improve watchlist functionalities for mobile and desktop.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Request option one, bulk delete by bot – These must be deleted under Wikipedia policies. RGloucester 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, this extension does not have an API. MER-C 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Gotta laugh. For years we've been asking for multiple watchlists for registered editors (and hey, shared watchlists for registered editors might be useful) but instead we get this. --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
True, and this has been addressed in the FAQ--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the English Wikipedia community has no power over how the WMF uses its time and employees, and we do not have a way to make sure the WMF actually makes itself useful -- the useful tools we have are developped by our own volunteers via userscripts or external resources. This proposed gizmo is neither useful nor harmful to us and the pages generated by it will be treated exactly as any other userspace or Book: page would under our current policies. If we judge from the current usage of Book-space, I don't supposed the additional work imposed on our administrators to moderate these "lists" will be very significant -- if it creates more work than the benefits it brings, I'm sure the community will agree on ways to prevent its abuse. WMF must at least act responsibly in ensuring this "extension" works without a hitch on desktops (depite its mobile-friendliness) to allow the wide majority of our administrators to work with without obstacles. Creating more toys for people to contribute in ways that don't actually improve content shouldn't become yet another source of problems for the rest of the volunteer community to deal with. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  05:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Melamrawy (WMF): Assuming I would like to see how amazingly life-changing this Extension is for myself, how do I actually create a list? Mobile Wikipedia is so shit (for admnistrative duties and talk page discussions and various clerking things) that even on my phone and tablet I use the desktop version, so please show me where I can make use of the Gather thing. It's not on my Beta features page. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, if you have beta enabled (on mobile view, in settings) you will get a message while browsing articles inviting you to create a collection, or else, click the watchlist start and then you choose to add to watchlist or to a new collection. And as agreed, this is not meant to overburden admins (or any specific user group) with tasks, the product is in early experimentation phase, and the early discussion is to help decide on how to move forward with it--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Mobile view makes it impossible for me to perform my administrative/clerking tasks and engage in discussion, so even on my phone I use Desktop. Where can I create a list using the Gather extension? Or are you trying to tell-me-without-saying-it that your shiny new buttons are Mobile-only? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a mobile feature, as clearly mentioned :-). From mobile or desktop, you can navigate, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, in settings, from the drop down menu on the left, you can enable beta features and hence experiment the feature. As mentioned, if the discussion is showing more inclination to treat the lists with less supervision as Liz (talk · contribs) suggested, or to treat them identically like Wikipedia:Books, or to form any other alternate model that doesn't involve admins then we opt to that. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Melamrawy (WMF): What percentage of active editors (more than 10 edits in the last 30 days or some similar metrics) edit primarily using Mobile and not Desktop? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, probably very few, since mobile is currently pretty poor. But this new extension, sadly, doesn't improve that. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going for option 3 per my comments on the previous announcement, all of which are still relevant. MER-C 08:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the WMF product manager for this feature. Thank you for sharing your criticism and concerns. I think I have gathered them all here, but let me know if something is missing:
  • This content is not encyclopedic (and therefore doesn’t belong on wp). Neither are personal books, but they have "Export" feature so are useful.
  • Moderation tools suck and rely too heavily on admins
  • Only on mobile
  • Would rather have multiple watchlists/ are annoyed the foundation is not prioritizing features that you (ore even all admin) are asking for.
I think these are all reasonable. Am I missing anything? I wont go into every point, but I do want to share some thoughts on the first point. I share not to convince you, but to hear your take on them. I think of collections as new ways for readers to find content on an encyclopedia. Right now, most of our users come for a specific fact and then leave (I owe you a citation here, but our analytics team confirmed with me yesterday that the median number of pageviews is 1). So you have built this beautiful massive library of knowledge and most people aren't really browsing as much as they could. One goal of this pilot is to help people find interesting, objective encyclopedic content using subjective groupings. The primary reason they are associated with a single user is so that the subjectivity is clear and not mistaken for fact. I think this fits with our mission, but curious to hear if you do not. As Melamrawy (WMF) has pointed out, this is just the first stage for the feature and we hope to make it more useful in the future. We are reaching out in the very early stages to see what you think about the feature and moderation as well. Given that at core, this is essentially a list of pages, do you have any ideas for things that would make this more useful either for readers or as an admin tool? Thanks! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If I believed that collections would be a useful way to acheive that goal, I would be more supportive. However, I don't understand how they will draw in that many people. First, people on mobile have to register an account (which currently requires the app, I believe), then start adding pages to their watchlist, which will tell them about collections. The kind of people who come for one fact then leave won't log in or notice these things exist.
Suppose that a significant number of people log in and make collections. The point, as I understand it, is to share them on off-wiki channels? (I wouldn't expect readers to navigate to a special: page to discover lists.) But the types of links that get shared on social media don't really include encyclopaedia articles; mostly it's armchair activism, funny stuff and memes, etc.
If the point is to share the lists with other users, well, that is a smaller target for increasing readership, but also, depending on how pages are marked as being in collections, it could be extremely similar to categories. How about you add them to mobile view?
This is why I don't think this is useful, though if you have some statistics to disprove my premises I'd love to hear them. BethNaught (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
These are all fair points.
  1. I agree: people do not share articles on social. I think this is primarily because they are so neutral. By adding a bit of subjectivity, we are just testing to see if that moves the needle or doesn't. We are also exploring sharing from another angle via the share-a-fact feature that just launched on our mobile apps this month (on ios today). Here is the techcrunch article. There is an interesting startup called UpWorthy which recognized that people are sharing a lot on facebook and tried different tactics to get them to share interesting political and progressive materials. This is far far far more subdued experiment.
  2. I also agree that any shift away from a quick fact lookup will take some time. I don't expect major engagement from quick-fact-looker-uppers anytime soon. This is another reason it is important to remember that this really is just a first stage--if we can start generating more collections (discovery is currently an issue) from more-than-casual readers or casual editors, then we can start to surface them in a way that does not detract from primary content and see if people find it more useful than categories.
  3. Categories: I think one issue I see with current categories as a browse tool is that it is too neutral. If I want to find important German Philosophers, I have trouble using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers because nobody is able to take an opinion on who the influential ones are. However, if a user smarter than I am made this list, I can benefit from subjective knowledge. FWIW, I am also exploring getting categories onto mobile, but its going to be a little bit of an experiment. Okay, I have to run to another meeting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and please let me know if you find anything I said to be off. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Those all seem to be reasonable points. To be honest, I'm still very wary, as I'm sure others will be, of integration with social media. The other issue is why WMF is acting on mobile, not core users on desktop – but that's question 4, which you have declined to answer now. BethNaught (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The reason I am acting on mobile is because my team is the mobile team.  :) More so than that, because it is lower-trafficked, it is easier to pilot and experiment with things on mobile rather than desktop. Despite those reasons, we are making attempts to bring this from mobile to desktop. Set an alarm for 3 months and come harass me if you don't see progress there. ;) Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you all again for your feedback. Given the sentiments and positions expressed (Alsee's option#3 seems to be the winner), my team and I will look to other solutions for moderation of collections. I don't think we will remove the gather-hide permission from the Admin group just yet, but my expectation is that admin's will not be taking an active part in moderation. This is early in the development of the feature, so I would be happy to resume this conversation at later point if you feel the situation has changed enough to warrant it. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • So the WMF is going to hire moderators to deal with this content but leave other moderation to volunteers. That's a big change and requires some thought, in particular if someone is blocked by WMF moderators are they also blocked from editing other parts of wikipedia and vice versa? Are you going to set up another service like wp:Refund so that people can request that WMF staff reconsider the deletion of their lists? ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey WereSpielChequers, lets clear this misunderstanding :-). The current situation of moderation is that lists could be hidden, but the users themselves aren't banned. Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, unless you are an admin yourself, and definitely WMF isn't going to hire moderators to take care of a specific feature on a long-term, this would be a weird model. It is good that we are starting the conversation early, and it is good to hear the different voices. Ideally, the decision made collaboratively should depend on how to best maintain the feature in a way that aligns with our existing systems and make the best use of the feature for the movement.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Mealrawy: Wait, what? the users themselves aren't banned -> Blocked users (locally or globally) would still be able to use Gather? And what do you mean Gather admin rights are only limited to Gather feature, will there be a different user-right "Gather admin" (or equivalent) that is distinct from "standard local adminship"? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Melamrawy, I was responding to Jkatz (WMF) saying that the WMF would look to other ways to moderate collections. As far as I'm aware the only serious options are that the community does it as volunteers or the WMF pays people to do it. Allowing totally unmoderated content on this site is a non-starter and while AI moderation is pretty good, it isn't close to 100% and it takes time and good examples to set it up. As for blocking users, I count myself as very light handed on that, but just as some attack pages earn their creator a block, so will some attack lists, and other list creators will get blocked because otherwise they will just go on creating and recreating the same attack lists. If you want examples of what I'm talking about go through the articles that I have deleted per {{G10}}. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there's lots of unclear communication in this thread, and part of it is caused by lack of key information, and part of it is caused by the terminology being used. Generally speaking, Wikipedians (whether administrators or editors) don't moderate anything; we use much more specific terms to cover the activities that I believe Jkatz (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF) are thinking about. We do recent changes patrol, new page patrol, or page curation to review newly added content; and we may use various other tools to identify instances of other problematic content. If something needs to be removed, we revert it, revision-delete it, or possibly delete the entire page. Sometimes we even suppress or suppress-delete content. For most websites, all of these tasks fall under the scope of "moderation"; but because we're a lot more picky about our content than, say, Facebook, we are a lot more fine-grained in describing the tasks related to management of the content.

    I don't think that many people have noticed yet, but these pages will go into the Special:namespace, not into the creator's own userspace. (Yes, they'll be in there with Special:Block and Special:Watchlist and Special:New pages feed and all those other automatically generated pages. This extension adds user-created content into the Special:namespace.) I've tried to explain why this is not a good idea, but perhaps someone else can also do this. As best I can figure, the reason it's in the Special:namespace is that it's sort of vaguely considered to relate to watchlists. I've read just about all the documentation available (although I can't read the underlying code well enough to understand it), and I don't see the connection, either philosophically or technically; however, if the theory is that these pages are closely related to watchlists, then that is an argument to move watchlists into the userspace rather than an argument to permit user-created content into the Special:namespace. I've made that argument already on phabricator. To the best of my knowledge, there's no ability for administrators to do anything in the Special:namespace otherwise, so I don't think this should even be available at the beta level until these issues are adequately addressed. (To me, putting user-created content into the Special:namespace is roughly equivalent to keeping the staff fridge in the basement boiler room.)

    There is also no provision at this time for deletion of this content, only "hiding" - and the "hiding" will still allow the creator to see the content. I see this as a problem as well: Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to allow anyone to keep a 'gathering' of articles with a header describing them as "Bitches I've been stalking" or "Military installations I'm planning to blow up" or....well, a lot of us are quite familiar with the kinds of things that users can create. These need to be DELETED, not hidden. They may even need to be deletion-suppressed, reported to emergency@wmf and the users blocked. I'm relatively indifferent to people keeping lists of stuff in their userspace, so I don't have any concerns about the philosophy behind these pages. Risker (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for anyone else, but my understanding of the situation, based upon discussions at the Project managers talk page and WMF edits at the project page, is that the WMF posted here on Admins noticeboard because they initially pictured Admins doing the work, and my understanding of the current situation is that they take this discussion as us rejecting *admins* doing the work..... and my understanding of the current situation is that their solution is to steamroll forwards with the project based on the idea of assigning this work to *editors* rather than *admins*. Speaking for myself, the WMF has a painfully poor understanding of who we are or how we work. They have no conception of "the Community" in any meaningful sense. We're just a bunch of random Facebook users, and if they set up a DATING NETWORK, then by-golly some random users will show up and do whatever work needs to be done to manage it (because that's what we are, an infinite MAGICAL pool of free labor).... and if ADMINS don't want to get involved that's fine, the Dating Network won't take up any admin time. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. My most recent post to the Project Manager's page was an offer to help him take this to Village Pump, to get a Community Consensus regarding the plan of "editors" moderating collections rather than "admins". Much of my efforts for the last few months has been desperately trying to get the WMF to constructively engage with us in that sort of manner. Alsee (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alsee hmm, I am not sure where did the assumptions of dating service and random facebook users come from, but I have replied to your points on Project managers talk page. Thanks for your points Risker, agreed that "moderation" could better be replaced with "maintenance", also agreed on the need of complete deletion, and sending emergency email to ensure no real threat/damage is taking place. This should be something to develop for the upcoming sprints.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Melamrawy (WMF) Sorry, Dating Network was a Wiki-joke. WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE is the same policy link as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The policy says in part:
Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
Lists of "my favorite bands" are out-of-scope distraction from our work, and in bulk they become disruptive. Alsee (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Right Alsee, maintaining someone else's list of favorite bands, should not be anyone's task at first place, as the drafted document explains, the point behind discussing methods of flagging, revision and deletion, is mainly to ensure that legal policies are met. Something, which regardless of this feature could still be violated, with content that exists under userspace, with creating a book or when multiple public watchlists are enabled for desktop, at some point. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I request a restructure of my current TBAN[edit]

Preamble[edit]

This is a request to change, not remove my restrictions. I understand that I cannot use this request as a means to re-argue the ban that was placed on me, further, I have notified the banning administrator User:Fluffernutter already and have provided a link to this discussion. Per the conditions of that ban I may appeal at The administrators noticeboard or The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard . I am choosing to use the Administrators Noticeboard so as to get the maximum input of the community involved. I am also aware that once I post on the AN board, my conduct goes under a microscope and I may be subject to flat, airborne, returning objects flying in my direction. I appologize , in advance, for the length of this report. I felt it necessary to detail my behavior and those involved so as to give a fair report to both sides of the issue. I have sub-divded the argument so as to avoid the "Wall-O-Text" effect. I have further {hat} / {hab} 'ed the details to make reading this request easier.

Brief history of the ban[edit]

* I was topic banned for 6 months on October 1, 2013 by Fluffernutter.

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

* On April 14th , 2014 I was indef banned by Fluffernutter.

* The exact nature of my ban is : topic banned from "all pages and discussions related to transgender issues, broadly construed" .

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

My proposed outcome[edit]

I am , again, not requesting that my topic ban be lifted, but rather, restructured. Specifically:

* I request that I continue to be topic banned, broadly construed to only the topic of Chelsea Manning , my edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter cannot be construed any other way other than disruptive, even though I never carried out such a promise, as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that in that article, and solely in that article, I demonstrated disruptive conduct, as such a topic ban was clearly earned on my part.

* Fluffernutter has also topic banned me from MOS:ID under the same discretionary sanction. I ask for it to be lifted with the understanding that: I am to avoid MOS:ID for 6 months, broadly construed, after 6 months time, I may revert obvious vandalism only, six months after that, I can request a lifting of sanction from that page completly, and if consensus is that it be lifted, then good, otherwise, let consensus dictate what restrictions, if any should be given to me.specifically on MOS:ID.

* I would request that I be allowed to edit any other articles relating to transgender issues. There never was any history of disruption across that whole topic of transgender issues or people, only on one specific topic in one specific article, thus a topic ban for all such articles is punitive and not preventative.

KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as Proposer KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • TL;DR If you want any support for this proposal, please shorten it (or provide a summary). You know as well as I do that a lot of people aren't going to slog through this wall-o'-text. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment OK... a bunch of stuff's been hatted up - creating a brief summary. Thanks for the suggestion. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - How would any disruptive behavior on transgender related articles be handled if it occurs? Would you expect it to be treated like any other editor with incremental warnings (which for inexperienced editors amounts to a 5-strikes-you're-out policy), or would you expect to be under a higher level of scrutiny with fewer (or perhaps no) warnings? Just curious how you envision this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
*Answer EvergreenFir Per my agreement with Floquenbeam I would be on 0RR on Transgender articles (I'm by default on it anyway ), also per that agreement, any discussion that I get involved in , where at least 3 users in good standing disagree with me, I would need to drop what ever it is I'm discussing and leave it be, so this would take care of disruptive behavior. However, if I screw up , because I've been topic banned I'd fully expect a higher level of scrutiny. I'd say 1 warning only, if I fail for whatever reason to heed that warning, I get TBAN'ed again. I'm not a newbie, I know what 3RR and NPA is, so I would have no excuse. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a reasonable restructuring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose User has history of recommencing disruptive behaviour directly after bans/blocks. Behaviour on Manning was particularly egregious. Not encouraged by the appeal the second the moratorium on appeal expired either, unless the user can show us some edits they think need making so urgently. Begoontalk 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
No Kosh, it's a genuine analysis. I looked through your talkpage archives shortly after you posted this, long before Peter's appeal was ever mooted. Not everything's a battle, even if you want to treat it as such. AGF, y'know. Fix the sig, please, it's ugly. Begoontalk 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, tell you what, just like I offered to below, if consensus says I'm wrong, I'll strike my comment. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't care. You accused me of a "retaliatory strike". It's bollocks, but strike it or leave it as you see fit. No skin off my nose either way. The sig is an eyesore, though, did I mention that? Begoontalk 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've got to agree that the signature is both a bit of an eyesore, and, well, at this point, kind of dated. Nimoy's been dead a month and a half at this point, and keeping it for this long does look, well, weird. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no, I love the Nimoy tribute, it's the "look at me, I'm the biggest, most noticeable, blurriest thing on the page" thing that makes my eyes sore. Anyway, that's a discussion for somewhere else, and Kosh has had it drawn to his attention many times before. That's the kind of stubbornness that makes me uneasy about this request, actually. Oh look, we're back on topic. Begoontalk 21:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
2 users have asked me to change my signature, so , consider it done. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Lose. the. shadow. I'm a huge B5 fan, so yeah, shadows. But lose it. It's visually offensive. That's an opinion, and I do acknowledge your willingness to consider change. Just consider change to something that doesn't overwhelm people's eyeballs. That's a request, nothing more. Begoontalk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree on the sig, fix it for real. You're not exactly showing a lot of cooperative and collegial spirit for someone who wants a topic ban adjustment. BMK (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Lose the shadow. It's distracting and unclear. Try to listen to your colleagues when they raise a genuine concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Heck yes, kill the shadow and make the whole thing less huge. IMHO, even your revised sig does two things, both of which are bad for you. It makes you look egotistical (ME!ME!ME!) and it distracts from what you're actually saying. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I like artistic signatures, sorry about that :) I did change it again, no shadow this time. Hopefully this is a bit better. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. Now, part of it is so faint it makes me think my eyesight is failing even as I read it. BMK (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Changing colors is pretty easy.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks cool and I was thinking of making a sig like that but I won't. Don't want to hurt others eyes. Popish Plot (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now that the signature's settled. Let's get a consensus on my proposed outcome :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, let's. I'm still opposed, for the reasons I gave above, but open to persuasion. You didn't answer the question about what edits you want to make that you're currently prevented from making. Maybe I didn't phrase it that well. I'll rephrase it: What edits do you want to make that you're currently prevented from making? Thanks for adjusting the sig. Begoontalk 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Begoon Sorry, I missed your question the first time. At the moment, there are no edits that I need to make, however, I do vandal runs and my restrictions prevent me from removing vandalism on any transgender articles, also, my restrictions make it impossible for my to participate in any way on any issues that touch transgender issues. If allowed I to edit and particpate I would observe the agreement I have with Floquenbeam (0RR, no hatting anyone's stuff except mine, 3 users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop it ). Thank you KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon Tagging on to the response of 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC), How frequently are you hitting TG articles during your vandal runs? What is the mean time to someone else noticing the vandalism (after you've spotted it) to being reverted? What specific topics would you have participated in had the restrictions on TG issues not been in place for you? I'm trying to establish a feeling for your influence/impact before I give my view. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Damian appeal to revoke 2009 ban[edit]

Unbanned: The consensus here is clear, Peter Damian has been unbanned by the community. I do not see that the discussion needs to run further, especially as the ban was closed after 8 hours. There are a number of recommendations within the thread, such as zero tolerance of future misbehaviour and topic bans, though none have gained traction. Instead, I strongly recommend that Peter Damian remains mindful of the suggestions in this thread. WormTT(talk) 13:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Copied from Jimbo Wales' talk page. as requested. Begoontalk 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I am editor Peter Damian. I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2003, and started (or was the major contributor to) many articles in Wikipedia, including logic and set theory, architecture, London places, and in particular medieval logic and philosophy, on which I am a published author, [39]. I was banned in August 2009 after accusing an administrator and ex-arbitrator of sockpuppeting.
After the ban I edited from other accounts, creating a number of articles and improving many others. This upset many Wikipedians – no one has ever complained to my knowledge about the quality of the content, but I was breaking the rules. So I stopped, and haven't touched Wikipedia in any significant way for nearly 3 years. (I occasionally edit Jimmy's page as an IP). I am a frequent contributor to Wikipediocracy and I wrote some of the exposés that found their way into the mainstream media.
I appeal to the community to revoke the ban of 2009. Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban, but I welcome comments from other members of the community. user:Peter Damian
  • End ban - I'll get this started. Does anybody remember what this ban was originally about? Or what great end has been served by alienating a subject expert from participation in writing the encyclopedia? "Peter" is a very reasonable voice at Wikipediocracy; he's capable of being a productive Wikipedian. There are plenty of critics of WMF and the dysfunctionality of some aspects of Wikipedia who are currently working to build the encyclopedia in a productive way — myself included. There has been enough water under the bridge. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - HERE is the last stable version of Peter's courtesy-blanked User page. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Carrite [| This would be one place to look ], [|| more history ], He even made it to [| Arbcom ]. Since he has a history of socking (per Arbcom) I'd want to see a CU done to see that he hadn't socked prior to this writing this note. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia sure is a funny place. In the section above I see a topic ban appeal, placed around 20 seconds after it was permissible to do so, after the countdown template for appeal on his user page ticked to zero (no, really...), by a user whose talk page archives and contributions shriek conflict from day one, and don't improve much over time. Yeah, that's you, Kosh. And now you'd like a checkuser on a guy appealing a 5 year old ban? This truly is the twilight zone. Can you do something about that horrendous signature, by the way? Thanks. Begoontalk 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Actually, my unban request was a day later (1 year and 1 day later ), yes, I had a countdown on my page, that's true. If I were banned from Wikipedia and wanted to get unbanned, I would totally expect a CU would be run on me to make sure I hadn't socked during my ban, as that would look pretty bad on my part, so it's not too far fetched to request that. However, if the consensus in this discussion is that a CU isn't necessary, I'll strike that request myself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral (edit conflict) As a rule, I'm generally in favor of the Wikipedia:Standard offer, and as far as I can tell, the criteria are met here. But I do see an issue with the comment regarding the signatories of the ban. A surprisingly large number are blocked, a fair characterization on that account. A couple have left or renamed a bit of a stretch, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one. There is only a single obvious sock in the version of the discussion linked from his block log, which to me makes the claim regarding the involvement of sockpuppets in the ban discussion seem rather dubious considering how lopsided the discussion was. More generally, focusing attention on who !voted for the ban, when its clear the ban was properly enacted with a strong consensus of !voting editors, makes me worry there may be a lingering battlefield mentality. Maybe I'm reading too much into that one sentence, lets hope so. Monty845 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Standard offer. I think KoshVorlon's suggestion of verification a reasonable one. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • End ban I believe Peter Damian has much to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • End ban per Wikipedia:Standard offer. Begoontalk 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Carrite and not with Monty. I see that final sentence as saying basically "Nobody's left who asked for the ban", i.e. "I won't be able to resume old conflicts" (it's hard to fight with an inactive user!) and "there's no point in notifying them, so the whole discussion will depend on people who are uninvolved". I would be opposed to an unban request from someone who attempted to seek real-life harm against another user (for example, Ecoleetage), or from someone who has a history of advanced vandalism (for example, Robdurbar), but when you're banned after a series of personal conflicts, we should acquiesce to what's basically a request to start over. Moreover, you've demonstrated that you're interested in contributing encyclopedic content: it's radically different from when we get an unban request from someone who wasn't particularly active in starting and/or improving articles, because we can expect that you'll help us in writing the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting ban. Admittedly, I don't see item 2 of the Standard offer met, but the circumstances involved here have been discussed at length, um, elsewhere, shall we say, and from what I can tell of the discussion there, if it is accurate, this editor's personal behavior may not be worse than some of the others involved in that matter, and may have, in a sense, been more in keeping with current policies and guidelines regarding content anyway. I advise that the content related to the ban is now under discretionary sanctions, and that it might be very much a bad idea to unilaterally play hero on that content right now, but I think that there are enough other editors who are aware of the occasional POV pushing on that topic to maybe keep the content up to level. One could always, however, go to the FTN, where I think Peter might even fairly regularly see some people he knows already. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should lift Peter's ban and welcome him back. He obviously cares about the project, and has done a lot of good even while banned (for instance, by doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Wifione case). Frankly, I think Peter's concerns about FT2 (which led to his ban) have proven to be borne out. I think Peter has a lot to offer and I can't think of any good reason why he should remain banned at this point. MastCell Talk 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure Blocks are cheap. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A little part of me dies everytime someone repeats that nostrum. Blocks aren't cheap. MastCell Talk 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hahaha, it hurt me too. Can't believe there are any little parts of you left. Arkon (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Three years is a long time to be dormant. It sounds like time has been served. My comment is that when an editor returns like this, they have dozens of eyes on them. Should he fall into battleground behavior, it's an uncontroversial reblock so the potential benefits outweight the potential costs, I think. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the ban.--MONGO 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: lifting of this ban. Time served, agreed. Please give this editor a new chance. Fylbecatulous talk 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Revoke ban. The origin of the ban was a conflict between PD and... FT2 (I wrote "a then arbitrator" at first, but I see MastCell has already named him, so what the hell), who was forced to leave the committee in disgrace in early 2009. There was a lot of bad blood between them. In my opinion Peter was far less at fault than FT2, but he (Peter) is a hot-blooded fellow who lost his temper repeatedly after suffering much provocation and dishonest dealing. If anybody doubts that version of events, I can give details and diffs, but after all this time it's perhaps not necessary to revive the old scandal. Peter should have been unbanned long ago. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Support: lifting of this ban, pr all of the above. This is *way* overdue. (PS, I´m not an admin, but I hope I can have may say, still?) Huldra (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support but with absolutely zero tolerance for any misbehavior whatsoever. As said above, blocks aren't cheap, it frequently takes a lot of energy to get someone re-blocked once a block is lifted. I don't want that in this case. BMK (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the ban. I was inactive for a long time and sat out all of this drama. Looking back at some of the relevant discussions with the benefit of hindsight makes this look far overdue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per MastCell and Bishonen. Andreas JN466 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lift ban per WP:OFFER; a lot of water has flowed under that bridge. Welcome back. Miniapolis 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting - and from looking into the background to this, I have to suggest that the original ban was questionable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the ban. I'd be delighted to welcome Peter back. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Honestly, the very concept of Peter Damian returning makes me feel ill. Just to make sure we're talking about the same user: this is the person who claims to be writing a book length- and format "expose" on Wikipedia that discusses specific editors (COI declaration: I'm one of them) by real-world name? That Peter Damian? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If he can hold himself to your standards of behaviour, I'll join you in opposition. Other than that, shut up, really. You're discredited everywhere that matters. Everyone knows, you know. Begoontalk 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That I was an asshole as a teenager? Absolutely. But, as you've just so nicely demonstrated, the way it's understood is an inaccurate one. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
How old were you when you made the comments about setting an editor alight with oil? Genuine question. Begoontalk 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The comments I have seen from PD regarding Wikipedia have been constructive and insightful. As noted by others a lot of water has been passed under the bridge since then. He should be allowed to contribute here. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting. Long overdue. Free speech, Oliver. That he is writing a critique of Scientology this cult is not grounds for banning him. It's grounds for applause. Get it straight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    "But free speech!" == "Literally the nicest thing I can say about this is that it's not actually against the law". Yes, I'm free to refute anything he or anyone else says - if I am totally ignorant of the streisand effect. Yes, I'm free to sue him - if I'm totally ignorant of the streisand effect, have far more disposable income than I actually have, don't plan to get anything done for at least six months, and enjoy what WO does when one pokes the bear. That he is writing a critique of Wikipedia is not grounds for banning him; that he is so incredibly apathetic to the idea of what happens to actual, living people is. Tell you what; when you've had a stream of death threats from people, mounds upon mounds of hideous, defamatory commentary, and basically had to live under a rock for a year, then you can come to me and tell me that you have the slightest idea what is actually practical in that situation, and how you're incredibly comfortable letting a member of the same weird clique as the issuers of said defamatory commentary and death threats hang out in your home space. Until then, I'd suggest you put just the slightest amount of energy into empathy and understanding that people may have legitimate safety concerns with rewarding people who egg on and support an environment that contains those kinds of people. Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Before he posted his reply I redacted the part of my original comment that said "sue him if he lies" for the reasons Oliver lays out above. It was a stupid, thoughtless comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it wasn't a "stream of death threats" but a death threat, from someone Oliver won't name but who is apparently "associated with" Peter ... or, at least, someone claiming to be someone associated with Peter. I presume that's meant to mean someone from Wikipediocracy. I've asked Oliver to name the sender so the moderators can ban them from Wikipediocracy, but he won't. Oliver didn't report this to the police. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Or to put it another way: you have very deliberately selectively quoted and interpreted what I actually said, in order to reduce the impact of it as much as possible. Do you genuinely wonder why I didn't trust you enough to handle the situation reasonably to give you the details? Or is this just some sick game to you? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for having misrepresented you. If you'll show me where I've done that, I will definitely correct the record. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you find PD using your 'real-world name' problematic when it features prominently on your user page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
He'll probably clarify that at the same time that he justifies suggesting use of a pen to punch a... Oh never mind, it's pointless. Begoontalk 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You want me to clarify what the difference is between my real-world name being associated with my userpage, and my real-world name being the title of a chapter of a book explicitly designed to crap all over whatever the chapter covers? Really? Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This should be an easy decision. I look forward to his upcoming contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I admit to not being familiar with the specifics of what @Ironholds: is noting, and mean no offense in my support of the proposal. More information? A statement from PD?JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I've read enough now to be continue with my strong support. No offense to those who oppose. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
On his talk page, Oliver explains that it was someone else that sent him a death threat. I've asked for clarification. Presently, it seems like a rather extreme attempt to keep someone out who has had the temerity to criticise him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If I had a problem with being criticised I wouldn't work for the Foundation. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a mixture of reasons I can and can't talk about. I really don't see much value to many of the exposés published on WO and he hasn't shown that he has the ability to stay civil when he disagrees with others. The book that he likes to parade around is worrying; why should we let someone back into the community who is planning on breaking our mores is a very public way? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuck no. This is a person obsessed with Wikipedia, obsessed with outing Wikipedians, and who has been actually banned by the UK WMF chapter from attending events, and who openly admits ban evasion. Why would this be a good idea? Guy (Help!) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuck yeah. But I can't, because I already voted. So indent'n'all. You're often right Guy, and I've often agreed with you. You're wrong today. Begoontalk 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The UK WMF retracted that ban and apologized. I also find it hilarious that anyone here who spends as many hours editing Wikipedia as some of the editors here would call Mr. Damian's interest in WP "obsessive." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere, Peter has posted this

    I would be very grateful if someone could point out that the ban was revoked, and apology was made, and the notice on the mailing list taken down by the WMF. ...
    "All, there's been a bit more discussion on Peter Damian in a thread above. I really want to make this clear, however, to everyone, so I'm starting a new section: Peter Damian is not banned from any Wikimedia UK events. We were, in late 2011, worried about his attending an event at the British Library, and we reacted to that by banning him from attending it. This evolved into a 'general ban from events'. However, it was pointed out to us that this ban was perhaps an overreaction, and indeed after having met with Peter in person over a cup of tea, we are quite happy that he is not a 'threat to security'. As a result, we rethought the ban - it was, shall we say, a decision made in haste. We retracted it, and issued an apology for the phrasing. I'm happy to repeat that: Peter is not a threat to our member's security." Quoting Richard Symonds (WMUK)

He says you know this, Guy. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
He'd be wrong about that. I know his real-world identity, I know the reports of outing and the reasons why people I know and respect refused to go to any meeting where he was present, but I have never been to a WMFUK meeting or met, to the best of my knowledge, any of those involved, in person. Cla68 also misses the point about obsessive interest. I'm not banned. If I was, I like to think I'd leave the project alone completely for at least a year before even thinking of appealing. As I understand it, PD was banned for cause and still continued to turn up at meetings and such. That's not healthy. However, I am prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt IFF PD will give an unequivocal and binding undertaking to abide by the "friendly space" policy, and if the past accusations of sockpuppetry can be shown to be false. My biggest concern is the outing, whether or not it comes under the guise of "citizen journalism" (a label that is open to egregious abuse since it exists outside of the framework of editorial oversight and press regulation). I do welcome Cla68's new tolerance of offsite outing, and I trust that he will now be petitioning ArbCom to remove the ban on Philip Sandifer. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Pot/kettle again Guy. Have you ever dropped my real name in a public, online conversation off-wiki? Of course, I already know the answer. Cla68 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Request more evidence: I would like to see the case where Mr. Damian was banned, and a list of accusers who Mr. Damian said have been banned, left, and were sock puppets, his defense then, and his defense now as to why the original decision was in error. They should all be notified of the request by Mr. Damian to lift the ban and allowed to express their side of the story--whatever that was. We need to hear from the accusers for this to be a fair plea IMHO. (I put same on Jimbo's page). David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that I am a bit troubled with the rush to judgment without following the reasonable procedures I requested above. What if the person making the plea is not being completely honest about what happened? After all, Mr. Damian openly admitted to defying the rules. David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
What "rush to judgment"? Who's making a judgement, anywhere, yet? You do talk some crap, Tornheim. I believe that's been noted elsewhere. Begoontalk 23:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Please strike the ad hominem and uncivil behavior. There is clearly rush to judgment that he is innocent without looking at the evidence. Look at the time frame between the request and all the votes. Where is the evidence? Where are the voices of those who asked that he be banned? David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, actually, David, if you were to read the comments of others here, you would see that this is something that many other editors already know something about. It would be extremely irrational for you to continue to assert that editors like Bishonen, who was very active and highly regarded at the time too, have not looked at the evidence, or, for that matter, known the evidence for some time. What you seem to be requesting is that other editors go out of their way to make it easier for you to not have to look for the evidence, which is another matter entirely. I can also say that many of the other people who have expressed opinions have probably already seen the evidence I have seen elsewhere, and are acting on having reviewed that evidence. While I can understand how it would clearly be a rush to judgment for you to make any sort of decision, this issue is, in a sense, almost the equivalent of the JFK assassination was in the US in the 1970s and 1980s. Virtually everyone who was there at the time remembers fairly clearly what happened, and, if you read the comments of others, like I said, you will see that many have in fact been aware of the evidence before expressing opinions. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That may all be true. But I doubt you would be happy if the Warren Commission's report was this and only this: "There was one shooter. We're sure of it. Case closed. We have no documents to share. Please trust us. We know what we are talking about and the evidence we looked at. You can go write your own book and investigate the evidence yourself if you think we are wrong. Have fun." I will note that I see only one voice that part of the original decision: Ironholds. Are the rest the users truly gone, or is this something that was just made up? We will soon find out.David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
David, in all honesty, the only person who seems to be unaware of the situation who has been involved to date is you, and the only person who seems to be arguing against "trusting" those who do know the situation is, again, you. And, yes, having looked at some of the names you pinged below, I see several who have been banned for years who are clearly gone, and others who retired, etc. etc. etc. If I might suggest something, rather than continuing to post here, maybe you look at the history of the incidents involved? John Carter (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me the person seeking relief should provide the evidence and do the notification as is required in law. Here apparently it is the judge who has to do the research. Bizarre. It seems to me you are suggesting that WP:INVOLVED parties are preferred over neutral 3rd parties like myself: I have no idea who this guy is or why he was banned. In law, judges and jury are supposed to be neutral and have no COI, not even to do independent research, and are only look at the material presented to them. Here it is more like anything goes and any kind of sophistry is permissible, and in this case it seems only those who have made up their mind in advance are welcomed and someone like me is ridiculed for asking reasonable questions. And you wonder why new editors don't trust the Wiki-court system? David Tornheim (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lifting ban. I'm sure that folks will keep him on a short leash with regard to incivility, and we really could use some expertise on medieval philosophy articles. I hope that he can keep his temper in check and focus on improving Wikipedia rather than on settling scores and griping about the place's deficiencies. Deor (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I would question whether this is a good idea. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
  1. It's my experience that Damien either hates the Wikipedia and everything it stands for, or at the very least hates it in his present form (he might be in favor of it it was run as a for-profit business with a small paid staff of editors, like Britannica, or something (not sure what exactly he would like to see, or if he himself knows).)
  2. Given that, it's not clear to me why he would want to be here, except to either abet demoralization of the body of editors on some deep level, to gather material for his business (which is, in part, writing books and articles denigrating the Wikipedia), to valorize his personal hobbyhorses, or some other nefarious purpose.
  3. And so because of the above points, a number of editors find interacting with this person painful and unpleasant, and I'm one of them. There are editors here who love the Wikipedia and want to build it up, and dealing with people who hate it want to tear it down as colleagues is asking an awful lot. Do we want to ask that of our volunteers.
I do agree that we ought to run ourselves more like a business. There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason, and one thing that successful and functional businesses do is recognize when you have this and act decisively. I am confident of one thing for sure: no one should be under the illusion that this sort of person would appreciate the gesture, or can, really. They just see it as a sign of weakness and so another reason to despise us. Herostratus (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You raise some good points, and, to an extent, I think I even implicitly agreed with one of them. That being that he hasn't specifically said what he would do. Having said that, I think it rather obvious that his interests might well be in the field of philosophy, an area we are I think particularly bad at, and issues related to philosophy, including various forms of pseudoscience and dubious beliefs. Having myself indicated I would like to see an indication of what it is he would edit here, I am going to assume that it might be the area of philosophy where we need a lot of help. However, as others have said, I think every here knows, including Peter, that he will be likely on a short leash for some time, and can expect to be sanctioned again should conduct require it. And, honestly, one of the best ways to get critics to maybe soften their criticism is by letting them know just how difficult what is being done is. If we want to make "the book", when it gets published, more sympathetic, one of the best ways would be to make it easier for its author to realize how sometimes difficult and taxing trying to keep this thing together and in decent shape can be again. Who knows, he might even become, in a sense, more of a supporter of the editors involved, if not necessarily the system which I think about half of us have admitted at some time or another needs work. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason," Yes, I once employed one. 8-(
I don't see Peter Damian in this category though, even though he has been regularly presented as such, and he associates via Wikipediocracy with some who I certainly see as fitting that description - including WP admins. We shouldn't be fooled though by the bad press misrepresentation that some axe-grinders have tarred him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Editors are not site-banned for light or transient causes. This person clearly did something very wrong to earn this ban, and they give no indication how they would avoid the conduct that caused the ban in the first place. Indeed, the statement that, "Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban" seems to suggest that they don't feel that the original ban was justified. If they don't believe that the original ban was justified, then it may be very likely that they will return to the same problematic behavior as before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, extend the standard offer. This means no socking, no pursuing old grievances, no nonsense. If he's seriously turned a new leaf, let's let bygones be bygones. Jonathunder (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for revoking the ban, per Bishonen, MastCell, Carrite, ATG, Begoon—i.e. not just because the thought of PD returning makes Ironholds feel ill. Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, be nice, we need to look out for our sickly children. Begoontalk 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Running through the list there are indeed a number of "retired" banners, others who haven't edited for years, a banned user or two, and at least one blocked sock. If you count those who have edited less than half a dozen times this year (probably to keep tools) as those having "left," the assertion certainly seems correct. Obviously there are others who are still around and active. The phrasing is a bit melodramatic and it does not appear that any socks created to persecute PD were engaged in the ban debate. Carrite (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. You are free to use me as an example of what may be possible when Wikipedia's bans and blocks are all... just... stopped. jps (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — but with a codicil. Peter Damian is an asset that Wikipedia sorely needs. I fear you may unban, unblock, restore his ability to contribute here, and then, at the first conflict or disagreement, if he figuratively raises his voice, slam him down with the strictest possible penalty. Allow me to point out why this would be a grievous error. The man who stands behinds the account is a scholar (Wikipedia needs more of those), an expert and a published author in difficult subjects (Wikipedia needs more of those), accomplished in his use of the English language (Oh my does Wikipedia need more of those), and most unsettling to some of you, he is a man of principle. He cannot watch something unethical or underhanded being done without taking a stand and standing against it. He's upbraided me severely in private for some things I've been soft on at that 'other site,' and shown me his mettle. He will be honest with you. If you can take that (as you do make astonishing allowances for some established contributors), then let him resume his place here. If you can't take the sometime protestations of an honest man, then don't.StaniStani 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh, sure PD has a lot to offer Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how well he'll get along with the current management here in the asylum. Certainly worth a try, but even if he finds things too constrictive here hopefully he'll continue to contribute at that mysterious other place. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This has actually bothered me for a while. He's an expert and the encyclopedia will be better with his participation than without. Keep our readers first: all else is secondary. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - since we put up with other folks who have subject matter expertise who also occasoinally boil over, I can't see why not. As I recall, he bascially got banned because he dared to question one of the arbs .. who later turned out to deserve questioning. And the Wifione stuff was well done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, with the caveat that editors who seek to provoke Damien or renew old conflicts with him should treated no less strictly than he is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unban - clear net positive to the project Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 02:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unban - Alot of behaviour while banned has been driven by anger from someone who has the goal of a quality 'pedia at heart. Reconciliation better than more angst. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Chaotic Neutral: Peter Damien is entirely capable of producing above-average editorial work on this project; I don't think there's a lot of doubt about this. And some of the back story (going all the way back to November 2007) that led to his ban has been found, in retrospect, to be highly suspect. (In fact, it was suspect pretty much as soon as some of it happened, and ultimately led to the "resignation" of an arbitrator and the reprimanding of an oversighter.) Having said that, Peter was unblocked once before under the tutelage of one of the most respected Wikipedians of the time (Thatcher), and was unable to keep to the straight and narrow or anywhere close to it, which led in time to the longterm ban under which he currently finds himself. Along the way, he's authored defamatory blogs/web postings, made legal threats serious enough that they were part of the instigation for the Legal Fees Assistance Program, and published many comments off-site that indicate that he views Wikipedia and Wikipedians through a distorted lens (I'm being polite here). If Peter Damien could stick to what he's really good at (which is content - his initial block for an extreme personal attack was bang on and if he did it today would still result in an immediate indefinite block), and if the community can support him on staying focused (both by redirecting him when he seems to be going off on tangents, and by creating a buffer zone if someone attempts to provoke), then there's the chance of a detente here that will benefit the project. I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock, but I wouldn't be a good person to help out in facilitating a return to the project, based on his reaction the only time we met (and I didn't even know who he was at the time). Risker (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments and concerns I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, I believe in the standard offer, and a great number of experienced editors above have spoken up in support of Peter and his potential value as a contributor, some even going further to provide perspectives on the incidences that led to his siteban that suggest that he received a disproportionate amount of blame for said conflicts. On the other, I find the tone and content of his request leave me extremely underwhelmed, and indeed concerned about where this users priorities lay. As others have noted, there's little-to-nothing in his comments to suggest that he recognizes where his former approach was problematic, nor much in the way of assurances that he can keep his approach within community standards now. Indeed, he says very little about the circumstances of his ban other than comments which vaguely dismiss those who participated on the discussion that led to his ban. That attitude is disconcerting even before you put it together with the fact that even some of those who support the lifting of the ban describe him as a hothead and the fact that he continued to edit for three years after his ban, until caught.
Of even more concern are the implications raised about the user's ambivalence to the project broadly by some of what I'm hearing here -- that the user has been banned from certain WMF events for general disruptiveness, that they have shown a willingness to out other users and draw them into off-site drama (surely something we should not be taking lightly), and the fact that he is writing a book detailing his views on the "dysfunction" of Wikipedia all seem to suggest a user whose priorities may be less based in the desire to build the encyclopedia than they are based in a fixation on the social and organizational aspects of the project and their own tumultuous history within it. One of the few things PD does say for himself by way of arguing for his value to the project is that he's spent time during his ban writing articles for Wikipediocracy, and he seems to take pride in the fact that some of them have attracted media attention. But the mere fact that a person has a lot to say about the inner workings of Wikipedia doesn't mean they truly understand the same, or that they are capable of collaborating in a productive manner here, especially if there has been evidence to the contrary. And if the sum total of the evidence he can supply for his understanding of Wikipedia behavioural policy is that he has contributed to the (often tortured and misrepresentative) media interpretation of the project, I'm not altogether impressed. This user has had six years with which to consider the wording of their request here, during which time they have clearly spent a great deal of time thinking about Wikipedia. That all they came up with in all that time is the above leaves me wondering just how well they understand what our current policies will require of them.
Look, it's clear from the !votes so far that it's all but a foregone conclusion that the user will be welcomed back into the fold, and I really hope that he'll be the asset his supporters here seem believe he will be. But it would sit better with this one editor if we had a more detailed discussion of what went wrong before and more assurances from Peter that he's learned from past mistakes (whether he was the most problematic party in the previous conflicts or not). I'm also concerned by some of the "and furthermore, any scrutiny of his actions above and beyond the normal should be discouraged" type of comments above. We're talking about a user who has asked us to overturn a siteban, despite the fact that he ignored said ban for years and has taken his conflicts here outside the site. He should be prepared for a great deal of scrutiny as he returns here -- should even welcome it if his request and desire to return to the community are above-board. Snow let's rap 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If you all haven't noticed, WP is failing. It's shedding editors like insects from a sheep dipped in a flea bath. We need editors, especially incredibly educated and smart ones like Mr. Damian on the project to try to turn this thing around before the cold, dark ocean closes over our heads and all our hard work disappears into the murky depths of ocean Internet. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Noting, as Ealdgyth and Mastcell did, the very helpful work he did on the Wifione case, the fact that he has expertise we need, and my belief if (and that is an if, not a foregone conclusion) there are problems we can handle them. And I prefer hot-blooded to cold-blooded (referring to Bishonen's comment). Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. And the guy deserves a big, big apology from all of us for ever being banned at all. What a sad, sorry affair. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on my personal experience of being a target, my experience as a trustee of WMUK in 2013, and the reasons why at that time the UK chapter events ban was withdrawn by the board. For those that are unaware, trustees may make decisions as a board to protect the interests of the charity, this includes avoiding pointless expense in the face of legal threats. WMUK's concern at the time was the number of Wikimedians attending events in the UK who were realistically worried at being publicly derided or outed by someone with "Peter Damian's" track record of "citizen journalism". I have met "Peter" in real life and feel he makes perfectly good points about things that are plain wrong about the Wikimedia community and the surrounding politics, I include his valid complaint about WMUK fundraising banners which were then withdrawn; lesson learned. However I feel the community should only un-ban in the light of a long problematic track record, when there has been a firm commitment to an equivalent of the wmf:Friendly space policy both for on-wiki and off-wiki behaviour whenever it pertains to Wikimedia. If "Peter" or others with similar citizen journalism hobbies could avoid aggressive/malicious hounding of any Wikimedian who dares to have an opinion, and instead focus on evidence based investigative journalism for the institution, projects or individual figures in central political roles, such as WMF board of trustees (i.e. not their sex lives or gossip about their children), that would be super. When that is seen to be happening I'll change my !vote. -- (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If (and it seems inevitable now) Peter Damian gets unblocked, will he have broken the record for longest overturned site ban? Bosstopher (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Damian Can editors at least try to get his name right? Although this connection has been exploited in the past to portray him as The Antichrist, that isn't helpful here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Carrite, Nyttend et al. said it best, and I haven't been convinced by any of the opposes (a couple actually made me laugh at their audacity). Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unban. It can always be reinstated if the user causes difficulties onwiki. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Maintain ban Given the unrepentant unban request, book and WMUK stuff, I don't see how unbanning this editor could possibly end well. I thought that we'd moved on from the era where productive but chronically disruptive editors were tolerated, and I really have no desire to go back there again. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What WMUK stuff? Surely you don't mean the event ban they imposed, then realised they'd made (yet another) serious mistake and apologised? Why would you still hold that against someone, when even WMUK would no longer do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know this editor personally, so I've reviewed some of the content he's written. We need him back.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment At present I have no opinion on the ban, which I read about on Jimbo's talk page. I request that a link to the original banning be placed at the top of this section, so that people can, uh, read about it before making up their minds. Coretheapple (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • conditional support I'd like a topic ban from anything other than content editing and talk pages related to that content. That includes a ban from the drama boards. Revisit in 6 months. I honestly don't see this ending well, as I worry he's only here to stir up trouble. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (EC) Support - Valuable contributor, and generally a decent fellow. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Please unblock User:Morgan Katarn[edit]

User doesn't want to edit, block doesn't need lifting. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, admins. I have a serious request. I know that it is more than 3 years over but my desire is still to unblock my old User:Morgan Katarn. I feel sorry for my sockpuppet actions but this account has to be unblocked. I talked to the Bureaucrats and they said that they will make a Courtesy Vanishing on my old User:Morgan Katarn if this account is unblocked. And I would appreciate that if you accept my desire. Unblock this account and then I will let the Bureaucrats do a Courtesy Vanishing and after that, I will leave the Wikipedia completely and I will never make a stupid action again. I will leave the Wikipedia. So this user has to be unblocked. Thanks! 91.113.38.214 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So, here you are, evading a block by editing as an IP, to ask of favor of the community. Well, I oppose it. BMK (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See this. BMK (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you intend to leave Wikipedia, there is no readon to unblock you. Just walk away. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the auld account was under his real name, hence the desirability of courtesy vanishing. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely, I'd think. [40] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Are IPs banned from editing. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A ban applies to the person, not the internet protocol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Which Bureaucrats have told you this? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The request came through the mailing list and the user was told that they are not eligible for a courtesy vanishing as they are currently blocked. This isn't an uncommon situation and I'm not sure why it matters which bureaucrat made the statement. WormTT(talk) 10:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to explain to you why I asked, if you ask, but thanks for information. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, this is a serious request. The bureaucrats told me on the email that they will do a courtesy vanishing at once but this account needs to be unblocked. It is almost 4 years ago when I got blocked with this account. I fell very sorry of what I've done with that account. Can you please unblock this account? Please don't be so stubborn at all and aggree. This is a very serious request. Please do so and then you can block this user again after the courtesy vanishing ok? But then block this account not for vandalism, just because of the reason that I decided to leave the Wikipedia. 194.118.255.163 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there is just a lot of confusion about your request. You are requesting an unblock of an account, even though you say you are planning to leave Wikipedia. And with the link Andy provided, we now know that this isn't your real name but that of a Star Wars character. So what is the purpose of unblocking an account if you aren't planning on using it? Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Strange as it may sound, there are plenty of people who (weirdly) named their kids after StarWars characters. What I'd suggest to the user is that he make the request at Meta for a global renaming of his account. He can go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest on any wiki. Hypothetically, he would have to make a link to his old account on the newly named page (e.g., writing on the talk page "I used to be user:Morgan Katarn") but this is not particularly enforceable. He can ask for a new username like "Renamed user 223343242" if he wants. Risker (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Risker: This account is tagged as a sock of Furko Nellis, which is also a Star Wars character. I can't see any good faith reason for this account to be requesting an unblock/courtesy vanishing, but I'm fairly jaded. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is, essentially, to skip the unblocking, recognize there's no such thing as a courtesy vanishing, and get the account renamed if he wants to get it renamed. There are no reported socks for several years, and those accounts would have been blocked for vandalism whether or not they were socks. Some people do mature over time and recognize they've messed up. Incidentally, the bureaucrats should have explained all of this to the user when he emailed them. We should as a community completely remove any reference to the 'crats from the 'rename/vanish' cycle since they no longer have any authority to do renaming; that some individual 'crats are either stewards or global renamers has nothing to do with their enwiki permissions. Risker (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we hear from the OP what the purpose behind the request is? Courtesy vanishings shoulnd;t be handed out like candy, they're a courtesy from the community, and should generally be granted only to users who were in good standing. If a user who is not in good standing wants one, there should be a good reason behind it.
Perhaps the beaureaucrat in question can vouch for the OP's reason, without saying what it is, perhaps that would be sufficient, but without something to base it on, I see no reason to extend a courtesy here. BMK (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I tell you the reason why I want to have courtesy vanishing for my User:Morgan Katarn. The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable because I made contributions about cities here in Austria where I live and I do not wish that people around the world can see these contributions in a very quick way. So the main reason why I request a courtesy vanishing is because first of all the name change and another reason is that the contributions of this user should be harder to find. It is awful enough that the contributions of each user exist for the rest of my whole life on the Wikipedia. So hopefully you understand my reason. Please don't ask further more. I'd very appreciate that if you would cooperate and do a courtesy vanishing on this user. Thanks! 194.118.255.163 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely this discussion is back to front. If there is a good reason for the rule that courtesy-vanishing is only for users in good standing, and we want to follow the rule, then the request should be refused. If we are prepared to waive the rule, then just vanish him and be done with it. Unblocking one of his half-dozen accounts will not magically return him to good standing, and unblock-vanish-reblock is just process for the sake of it.
OP, what about your first account, Furko Nellis, and all the others listed in the SPI? JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable, this is the part I don't get and it looks like you won't be returning to explain. Why do you care about clearing the "good name" of a fictional character? I completely understand if it were your name but I don't see how anyone in Austria could associate you, the person, with these sock accounts. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll, perhaps it is a troll. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This person's reasons for wanting a courtesy vanishing are ludicrous. Someone please close this thread. BMK (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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


2015-04-16 vandalism by 75.146.221.233[edit]

School blocked by User:MusikAnimal. Vandalism reports can also be filed at WP:AIV.-- Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please see Special:Contributions/75.146.221.233. This IP editor has started running amok today. It is beyond four edits, albeit to just two articles. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


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


Topic ban violation[edit]

Nadirali is unbanned since last year, he has violated his topic ban on numerous occasions.

  • In this edit, he changed the title of a section from "Ethnicity and language" to "Nationalities/Ethnicities and languages", and right below that section, the article reads "..Indians in the United Arab Emirates|Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates|Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates". He also spaced between "[[Bengali language|Bengali]],[[Sindhi language|Sindhi]]". Editing the section title was clearly a major edit because section titles changes the basic meaning or even conclusion of the part that is written below. Most of that section concerns the backgrounds of the people coming from India and Pakistan.
  • He made a page move[41], where we can read a major section about India.
  • He added a new section to Astrology,[42] where we can find major sections[43][44] about India.
  • This edit was major, the article mentions India about 8 times and mentions Pakistan about 7 times.
  • [45][46] He has also disputed the factual accuracy of this article[47], that has section about India and he has also participated in the discussions.[48][49]

There are just more to mention, but I think that these few are enough. I have discussed this issue with both Worm That Turned and Dennis Brown.[50] One had unbanned him,[51] while other had blocked him for a month[52] after he had detected some of his topic ban violation upon returning from the site ban. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your final point first, since it's the only one I've investigated. Editing and discussing a broad-topic article that merely has a section on the banned subject, without editing that section, without discussing that section, and without editing or discussing the subject elsewhere, is not a ban violation. See the discussion about weather at WP:TBAN; if you're banned from weather, you're banned from editing the weather-related parts of the New York article, but you're allowed to edit the rest. Of course this isn't the case if the whole article is related to the subject, but child sexual abuse is definitely not just a South Asian issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ditto on the penultimate bullet: Shia Islam is a topic too broad for a ban from "articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed", and Albania definitely isn't included in it. This ban is for the country articles, for people and places originating/located in those countries, and for topics closely related to them, e.g. caste, as well as I/P/A-related components of other articles. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Astrology and public alcohol consumption are worldwide topics. A pagemove isn't relevant to the ban unless the entire page is affected, and neither this content nor its source is at all related to I/P/A. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is a violation only if he has edited about those countries and not the articles? Still, at least 2 of the diffs are topic ban violation. Per topic ban, he cannot contribute to these articles because these articles goes on to explain some of the important aspects of those subjects that are related with his topic ban. He made an edit on Liger[53] and the source[54] has mentioned "India" at least 5 times as well as its other locations. Not only once, but at least 2 times[55][56] he had been told not to contribute on those articles that have significantly covered these 3 nations. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

War edit[edit]

User removes the template in The Voice of Peace (marathon). --User:Green Zero — Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Your reason for asking for deletion wasn't one of our criteria for speedy deletion (like the uk:Вікіпедія:Критерії швидкого вилучення page), and please don't edit-war to ask again. If you want me to help you have it deleted, I can help you use the articles for deletion process, like uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати на вилучення. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the template for what it appeared they were aiming for, feel free to throw it off if you dont feel it meets it. I left a note at the original authors talkpage so they hopefully dont remove the tags from their own pages in future. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

The article Anti-Pakistan Sentiment had been proposed for deletion and nobody has been contested it, so somebody please delete it Ankush 89 (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, where is discussion going on? I deleted "deletion tag" from article. Article is already well sourced, we can improve it further. Kindly mention or ping me if you want to say something. Thank you. --Human3015 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Title itself is incorrect. Hajme 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Interaction Ban between OccultZone and Zhanzhao[edit]

I'm raising this at the suggestion of @Yunshui:[57]

OccultZone and I as well as a few other editors were previously involved in a content dispute on the Rape in India article. My brother's barely-active account, DanS76 chimed in twice, and was identified as a sock of mine. An SPI was raised, during which we admitted our relationship, after which DanS76 retired his account to prevent any such issues in the future. I have also tried to keep away from the article since I saw how aggressive OccultZone could be. The problem is that OccultZone has it in his mind that I was still active there, and as a result, he was:

  • blocked twice for edit-warring against a sock he thought was me,[58]
  • raising 2 new (failed) SPIs against those same people in an attempt to link them to me [59][60] as well as an ANI,
  • accusing other admins (some of them are mentioned below) of incompetency when they did not rule to his liking, and got told off for that,[61][62][63]
  • threatening to action against them in ArbCom [64] (other admins have weighed in to say their sanctions against him were justified),
  • admin shopping both on-and-off-wiki without success with his list of so-called "evidence" against me,
  • and still trying to pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment.

Most of which I documented on my userpage but had hoped not to bring up. He was told repeatedly by many admins to move on after his ANI and 2 SPIs as well as other interaction with the admins i.e. (@DoRD:@Worm That Turned:@Callanecc:@Bgwhite:@Salvidrim!:@Mike V: off the top of my head), and he has found no new evidence against me that he had not previously declared. Some admins even explicitly warned him about his behaviour against me [65]. After he did not get the results he was looking for, he has upped his game from admin shopping to approaching an arbitrator Yunshui directly.

I don't even know what he hopes to achieve now that its been proven that all those other accounts (which were indeed socks but of someone else) were found to be unrelated to me, and my one alleged "sock" DanS76 is already retired. If he had found some new evidence of me allegedly socking, I would at least give him credit. But he's basically just taking the same closed cases and the same evidences, and going around looking for someone to finally agree with him. I've barely interacted with him or talked about him after the last SPI, but OccultZone doesn't seem to want to quit. As such, I would like to request an interaction ban between the both of us. If he finds new evidence of new socking activity that goes beyond the scope of the previous ANI and SPIs he previously raised against me, he's welcome to supercede the interaction ban and raise a new case against me. Else, I would like for him to just leave me alone. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in the strongest possible terms. I'm amazed OccultZone is still on this, I've put of effort into looking into this case over the past few weeks. I can name another half a dozen Admins and checkusers that OccultZone has contacted regarding this. What's more, this is at least the second time that OccultZone has made accusations about Zhanzhao and then complained when Zhanzhao has defended himself. OccultZone needs to drop this and an interaction ban seems like the easiest way to make that happen. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Gets my vote. The encyclopedia is not well served by these two editors arguing with one another across multiple venues. (caveat: I was the editor who suggested Zhanzhao pursue an IBAN in the first place, so slightly involved.) Yunshui  10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment So two votes already? Okay I hope that my below comment would clarify that how we should view this case.
In last 12 days, I discovered and found a lot of things in this case that I haven't even seen in long term abusers. How evident it is that this account was created for evading 3rr, after he could not edit war with IP anymore. Control + F, "eight years have passed" and check his IPs edits [66] [67], and then he created the account and continued the edit war, [68] [69], [70] [71][72] this sort of scenario has been a major factor in his small contribution history. Yes he admitted this IP in question to be his after few months,[73] after he had reverted with it[74] and the page was protected.
It is easy to accept that Zhanhao has abused multiple accounts policy since he joined en.wiki years, he was blocked once for evading his block with IP as well.[75] He explicitly states to have read the the WP:SOCK#LEGIT on an unblock request that was declined.[76] When I made an appropriate attempt to expose his on going abuse of multiple accounts,[77] he insisted that "it was my brother", and a problematic and a non policy based decision took place.[78]
And more recently I also found a few diffs that should overturn all previous decisions. Here he has clearly warned against recruiting any "family members", so even if his unbelievable notion of "my brother" has to be taken seriously, then his abuse of multiple accounts was 100% intended. See no way how we can reject an indef block for a case that was inappropriately closed just a few days ago. Per policy and standards, only indef block is appropriate for 6 years+ violation of WP:ILLEGIT. We cannot support sock puppetry.
Again, abuse is also evident with socking with IPs,[79][80][81][82] and proxies.[83][84][85] This range was recently rangeblocked by Mike V. He admits to to have abused this San Francisco range.[86] He has also reported suspected socks,[87][88][89] in every sense he has abused the policy.
  • Apart from the talk pages and the articles, he has abused his two accounts across many namespaces. That would include multiple AfDs,([90][91], [92][93] critical RFC/UA ([94][95]) that saw de-sysopping, deletion review,([96][[97]), topic ban discussion of User:La goutte de pluie.[98][99], ANI,([100] [101], [102],[103], accepting own article for submission.[104].
This account has only 2036 main article edits in 8 years and has saved at least 13 evasions of 3RR that can be confirmed. That means he has saved at least 13 blocks for violating 3rr rule through socking. If en.wiki has banned very productive editors for socking, why we have different rules for this editor?
His tendency is to bother, irritate many productive editors, often by using multiple accounts. Such as Lee788[114][115][116][117][118], Ahnan,[119][120][121][122][123] etc. That is how he has managed, I am his current target.
  • Even now, he uselessly reverts my edits[124] and says that it was his brother who did it.[125] I never hound his contribution history. There is no doubt that we need indef block for this WP:NOTHERE case. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am sure this [126] was a coincidence. As I said, which you showed on your 2nd link, That was one singular edit, and I have taken steps to prevent my account from being compromised again. Practically all your evidence are either from years ago, used in the previous SPIs/ANIs, and/or you've already shared them with other admins who ended up disagreeing with you. As for using a VPN service, its the nature of my job as I need to look at US websites that might have content blocked by location. I am sure a verification of the CU data will show that when I am logged on to it, it stays the same throughout and doesnt jump around as if I were trying to keep switching my IP. If I was really socking, I can easily abandon this account. Why would I even want to draw attention to my other so-called available accounts and risk them being linked? Your logic fails here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How many hours or days later it came up? You tried to misrepresent yourself only when you saw that you are going to be raided. Actually they just said nothing. Now that you agree with the you have greatly socked, now you tell that you will abandon this account and start a new account as technical details also match? Funny honestly, no wonder why people believe that you are gaming. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Original report looks like a fallacious attempt to troll and lacks rationality. He reported you on SPI and you gamed some admin. Now you cannot sock because you believe that he is watching you and that's why you want interaction ban? That is just ridiculous. Delibzr (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I even doubted the existence of WP:Deny recognition while I was reading. Delibzr (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Totally missed it. Yes he has made only 53 main article edits since the SPI, he wants to resume edit warring with the accounts and IPs like he always did? Yeah that seems better. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
And I made only about 60 edits btw October to February combined. In fact, the only reason I'm so active nowadays is to deal with your hassling me. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment One way or another, this dispute needs to end. It looks like an I-ban is the most likely solution with a prohibition on both users from filing more cases against each other at AE, ANI or SPI. If there are abuses on either side, another editor can file a complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually this is the first anything I filed against OZ, and only on the suggestion of the arbitrator that OZ approached. OZ has filed 2 separate SPIs, one ANI (which the first closing admin re-opened after receiving a mail from OZ, only for it to get closed again by another admin). Zhanzhao (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Which closing admin you are talking about? Have you got any proof about it? Mdann52 is not an admin. I am surprised you didn't notified VictoriaGrayson, Human3015, M Tracy Hunter, etc. who have been affected by your actions. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose IBAN unless actual evidence of disruption is presented. I'll give the OP this: I appreciate the bullet-points. To address them in order:

  1. Looking only at the linked block-log (i.e., all the evidence presented), both blocks were repealed within a few hours without coming to term, apparently for being inappropriate blocks. This is not evidence in favour of OZ, but it certainly isn't evidence against him.
  2. What is the definition of a "failed" SPI? One was endorsed for CU because the clerk agreed the activity was suspicious, the other appears to have warranted a CU. The fact that both those CUs turned up negatives is not a reason for an IBAN, since apparently the SPI clerks shared OZ's concerns: are we to IBAN all SPI clerks from interacting with users they had wrongly suspected of sockpuppetry?
  3. This point is confusing. Of the three links, only one is a diff, and that not a post by OZ. None of the three pages have the word "incompetent" anywhere on them, so it's difficult to make out the problem. Additionally, if OZ was accusing admins of incompetency, what does that have to do with an IBAN with the OP?
  4. He accused a blocking admin (who had apparently, per supra, made a bad block against him) of making other bad blocks and needing to be restrained. If mentioning ArbCom counts as a threat that merits and IBAN ... why not IBAN him from the admin he was talking about, rather than some random user who doesn't like him?
  5. The non-transparent off-wiki contact is concerning, but unfortunately an IBAN would not solve this one way or the other, since emails are not as far as I know actionable (as long as OZ was careful and only emailed users who agreed with him). There also seems to be nothing in the diffs to suggest that these emails were about the OP, which seems to be at best a minor AGF-violation on the part of the OP.
  6. The last point presents no real evidence and is valid if the OP is in fact a good-faith contributor; if as OZ suggests the OP is in fact a problem editor who should be blocked, then this point is essentially invalid since OZ is right to "pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment". Which brings me to...
I have no opinion on whether the OP should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Given the OP's long history of editing articles in a wide variety of areas, it seems a bit inappropriate to accuse him of NOTHERE.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*Yes the blocks were overturned, but he warred against what he assumed were my socks, as seen from the SPIs he raised. Also, Bgwhite who overturned the first block, explicitely said that he regretted it[127], while Worm That Turned said that both blocks were not wrong as well[128]. Other admins have weighed in on it too, if you look at OccultZone's talk page.
*I was actually referring to the results of the CU and behavioral analysis of the SPI clerks before they closed the case against his claims. I in fact welcomed them to do the CU if it would convince OZ he was wrong, which didn't work.
*These admins would also be the ones to tell him to move on, which he refused to.
*Just pointing out that he seems to think everyone is against him when he though he was edit warring with people he though were me, even admins giving him advice.
*I would welcome OZ to declare how many emails he had sent out about his case against me, and to whom. I don't see how there could have been an agreement, since he did not mention me at all to them on wiki before emailing them.
*He has raised 2 SPIs and one ANI against me, and this takes me away from contributing to wikipedia. As you pointed out, I edit on a wide range of articles. But my range and volume dropped significantly after this happened. And I'm not the only one affected. Even uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta[129]. Not to count the time wasted by all the SPI clerks and admins he has approached who have to go through the same "evidence" repeatedly case after case. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw that the first admin to undo a block was the one to implement the next block. Doesn't change the fact that that admin was also immediately overruled. As for your request that I look at OZ's talk page: sorry, but when other users diligently provide all the evidence in a concise and comprehensive manner and are still ignored by admins who don't click on diffs, why should I be expected to go out and search for your evidence for you?
  • I know what you were referring to. I fail to see how it is relevant to your IBAN request, though, when the clerks were apparently just as suspicious as OZ was.
  • ...What?
  • Yes, and how is that relevant to an IBAN with you in particular if he has been having disagreements with other users who he accused of being sockpuppets, and the admins who didn't block them? Most of what you're saying seems to be just a general smear campaign against OZ, rather than providing evidence of harassment against you that would merit an IBAN.
  • Sorry, but that's not how it works. I genuinely wish people who admitted to engaging in potentially disruptive off-site email-contact were obliged to divulge what and to whom they wrote, but that's not how the game works. And if you don't know what was in those emails, you are treading a thin line in assuming that they were about you (you admit above that "he did not mention [you] at all to them on wiki before emailing them"). Emailing other users is not a violation of any policies or guidelines per se, and it seems to be something OZ does regularly and peaceably on a variety of issues. You are perfectly free to think that he is talking about you in the emails, but it is not a valid piece of evidence in favour of an IBAN.
  • That seems to be something of a misrepresentation: according to the fourth chart on this page, if your edits decreased in number at any given time it was in mid-2013, and in the last month or so you've made the same number of mainspace edits that you had in the preceding eight months. If OZ's recent behaviour is distracting you from contributing to the encyclopedia, it certainly isn't reflected in your account's edit history. Your reference to "uninvolved admins who only wanted to help have been dragged in and affected by his vendetta" is curious as well: if Bgwhite wants to ask for an IBAN with OZ they are more than welcome to do so, but this thread is about an IBAN between you and OZ, so Bgwhite's time being wasted is not a valid piece of evidence for you to bring up. If Bgwhite feels that their time has been wasted as a result of the feud between you two, that is for them to decide and to state, not you. If they choose not to post in this thread after being pinged, then we shouldn't just assume they are in favour of an IBAN. Same goes for all the others.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Opposition withdrawn. Just noticed Salvidrim's post below. If this dispute can drive a user like that to swearing then I'm staying the hell away. I won't directly support an IBAN for the same reason. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm legitimately sorry if my vociferousness scared you off this discussion -- although to be brutally honest, I'd probably recommend to anyone who asks me to avoid this shitstorm too, so for your own peace of mind, you might want to steer clear of getting involved. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN, and I would even support a one-way OZ > Zhanzao IBAN if it came to that. OZ has been repeatedly warned by CUs (at least Callanecc and DoRD) to drop the fucking stick after arguing with us repeatedly and questioning our competence, and that he was venturing deep into harassment territory. OZ's total inability to move on when he is proven wrong by numerous CUs/admins agreeing that there are no sockpuppetry violations going despite repeated warnings is disheartening -- we've privately discussed the possibility of blocking him if he kept at it and luckily haven't had to yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't mislead others Salvidrim. Yes your judgement was highly innappropriate. Sad thing is that you even want to fix it, even after having compelling evidence that the abuse was intended. Have you checked those violations through IPs, proxies? Callanecc and DoRD already knows that I have proven the remaining suspects to be blatant sock puppets.(also check [130]) What a silly misrepresentation of outdated "warning" you have made. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't try to mislead others, yourself. Those accounts are clearly unrelated to Zhanzhao, and they aren't even related to the account you thought that they were, so why are you even mentioning them here? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) In addition, I don't see any evidence that Salvidrim! is trying to mislead anyone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes they are not related to Zhanzhao but Salvidrim is referring to the advice that was made in relation to these accounts.(of stillstanding/sonic) Though the matter is already resolved. Had I shown other diffs that time? Not. Salvidrim is treating like nothing has been changed. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh fuck off, you've got your fingers buried deep in your ears and relentlessly refuse to hear anyhting we're saying. I'm walking away from this energy-sucking vortex that you're pumping and I'm not interested in engaging in renewed "discussion" with you. Attempting to respond in any logical or diplomatic manner will just allow things to devolve even further and enough time has been wasted by many admins/CUs trying to try to convince you that ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRATBLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPPETRY POLICY, a fact which you obviously prefer ignoring entirely. I hope you're at least enjoying yourself, although I can't imagine anyone being this wrong and obstinate and not feeling totally miserable. Cheers! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That essay is not supporting any of your assumptions. Cite the evidence/policy not speculations. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So much for that "brother", haven't we have heard many brother stories before? I agree with Hijri88 that there is no evidence of disruption, no personal attack, no wikihounding, just nothing from Occultzone. Interaction ban is not for suppressing the exposure of your dirty works such as socking even if someone wants to stick to that. Furthermore I believe that this request should be closed and requesting user should be indefinitely blocked, as long as socking is a matter of seriousness. SamuelDay1 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support interaction ban. I've been one of the clerks/CUs asked to review the Zhanzhao sockpuppetry case and I was not convinced with the behavioral evidence presented and the technical evidence did not support his claims. I'm growing concerned that OccultZone will continue to make sockpuppetry claims towards Zhanzhao, despite findings to the contrary. This is rising to the level where an interaction ban would be quite helpful. Mike VTalk 15:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How come you could not count 2 articles then? You counted "one article" and you were there to support "some of" the evidence, not even whole or half. And then you are citing a wrong SPI. Why you didn't even replied to what had been posted on your talk page? I had asked for the policy. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support iban, even a one way OZ-->Z iban as proposed by Salvidrim!. I have, unfortunately, been in the middle of this since near the beginning, and if it takes an iban to separate these two, then so be it. OccultZone, after being told numerous times, by numerous people, that there is nothing actionable at this time against Zhanzhao or DanS, continues to pursue the case with an almost singular focus. This needs to stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? Wrong. I have made over 11,000 edits in last 16 days. No idea what you are talking about. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 11,000 trivial edits to categories, talk pages, and the like don't obscure the obvious. Anyway, it appears that you are open to Begoon's advice, so I suggest that it would be best if you were to take it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are counting the last 50 edits or all 11,000 edits? How come you ignored thousands of edits to main the article? All of these edits are major. Though I wouldn't find it amazing since your miscalculation was also evident in the case of Resaltador. Since the matters make no sound it is generally better to leave. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I support views of OccultZone --Human3015 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support interaction ban. Those two definitely don't go along, this whole thread speaks for itself. RE: Hijiri 88 "unless actual evidence of disruption is presented" — whatever else this post may not prove, it certainly proves disruption. Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support interaction ban. I've followed this, because OZ is an editor I recall from previous interaction. I like OZ, he's a well meaning editor, and dedicated, but boy do sticks adhere to his fingers... OZ, as many have told you, you need to leave others to deal with this, if there is anything to deal with. Your involvement has become obsessive, and I'm supporting this IBAN because I'd hate to see the block you are rushing towards become a reality. Please disengage entirely. Right now. Begoontalk 15:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are actually correct. Looking at the views of others, and everything else that is happening around I really find this all pretty lame myself now. Lets see... OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Just leave it alone, please. Don't reply here, or anywhere else about it, at all. The IBAN will still probably pass, but that won't matter, cos it'll be a dropped stick, right? This way you can maybe avoid major sanctions over this, and continue with your other valuable contributions. Begoontalk 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks quick and premature. Only a few days of interaction and 6 or 7 talk pages. We can still hear what they think now. Hajme 17:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is nonsensical on so many levels.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal is withdrawn by the requesting user per discussion below. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Updated: See next 2 subtopics Zhanzhao (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Thanks everyone for their votes. I not only agree with the oppose but also with the support votes. The reason why I didn't gave up, well it is because he continued to watch over my contributions. Yes the interaction ban is one choice, but there are clearly better things to try in this case. Had he said that he would not watch over my contributions, there would be no such circumstances either. He even considered my edits to Lee Kuan Yew to be related to with his dispute, and significantly reported to another admin. Though he might have knew later on that I was there only for fixing a factual error and I didn't even knew if he was there. Can be because of the popularity of the article.

I have also realized now, he is probably correct that he was not really a problem anymore for me that had been started since 23 March, unfortunately he became the target. That can be also a reason why he watched the contributions. In that case we can just return to our normal form. Having content dispute is one thing, but unnecessarily raising the conduct issues is different.[131] But hopefully, I can agree now. Normally how 2 editors act, that is what we will have to prefer from now. I am writing this not only because of a few realizations but also because of the seriousness that has been shown above by others.

So what anyone has to say about this? Indeed, if problems arises anywhere near to this level, we will find here ourselves again. Although I can really assure that it is not going to happen at all. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is only one question. Will you now drop this issue, entirely, and completely? That's what experienced editors, functionaries, and friends, have asked, no, begged you to do, for your own sake, and ours. It's a simple "yes/no" question. I suggest a one-word answer. Begoontalk 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. That is what I have stated above, especially the 2nd paragraph. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that as an assurance that you will not raise this issue again, at all, in any way, anywhere, and that sanctions may result should you do so. But then I worry...Begoontalk 17:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Declaration: If I can get his word here that he will stop continuing to reopen closed cases based on old evidence, I'll step away from his way. Thats what I've wanted to do since all this started. Again, IF he does find suspicious new socking activity thats clearly related to me (good evidence, not just tagging my name to another random SPI investigation), I have no problem with that. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zhanzhao: I have already clarified that above. In the light of your latest agreement there is no need to make any SPI that would resemble the previous one, you can forget what happened before and from now it is like a new start since your recent agreement. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Accepted. See my reply at bottom of next subtopic. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Socking[edit]

Zhanzhao agrees to use only one account, the WP:BROTHER account DanS76 can be blocked as below. My concerns are fully addressed, thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

So, what do we do about the rather obvious sock puppetry by Zhanzao?

Incidentally: from my Quackford English Ducktionary, "Suck puppetry: Sock puppetry, but done really badly". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got it right. It looks like that was the sole reason why Occultzone even bothered. Actually anyone would if a serious report confirming violation of so many years and supported by every necessary evidences would had been rejected and socks were treated were so greatly. I fail to find if any rules that would justify such abuse, or even a prior sock puppetry case. Automatically, I feel discriminated because I cannot sock even for one edit, while Zhanzhao can for every edit. Delibzr (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't encourage him. Sockpuppetry has only continued to be disproved by CUs and other admins since you yourself told OZ to drop it, JzG. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That was before the WP:BROTHER comment above. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Occult had asked Jzg to see this set, and Jzg told him "that it's unlikely" per CU, but these socks are also blocked now and we are back to the convictions of socking where you found brother excuses, and now again questioning the heroic release from sock puppetry, though he really wanted to sock. If I have definitely told one to "stop using your family relatives, friends for socking", while I sock all time and upon conviction I tell that "I didn't socked, my brother helps and stalks my contribution history", would you believe it? How dense it would be. Delibzr (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
TO Delibrzr, actually the context was totally different back then. If you looked at the thread where that about me supposing to know about meatpuppetry [132], it was quoted by DanS76, not me; it was from years ago; and the offending editor Ahnan was actively going to off-wiki forums to recruit people to come into Wikipedia to editwar on his side. When that policy was mentioned years ago, I didn't even think much about the family angle, it was just looking at the "off-wiki" part when I saw that. And you'll observe from the conversation that DanS76 was riling Ahnan up while I was trying to calm Ahnan down to prevent prevent escalation (yes, we don't always agree, which I pointed out before in the old SPI).Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That means that the named account still socked along with you, while warning others not to do the same. Hypocritical. I don't care how much you both were bullying Ahnan or any other editors you have. I am just saying that it all looks so fake, and unsupported by any rules. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As the result of several SPIs, numerous CUs/clerks/admins have determined (both with behavioural and technical evidence) that: ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRABLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPETTRY POLICY.
    I don't know how much clearer this can be made. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That barbaric shout is clearly unhelpful and it comes with no evidence and contrary to they have written above. "both with behavioural and technical evidence" definitely share mutuality when they are also admitted by the suspect. Why you are deceiving? I just asked if you will take same kind of heroic decision when anyone else would be convicted upon socking, which is still not answered by you. Delibzr (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim! I reduced your 100px red rant down to 20px, which is bad enough. You're an admin, you should know better than to do shit like that. Please don't do it again. BMK (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BMK. I dunno if OZ is contagious but it seems I am also having some trouble letting go of this -- how ironic that I should fall prey to the same pitfalls I am accusing OZ of digging himself in. These are hopefully my last words on this whole shitstorm. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand precisely what you mean. BMK (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Declaration: As mentioned, I would not find any issue if a new SPI was raised against me by OZ based on suspicious new socking activity. The WP:BROTHER angle is no longer in the equation as DanS76 has quit. At risk of self-outing, I've even sent OZ and another 2 admins info about me and my family which shows that I actually have 2 brothers. However I can reveal that the 2nd one is overseas long-term, and (I asked) he does not edit on wikipedia. So even that is a non-issue. Its a waste of me, OZ, and everyone else's time to repeatedly defend myself again and again over the same evidence. I'm not afraid of continued scrutiny since I don't sock. I just want to move on and not have to continually return to a dead-horse-flogging-party with everyone else. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You have warned others against such meat puppetry as well and you clearly knew what can happen when you told others not to make such "mistake", lobbying one admin is not going to remove the heinous breach that you have done. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not lobby anyone. I only sent out the personal info to 3 people in response to OZ's claims I was making up the fact about having brothers - him being one the people I sent it to, and 2 other admins who volunteered to look at the info. And for that 2010 case, I repeating a warning to the other editor about recruiting someone fresh from outside wiki to help him in his edit war: I was not the one who posted the Meatpuppetry policy, so I only read a few lines above that thread about the quoted policy and was focused more on the "recruiting people from the outside to participate" bit, and barely though about that after the incident. I did not fully realize the implication of having someone who is also an editor in the same family and would edit similarly would face. Once asked about our relationship, I clarified it immediately, the admin suggested that we should make clear on our individual accounts that we were related/editing from the same IP, which was done. And that DanS76 has retired his account makes it doubly certain this would not be an issue anymore moving forward. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Zhanzhao as multiple editors have raised concerns over your actions they want some outcome. I would propose that you should agree to restrict yourself to one account from now. No IPs or any accounts, any other violation can lead to indef. Any other account that you used before can be blocked now, as you have also confirmed that they are of no use. So would you agree? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi SamuelDay1, I have no intention of violating any rules. Anything I have done, I did with the best of intentions. Anything I did wrong, I am prepared to deal wih it. If I intended to sock, I would have just abandoned this account which has so much baggage. But I continue with it, warts and all with all the SPI and block history, because I have always been transparent about everything I have done. Even OZ pointed out above of an instance when I accidentally edited while logged out, and logged in just to clarify it was me. So again, this was, is and will be the only account I use on wikipedia Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So I may consider that you have accepted my above proposal already? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes with a strong emphasis. Because irregardless of what others believe, editing with one account is what I have always done. You can also include a furter note that if there is evidence of meatpuppetry, WP:FAMILY or WP:BROTHER, that counts against me as well - if anyone else in my family begins to edit here, I think I will really just quit Wikipedia totally to avoid all this drama again. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • UPDATED: As OccultZone has made it clear on my page that he would not be filing SPIs against me again, I will take his word for it since he has also promised Begoon the same. As mentioned repeatedly, I leave the door open to him filing a new SPI against me if he should notice new suspicious activity from me. This has always been my desired outcome. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a good choice to limit with one account and leave other accounts behind. Both have agreed too. Delibzr (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Request alteration of WP:EDR entry's wording[edit]

Hey, about two years ago Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was banned from editing Japanese literature articles and interacting with me. The precise wording by User:DangerousPanda was A mutual IB between them and User:Elvenscout742 (now renamed to User:Hijiri88) was originally in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IB for Tristan. They are also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed. Although the IB was lifted for Elvenscout, they have been warned to neither poke the bear nor "grave dance".

The last sentence was actually not supported by anything in the thread except a statement by User:Zad68 that I should continue refraining from interacting with Tristan noir as I already had been doing. The latter user's later comment makes it impossible to interpret the earlier statement as an accusation that I had been at fault. I didn't oppose the addition of a warning to me initially, since it didn't have any negative consequences, but that has now changed. The gender-neutral plural wording "they are also topic-banned" has also been misinterpreted as applying to me, which is the exact opposite of the consensus of that thread.

This, on top of the fact that I've gone over two years without either "poking the bear" or "grave-dancing" with regard to Tristan noir (who hasn't even edited in over a year), inclines me to ask for the last sentence of Tristan noir's IBAN/TBAN to be removed, and for "they are" to be changed to "they [Tristan noir] are".

I was going to just message DangerousPanda, but that user hasn't edited in four months, apparently as a result of ArbCom desysopping him. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make the change myself.

So I'm here.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • First thing: I support clarification of the pronoun "they" to something equally gender-neutral but that doesn't cause potential singular/plural confusion. That seems noncontroversial. As for the note of the warning to you, I think it was 100% appropriate, but is no longer necessary to keep it displayed one year later, especially since there does not seem to have been further issues and Tristan has been gone for over a year. I am also uncomfortable with the word "fabricated" because of its connotations, but a wording change at this point seems like a bit futile, so we could leave it. My new proposed wording: "Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident fabricated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. Tristan is also topic-banned from Japanese literature, broadly construed.". ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that Tristan has also expressed unease at the use of the verb "fabrication" (see my talk), I'm looking for alternative that would still accurately describe the events without imposing the overly negative connotations. Perhaps "initiated" might be better? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"Following an incident initiated by Tristan" works. TN doesn't seem to mind it either. By the way, it's technically inaccurate to say he has abided by the ban since February 2013. Just to clarify, since the "incident" in question involved TN not editing for an extended period and emerging immediately when I mentioned them in order to present a skewed picture to an admin. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
"Instigated by"? Squinge (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Given it's the admin noticeboards, "ignited" is probably the best word. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Squinge + Blackmane: Technically the incident was that once the earlier mutual IBAN was put in place the user stopped editing, then after close to two months I edited an article he had previously edited, and he immediately complained to the admin who had closed the previous thread. He then started editing a large number of articles on my favourite topic, in which he had never edited before, and then when I responded I was blocked for violating the IBAN. The general consensus was that TN had violated the IBAN by closely watching my edits while not editing himself, and baiting me with the Japanese classical literature edits. There was no admin noticeboard activity involved in the "incident", so Blackmane's "ignited" argument doesn't really work. :P
@Salvidrim: I am not opposed to any of the verbs that have been presented as alternatives for "fabricated". Looking back on it now, I think what DP meant was that the "incident" I had supposedly instigated was in fact made up by TN, which would explain the choice of words. All of the options change this meaning, but it's not really a problem. I don't think anyone would oppose you changing the word to "initiated", so if you wouldn't mind doing the honours and changing the "they" to "Tristan" and removing the last sentence as well?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I demand immediate assistance[edit]

RGloucester blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I demand immediate assistance. It seems that a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry. The machinery of the SPI system seems to have been corrupted. We must root out this corruption at once. I need assistance from able-minded editors and administrators at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon. I have provided obvious evidence of sock puppetry, but a group of editors, including a partisan in related disputes, is trying to negate it. It would be appreciate if uninvolved persons could read the evidence, so that we can stamp out this corruption once and for all. There has never been a more clear case in the history of Wikipedia. I will not tolerate the continuance of this corruption. RGloucester 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does a SPI discussion in which only three people have participated provide evidence that "a complex of editors is working to facilitate sock puppetry"? RGloucester starts the SPI, Reaper Eternal explains policy - that we don't use checkuser in this particular context - and Bbb23 assesses the evidence. Even if Bbb23 is wrong (or even 'corrupt' - though we have had no evidence for that), there is precisely zero evidence of any sort of conspiracy being presented here AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked over everything and I see no evidence of any sockpuppetry. I also see no evidence of "corruption". Perhaps you need to adjust your perceptions, RGloucester, as I could point you to thousands of cases which are more clear than this one. Perhaps get up from the keyboard and walk it off. It seems you may be getting too emotionally involved in this instance. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you Know?
That framing your request for assistance from your fellow volunteers as a "demand" is the surest way to make people not want to help you? I demand a paycheck. Then we can talk. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is for the common good. No one can reject the collective will. That would be inhuman. There is clear sock puppetry. I don't know what people want from me. It is so clear as to be so clear as to be so clear. There is nothing more to be said. This must be dealt with AT ONCE. The evidence is absolute. Absolutely absolute. There is no room for anything less. RGloucester 17:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope. The only evidence for anything you have provided so far is that a single person disagrees with your assertions of sockpuppetry. That person might possibly be wrong. Even if they are, it provides precisely zero evidence of 'corruption'. I suggest that you either provide the evidence, or retract the claim - because otherwise the 'collective will' may very well go against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no "you". Only the collective. Regardless, the "corruption" I speak of lies within the accused Dicklyon, who has participated in such corruption since the year 2011. Now that sock puppetry is added in, it is clear that he will not stop at nothing to get his way. He must be stopped! There is not enough time. He must be STOPPED. The evidence is provided at the SPI. It is as light as day. RGloucester 17:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think RGloucester is referring to me here. I think I plus bbb23 is the "complex of editors". You can review my edits from today to Talk:Blackfriars Massacre and RGloucester's and my talk page. But maybe I'm wrong: RGloucester, it would be helpful if you would be more specific about whose behavior is problematic here and notify them on their respective talk pages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(Non administrator comment) For the benefit of the OP, perhaps they could be temporarily prevented from continuing this, and have it handled by the admins? It really looks like they could use a break from this for a bit. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Everyone must be problematic, for there is no "ONE". Combined we are a complex, separate we are non-existent. Destroy the sock puppet. The sock puppet must be destroyed. I will not allow the continuation of this corruption. One cannot criticise the person who sheds light on sock puppetry. One must challenge the master. It is the master who must be CHALLENGED. RGloucester 18:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to go ahead and say what we are all thinking: you are ranting like a crazy person. I don't think you are a crazy person though. So maybe you just need to calm down and consider the possibility that you are simply mistaken and there is not some vast conspiracy to promote socking? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec)I will not tolerate...I will not allow. This is not your call. You can choose to continue editing or stop, those are the choices that are available to you. Do not dig yourself into a deeper hole or you might not be able to get out. Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Dicklyon of this discussion. RGloucester, etiquette demands notice to involved parties when posting here about someone. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

CORRUPTION! The corrupt have no concern for etiquette! Do we grant them what they deny? Enough is enough. RGloucester 18:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god. I decided to try to figure out what Rglou was ranting about. Maybe I didn't look deeply enough, but it appears the issue is whether "Blackfriars massacre" should have a capital M. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty close to accurate. A true shame. Two generally useful editors banging their heads together. Produced more heat than light. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A modest proposal[edit]

Given the above, it seems self-evident that at this moment in time RGloucester has gone into full-blown hyperbolic rant mode, and accordingly doesn't stand the slightest chance of winning over anyone to his point of view. I would thus have to suggest that it would be in his own self-interest if he were to be blocked for a period of 24 hours so he can calm down, think about the point he is trying to get across, compile proper evidence, and then make a case that doesn't involve denial of the existence of contributors as individuals, assertions of being the personification of the collective will, and other attempts to channel Mao, Stalin and/or Charlie Chaplin. If he has a genuine issue, it will be better discussed calmly, and without calls for revolution and the return of the Patriotic Shortener. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this RGloucester/Dicklyon conflict for some time and while I have tended to side with RGloucester on the merits, I now believe that user has gone too far. There's something deeper and uglier here which needs timely treatment. Previously I was going to suggest a iban between the users but in the SPI and the thread above RGloucester has revealed that some preventative sanction might need be taken against that user. If they can't themselves take a time out, perhaps a block may help. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
After reviewing his block log it is clear this is not the first time he has freaked out like this. Clearly very short blocks have failed to send the intended message, so I've just blocked for two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Both the block and its length seem appropriate and necessary. --Kinu t/c 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I was going to suggest one week, but two is just fine. Thanks for taking action. Still suspect an iban will be necessary. BusterD (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Null edit needed on protected template[edit]

Would a helpful admin please make a null edit on {{sfn}}? Just open it and click save. I have added some TemplateData fields to it and would like to verify that everything has worked correctly, but changes don't take effect until an edit is made. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Done, did it work? NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    It did. May have to tweak it some, but the fields are now visible in the visual editor, which is what I was looking for. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure review of Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox[edit]

Withdrawn per Guy. Kraxler (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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


Backlog[edit]

CAT:CSD is looking a bit backlogged, it's been hovering around the 100 mark for a while now. Could somebody take a look through it sometime? Pishcal 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by 103.226.86.254 at Koobface.[edit]

103.226.86.254 has been repeatedly vandalizing Koobface. Please see Special:Contributions/103.226.86.254 Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peaceray, thanks for raising this. More than one IP vandalising the article so I've semi-protected it for a couple of days until they get bored. You can also get a quick response to vandalism by drawing attention to it at WP:AIV -- Euryalus (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it takes them a few hours even if the vandalism is obvious. Delibzr (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Depends if Materialscientist is online or not. But we could always do with more admins patrolling AIV. Nominations welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2 1/2 year Backlog at WP:EF/R[edit]

There are unresolved requests at WP:EF/R dating back to 2013! If any admins with Edit Filter experience could dodge over there and close down some of the old requests (it seems clear that a 2-year old unfulfilled request is likely to be formally denied) and perhaps respond to some of the new requests (there are several recent requests for new edit filters that could use some work) that'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron32 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

New editor removing other editor's comments[edit]

Comment hatted. Plus some good advice from Jayron32. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi! José Antonio Zapato (talk · contribs) is a new editor who has decided to dive into discussing the potential deletion of a redirection. He deleted a comment I made at an RfD for a redirect. When I reinserted the comment and informed him on his talk page that editors should not remove or alter other editors comments, he reverted my comment again as well as reverted my comment on his talk page. He cited WP:NPA for reverting my comment on the RfD the second time- I don't believe my comment was in any way a violation of this, although his citing wikipedia policy indicates he should know enough to not remove comments by other editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment reads like a sarcasm, but it is not actually offensive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have done this. I've removed a sarcastic comment directed at me personally by name. It is unhelpful in a discussion about redirects and attacks me specifically. Please advise the editor above to stop re-inserting it. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not same as attack. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's unfortunate this incivility is tolerated. I had no quarrel nor interaction with this editor previous to his comment, but one sarcastic remark encourages an equally sarcastic response, and on and on until the database contains more sarcasm than encyclopedia. C'est la vie. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not really a personal attack in the grand schmee of things. It is pointless snark. Inexplicably you have both now edit-warred to the edge of 3RR over this issue. I've hatted the comment so you can alternately ignore it and still feel like you made your point. Please now both find something more productive to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there's an important lesson here. Sometimes, people do things they shouldn't. Sometimes also, the appropriate response is to do nothing. Yes, the sarcasm was incivil and should not have happened. The appropriate response, in this case, should still have been nothing. Wikipedia does not have mechanisms for punishing minor violations of the civility policy (nor should it.) Instead, we need to be able to both recognize that the initial comment should not have been made, and also be OK with doing nothing in response. --Jayron32 03:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?[edit]

With 63 threads of its own at the time of this writing, transcluding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure onto this board makes it unduly long and cumbersome. Wouldn't it make sense to dispense with the transclusion?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)